Anti-vaxxers

ancapailldorcha

skepticalme wrote: »

Except there is proof or else the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program would not have conceded her case and sealed the files.
There is a Vaccine Injury Table for adverse effects.
There may be evidence that vaccines are safe but there is no evidence that vaccines are safe for everyone.

You have no more idea than I do about what went on. That's not proof, it's a mystery box.

alaimacerc

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

One of the comments on the Journal link is saying "once you have the illness you have lifetime immunity".

A) Assuming you survive unscathed and
Assuming everyone you've infected similarly comes through okay.
C) Assuming everyone THEY infected.... you get the drift.

I could just slap people that think that giving their child a vaccination is a shocking medical intervention, but deliberately giving them the actual disease is obviously fine.

It'd put you off buying "organic" produce for life, for the fear that it'd only encourage them. (As if the price hadn't already done that.)

Guy:Incognito

skepticalme wrote: »

There is risk but when an adverse event happens, immediately the vaccine is swatted away as a reason. Being upfront about the risks and dealing with any fallout would sway more people towards vaccination.
It's the denial if anything goes wrong that has people hesitant to take the risk.

I had to get an angiogram late last year when an infection I had was falsley showing as a heart attack according to the machines. While doing the prep the doctor told me that 1 in x number of angiogram caused a heart attack ( I think 1000 but not sure, can't remember) . Are angiograms to be avoided for everyone because of this?

Vaccine makers are more than upfront about possible side effects. Every little thing that happens to the person during the trial is listed as a possible side effect, just because it happened at the time, even when they know full well it wasn't caused by it.

PlaneSpeeking

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I had to get an angiogram late last year when an infection I had was falsley showing as a heart attack according to the machines. While doing the prep the doctor told me that 1 in x number of angiogram caused a heart attack ( I think 1000 but not sure, can't remember) . Are angiograms to be avoided for everyone because of this?

I've actually signed a consent form saying the operation had a 1 in 750 chance of death.

Not having the op was 1 in 1 chance of death.

Yet antivax idiots prefer the latter!

skepticalme

alaimacerc wrote: »

It not being peer-reviewed research pretty much definitively makes it not a case study.

For peer review it was accepted without revision. I don't know why you're just playing with words. It is the definition of a case study or do I have to look that definition up and post it here too.

skepticalme

batgoat wrote: »

What scientific peer review publication did it appear in.

Journal of Child Neurology.

ancapailldorcha

skepticalme wrote: »

For peer review it was accepted without revision. I don't know why you're just playing with words. It is the definition of a case study or do I have to look that definition up and post it here too.

Case studies are useful teaching tools. They are not empirical evidence.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Medicine always comes with risks. A poster a few days ago mentioned the acceptable risk of adverse reactions to CT scans. I presume they were referring to reactions to the contrast medium in constrast CT, basically iodine.

My wife performs a lot of CT scans and has seen plenty of swellings and is aware of two deaths in the hospital she works in, one I think was a genuine major reaction causing cardiac arrest, the other resulting in a patient with an undiagnosed aortic dissection (weakening of the wall of the aorta) having the aorta rip under the increased pressure of the contrast being pumped in.

Despite all that knowledge she is scheduled to have a constrast CT done on herself in the next week or so. It's all about risk versus benefit.

skepticalme

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I had to get an angiogram late last year when an infection I had was falsley showing as a heart attack according to the machines. While doing the prep the doctor told me that 1 in x number of angiogram caused a heart attack ( I think 1000 but not sure, can't remember) . Are angiograms to be avoided for everyone because of this?

Vaccine makers are more than upfront about possible side effects. Every little thing that happens to the person during the trial is listed as a possible side effect, just because it happened at the time, even when they know full well it wasn't caused by it.

You were told in advance of the risk and I presume signed your consent to take that risk. If you did have a heart attack, they would connect the 2.

Vaccine makers do have a long list of potential side effects on their patient information leaflets, but that's not what I mean.
Even though there is this long list, a person goes to a doctor with a child for a vaccine, they are not told the risks or given the patient information leaflet.
If there is a reaction and the parent asks could it be the vaccine, they are told no. So even though there is this long list, the vaccine and the reaction or event are not connected. It's heresy to even suggest it.

Look at the kickback about Hannah Poling in the last posts. Even though she got a payout of nearly 20 million dollars from the vaccine injury court over her lifetime. People won't admit that she has a vaccine injury.

skepticalme

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Case studies are useful teaching tools. They are not empirical evidence.

So now you're agreeing it was a case study at least.

ancapailldorcha

skepticalme wrote: »

You were told in advance of the risk and I presume signed your consent to take that risk. If you did have a heart attack, they would connect the 2.

Vaccine makers do have a long list of potential side effects on their patient information leaflets, but that's not what I mean.
Even though there is this long list, a person goes to a doctor with a child for a vaccine, they are not told the risks or given the patient information leaflet.
If there is a reaction and the parent asks could it be the vaccine, they are told no. So even though there is this long list, the vaccine and the reaction or event are not connected. It's heresy to even suggest it.

Look at the kickback about Hannah Poling in the last posts. Even though she got a payout of nearly 20 million dollars from the vaccine injury court over her lifetime. People won't admit that she has a vaccine injury.

I used to work in clinical trials. Pharma companies record every single adverse and serious adverse event observed during a trial no matter how trivial to cover themselves. Otherwise you'd have people suing over nonsense like have a slight bit of swelling over a shot or a bit of nausea accompanying an antibiotic.

Your anecdote is meaningless without the whole story. It's basically a Schrodinger's cat with you picking the outcome that you like while disregarding the other. Case studies are useful because the detailed information is known and they are thus employed as teaching tools.

Capt'n Midnight

So there's a new discovery on how some viruses hide from the immune system. They wrap themselves in a hypoallergenic bubble.

Science marches on :cool:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45114842

Dr Altan-Bonnet says the need for better ways of tackling diseases like norovirus should not be underestimated: "Even healthy people like you or I, we get so sick we wouldn't go to work for days.

"Its liquid coming violently out of both ends, there's a lot of economic cost, and for children and elderly it can be fatal."

The researchers say poliovirus and rhinovirus, a cause of the common cold, can also form these stealth spheres.

Also an article on the last Smallpox deaths.



Here's a difficult concept -
The smallpox vaccine carries zero health risk, because no one uses it.


The Chinese used to use technigues of variolation that were provided immunity to 99% of those who used it. Smallpox was so nasty that a 1% fatality rate was considered acceptable.

Queen Cleopatra

I read an article in the independent about a family whose daughter supposedly developed narcolepsy after the swine vac. This sh*t really needs to stop. These people moaning need to be told where to go. Proof or get lost. Apparently the child is having nightmares and night terrors after the vaccine, Its a jab ffs its not that traumatic. Im glad the gov arent bowing down to these silly claims, Id rather they spend millions defending than pay one cent compo. Its good to see the vast majority on here are pro vaccine. Keep it up!

VicMackey1

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I read an article in the independent about a family whose daughter supposedly developed narcolepsy after the swine vac. This sh*t really needs to stop. These people moaning need to be told where to go. Proof or get lost. Apparently the child is having nightmares and night terrors after the vaccine, Its a jab ffs its not that traumatic. Im glad the gov arent bowing down to these silly claims, Id rather they spend millions defending than pay one cent compo. Its good to see the vast majority on here are pro vaccine. Keep it up!

Well said! With all the false and bogus claims against vaccines that you could have had a pop at, you managed to pick one where some have genuinely suffered as a result of having the vaccine.

Narcolepsy is not some ailment that is made up in someones mind. To become a member of SOUND (the support group) which this family is part of, they require a letter from a consultant sleep specialist stating that the patient has narcolepsy and that the consultant believes it is a result of the H1N1 vaccination. To be diagnosed with narcolepsy, the patient has to satisfy the means of a polysomnography and sleep latency test. A lumbar puncture test result must also be conclusive. So as you can see, its not a case of someone saying "I think you have narcolepsy".

The H1N1 vaccination increased the risk of narcolepsy about 13 fold. I am not aware of any test that will definitely say a particular person developed narcolepsy as a result of the vaccine but with such a higher risk it must be assumed that the majority of diagnosed made be attributed to the vaccine.

I suggest you educate yourself a little bit. Hypnagogic hallucinations and nightmares are a common symptom of narcolepsy. It has nothing to do with a traumatic jab of a needle! They are extremely frightening as anyone that has ever had sleep paralysis will know.

The reason these people are "moaning" is because they have been ignored by the government over this issue for so many years. If it had been dealt with in the beginning none of this would be coming out in the papers now. It would be long forgotten. Instead, they throw millions at legal teams defending these claims just so they can say they can't talk about or respond because there is a legal action pending. It really is a shame that our leaders behave in this way.

Any lifelong incurable disease that such a young child develops is tragic. Please keep that in mind before you make any more idiotic uneducated posts.

AndrewJRenko

Look who's jumping on the bandwagon;

https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/1027904112455823360

Queen Cleopatra

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Well said! With all the false and bogus claims against vaccines that you could have had a pop at, you managed to pick one where some have genuinely suffered as a result of having the vaccine.

Narcolepsy is not some ailment that is made up in someones mind. To become a member of SOUND (the support group) which this family is part of, they require a letter from a consultant sleep specialist stating that the patient has narcolepsy and that the consultant believes it is a result of the H1N1 vaccination. To be diagnosed with narcolepsy, the patient has to satisfy the means of a polysomnography and sleep latency test. A lumbar puncture test result must also be conclusive. So as you can see, its not a case of someone saying "I think you have narcolepsy".

The H1N1 vaccination increased the risk of narcolepsy about 13 fold. I am not aware of any test that will definitely say a particular person developed narcolepsy as a result of the vaccine but with such a higher risk it must be assumed that the majority of diagnosed made be attributed to the vaccine.

I suggest you educate yourself a little bit. Hypnagogic hallucinations and nightmares are a common symptom of narcolepsy. It has nothing to do with a traumatic jab of a needle! They are extremely frightening as anyone that has ever had sleep paralysis will know.

The reason these people are "moaning" is because they have been ignored by the government over this issue for so many years. If it had been dealt with in the beginning none of this would be coming out in the papers now. It would be long forgotten. Instead, they throw millions at legal teams defending these claims just so they can say they can't talk about or respond because there is a legal action pending. It really is a shame that our leaders behave in this way.

Any lifelong incurable disease that such a young child develops is tragic. Please keep that in mind before you make any more idiotic uneducated posts.

No-one put a gun to their heads and forced them to have the vaccine. If they have side effects that is on them. The government aren't liable and are never going to admit it. Vaccines save lives

VicMackey1

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

No-one put a gun to their heads and forced them to have the vaccine. If they have side effects that is on them. The government aren't liable and are never going to admit it. Vaccines save lives

So its their fault for deciding to have the vaccine?

Also, if the state don't think they are liable then why are they handing out lifelong, no means assessment medical cards to those affected? And reimbursing private consultant fees, travel expenses and even in some cases college accommodation costs?

Igotadose

VicMackey1 wrote: »

So its their fault for deciding to have the vaccine?

Also, if the state don't think they are liable then why are they handing out lifelong, no means assessment medical cards to those affected? And reimbursing private consultant fees, travel expenses and even in some cases college accommodation costs?

Because the state doesn't know what a clever lawyer might come up with, and Ireland's over-generous with handouts, as a rule.

VicMackey1

Igotadose wrote: »

Because the state doesn't know what a clever lawyer might come up with, and Ireland's over-generous with handouts, as a rule.

Yes, maybe they are thinking a clever lawyer might find them some loophole to get out of it. I think it is the wrong approach though. The very odd time that vaccines affect people in a negative way, they shouldn't attempt to cover it up and find a sneaky way past it. That is only providing the anti vaxxers with ammo. They may also be sending it through the lawers so that they don't have to deal with it. Any time they are asked about it in they dail, they have a generic answer along the lines of "I can't comment on that as there is a legal action pending".

Queen Cleopatra

VicMackey1 wrote: »

So its their fault for deciding to have the vaccine?

Also, if the state don't think they are liable then why are they handing out lifelong, no means assessment medical cards to those affected? And reimbursing private consultant fees, travel expenses and even in some cases college accommodation costs?

Any links to say the state are doing all of that? They shouldn't be. They don't owe a duty of care to them. It time to make vaccinations compulsory!

VicMackey1

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

Any links to say the state are doing all of that? They shouldn't be. They don't owe a duty of care to them. It time to make vaccinations compulsory!

If you want links, you will have to find them yourself. I am not even sure if they exist. I am not sure what to say other than they do owe a duty of care. They fully indemnified GSK against any legal action and said they would take responsibility for any problems with the vaccine.

gctest50

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

No-one put a gun to their heads and forced them to have the vaccine. If they have side effects that is on them. The government aren't liable and are never going to admit it. Vaccines save lives

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

Vaccines save lives

Good Vaccines save lives


You know, ones that are tested properly

gctest50

.

GlaxoSmithKline had such a vaccine in the pipeline, Pandemrix. The problem was that it wasn't fully tested. As it was subsequently offered for use, the Irish public was never told it had not completed the normal exhaustive medical trials.

To fast-track it into service in 2009, Ireland - like many other European countries - granted GSK the full indemnity the firm insisted upon. If there was a future problem or side-effect from Pandemrix, it would be the taxpayer who footed the bill.

The vaccination programme began in autumn 2009 and was stopped in March 2010, when the swine flu pandemic predicted by the World Health Organisation failed to materialise.


In Germany, where Pandemrix was made, the vaccine was offered to the general public.

But members of the German government, civil service and military received a second, different vaccine. 'Der Spiegel' revealed this was on the basis the second vaccine was deemed to have a lower risk of side-effects.

gctest50

Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus

This mock-up vaccine can be evaluated

How are they evaluated ?

This is a novel European approach that is intended to speed up the eventual process for obtaining an authorisation for a pandemic vaccine. It allows the submission, before the outbreak of a pandemic, of a core pandemic vaccine dossier based on a “mock-up” vaccine containing a pandemic influenza candidate virus.

Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus

This mock-up vaccine can be evaluated and a Marketing Authorisation granted before a pandemic.

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

How are they evaluated ?

I think they show effectiveness against strains of the virus they have available in the lab and if that strain then appears in the wild they already know if it will or will not work.

Seems a sensible approach to me.

VicMackey1

Article again in the Independent today about the H1N1 vaccine. This all came to light again because of the HSEs silippering and sliding. Wil they ever learn. A young girl received two doses of the vaccine 18 months apart. I presume it was the first dose that caused the narcolepsy but the revelation that a second dose was given highlights just how negligent and corrupt the HSE are.

gctest50

They are now known as :

pandemic preparedness vaccines

They're very funny, it's like Windscale and Sellafield with them

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

They are now known as :




They're very funny, it's like Windscale and Sellafield with them

What exactly is your issue with mock vaccines?

gctest50

jh79 wrote: »

I think they show effectiveness against strains of the virus they have available in the lab and if that strain then appears in the wild they already know if it will or will not work.

Seems a sensible approach to me.

And these new ( but old ) vaccines have never erm ... "escaped by accident like" ?

ever ?

accidently distributed like ?

gctest50

Good Vaccines save lives