Anti-vaxxers

Queen Cleopatra

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please don't have children, or if you have them - keep them away from other people's.

Measles is a killer.

Seriously, educate yourself instead of making pithy "checkmate" digs.

Seriously! Maybe you should read the thread before making childish comments! My children are vaccinated. I am the one that is in favour of vaccines. Have a go at the obvious anti vaxxers here giving out about the swine flu vaccine and the HPV vaccine.

Queen Cleopatra

kunst nugget wrote: »

No association with the non-Pandemrix Influenza Vaccine and narcolepsy...

The study is working off an already established connection between Pandemrix and narcolepsy.

It's still the swine flu vaccine!! Different maker. Just shows that the whole narcolepsy thing caught on here with the anti vaxxers instead of the USA. Seriously it would not do anyone here any harm if they did a little more Reading and a little less writing

kunst nugget

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

It's still the swine flu vaccine!! Different maker. Just shows that the whole narcolepsy thing caught on here with the anti vaxxers instead of the USA. Seriously it would not do anyone here any harm if they did a little more Reading and a little less writing

Pandemrix wasn't licenced in the US. The other non-Pandemrix swine flu vaccine had no links to narcolepsy. Pandemrix did. The two links the other poster provided there are from established, reputable sources. I'll admit I had to read the CDC link through slowly a couple of times to make sure I was reading it properly.

I'm hugely in favour of vaccines. My daughter has had the HPV vaccine and all vaccines as part of the state programme. I'm not anti-vaccine.

Queen Cleopatra

kunst nugget wrote: »

Pandemrix wasn't licenced in the US. The other non-Pandemrix swine flu vaccine had no links to narcolepsy. Pandemrix did. The two links the other poster provided there are from established, reputable sources. I'll admit I had to read the CDC link through slowly a couple of times to make sure I was reading it properly.

I'm hugely in favour of vaccines. My daughter has had the HPV vaccine and all vaccines as part of the state programme. I'm not anti-vaccine.

You can't have it both ways and pick and choose. You are either for vaccines unconditionally or you are against them. Which is it???
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25320099

banie01

@Vic Mackey 1 thanks for referring me to the epidemiology and the steering committee report.
It makes interesting reading, particularly in there assertion that the rate of incidence of narcolepsy in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

In a quick and dirty comparator of the rate of % prevalence of narcolepsy in each population is 0.005% in the unvaccinated cohort versus an increased rate of 0.0058% in the vaccinated.
Expressed like that it would seem an insignificant number, but it does equate to an @18% increase in the rate of diagnosed narcolepsy in the vaccinated cohort versus unvaccinated or alternative vaccine cohorts.

It asserts that the rate of narcolepsy in the unvaccinated population is 5.0 per 100,000 and that the rate of prevalence in the vaccinated population for the queried period is 5.8 per 100,000.That does appear to be a statistically significant anamoly.

I would be at odds however with the reports assertion that vaccination with pandremix results in a 13 fold greater risk of narcolepsy.
It is dressing the statistics to show the absolute worst. A clear example of utilising statistics in a poor and inconsistent manner.
I don't have time to run through the math fully as yet but I would be dubious as to whether the increase in incidence falls outside of the standard deviation.

Of course this may be due to other environmental factors or indeed unforeseen interactions between the vaccine itself and particular patients and the report itself seems to hedge its bets regarding this factor.

It does however make quite interesting reading.

For anyone afflicted with narcolepsy it must be a heavy burden, and to be convinced that it was caused by an action taken to protect is a bitter pill to swallow.
It's not at all helped when those such as me defending vaccines assert that the good of the many outweighs that of the one...
When you are the one, or are left caring for them due to the unforeseen interaction that many are happy to reduce to statiscal rather than the personal.

Dohnjoe

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

You are either for vaccines unconditionally

I wouldn't say that's a good viewpoint to have. It should be on a reasonable, logical basis.

kunst nugget

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

You can't have it both ways and pick and choose. You are either for vaccines unconditionally or you are against them. Which is it???
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25320099

Where did I say that I'm against any vaccines?

Vaccines are wonderful things that can have risks like everything. They found there was slightly greater risks with Pandemrix than there was with the other swine flu vaccine. They've learnt from that. What is your problem with what I've written?

Your reading comprehension seems a bit screwy.

VicMackey1

banie01 wrote: »

@Vic Mackey 1 thanks for referring me to the epidemiology and the steering committee report.
It makes interesting reading, particularly in there assertion that the rate of incidence of narcolepsy in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

In a quick and dirty comparator of the rate of % prevalence of narcolepsy in each population is 0.005% in the unvaccinated cohort versus an increased rate of 0.0058% in the vaccinated.
Expressed like that it would seem an insignificant number, but it does equate to an @18% increase in the rate of diagnosed narcolepsy in the vaccinated cohort versus unvaccinated or alternative vaccine cohorts.

It asserts that the rate of narcolepsy in the unvaccinated population is 5.0 per 100,000 and that the rate of prevalence in the vaccinated population for the queried period is 5.8 per 100,000.That does appear to be a statistically significant anamoly.

I would be at odds however with the reports assertion that vaccination with pandremix results in a 13 fold greater risk of narcolepsy.
It is dressing the statistics to show the absolute worst. A clear example of utilising statistics in a poor and inconsistent manner.
I don't have time to run through the math fully as yet but I would be dubious as to whether the increase in incidence falls outside of the standard deviation.

Of course this may be due to other environmental factors or indeed unforeseen interactions between the vaccine itself and particular patients and the report itself seems to hedge its bets regarding this factor.

It does however make quite interesting reading.

For anyone afflicted with narcolepsy it must be a heavy burden, and to be convinced that it was caused by an action taken to protect is a bitter pill to swallow.
It's not at all helped when those such as me defending vaccines assert that the good of the many outweighs that of the one...
When you are the one, or are left caring for them due to the unforeseen interaction that many are happy to reduce to statiscal rather than the personal.

Thank you for your informative well written post. It was interesting but I must confess statistical data sometimes flies over my head so I am limited to rely on what I read from reputable sources and hear from doctors.

I have no problem with anyone defending vaccines. I am happy to defend vaccines myself. I have a close relative that was severely affected by an illness that could have been easily prevented by vaccination.

VicMackey1

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

It's still the swine flu vaccine!! Different maker. Just shows that the whole narcolepsy thing caught on here with the anti vaxxers instead of the USA. Seriously it would not do anyone here any harm if they did a little more Reading and a little less writing

>HERE<. That might keep you busy for a little while.

knipex

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

You can't have it both ways and pick and choose. You are either for vaccines unconditionally or you are against them. Which is it???
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25320099

What ???

All drugs carry risks. All of them including vaccines. Its a risk benefit analysis.

Not all vaccines are equal and some vaccines do pose more risk that others.

In the case of MMR vaccine the risk benefit ratio is so demonstrably screwed to the side of benefit that there is no longer an argument.

I would say the same for many more vaccines but not for all.

VicMackey1

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

You can't have it both ways and pick and choose. You are either for vaccines unconditionally or you are against them. Which is it???
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25320099

I just noticed that link you posted after knipex quoted you. You have linked to the wrong vaccine again. You need to follow your own advice of more reading and less writing.

Queen Cleopatra

VicMackey1 wrote: »

>HERE<. That might keep you busy for a little while.

I'm not clicking on that link. Dodgy as hell! I'm done discussing this here. Full of spineless people afraid to say what they think and refusing to listen to science. They think it's all over. It is now!

kunst nugget

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I'm not clicking on that link. Dodgy as hell! I'm done discussing this here. Full of spineless people afraid to say what they think and refusing to listen to science. They think it's all over. It is now!

Jesus, you're unreal...

banie01

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I'm not clicking on that link. Dodgy as hell! I'm done discussing this here. Full of spineless people afraid to say what they think and refusing to listen to science. They think it's all over. It is now!

You have done the vaccination believers great dis-service with your last few replies TBH,
1st off not all vaccines are created equal, 2 companies may provide a vaccine for the same disease that have wildly varying efficacies and effects.

2nd: Claiming that a link to the Stanford University school of medicine is

Dodgy as hell!

rather than review information and assess your viewpoint is childish in the extreme.

And just to clarify where that link leads, here is the website owner info

Domain Name: STANFORD.EDU

Registrant:
Stanford University
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
241 Panama Street, Pine Hall, Room 115
Stanford, CA 94305-4122
United States of America

Administrative Contact:
Domain Admin
Stanford University
241 Panama Street Pine Hall, Room 115
Stanford, CA 94305-4122
United States of America
+1.6507234328
email@stanford.edu

Technical Contact:

Stanford University
241 Panama Street Pine Hall, Room 115
Stanford, CA 94305-4122
United States of America
+1.6507234328
email@stanford.edu

Name Servers:
NS6.DNSMADEEASY.COM
ATALANTE.STANFORD.EDU
NS5.DNSMADEEASY.COM
AVALLONE.STANFORD.EDU
ARGUS.STANFORD.EDU
NS7.DNSMADEEASY.COM

Domain record activated: 04-Oct-1985
Domain record last updated: 12-Jul-2018
Domain expires: 31-Jul-2019

Its dismissing out of hand the view point and where it is presented the evidence of the anti-vaxxers without reviewing and where possible refuting it that gives their movement oxygen.

Review, question, refute!
And where the science shows an issue, question it again!

B0jangles

banie01 wrote: »

You have done the vaccination believers great dis-service with your last few replies TBH,

I think that is intentional.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be so ill-informed about something they claim to believe passionately in, and so weirdly hostile to people who are 100% in favour of that same thing.

Queen Cleopatra

kunst nugget wrote: »

Jesus, you're unreal...

Thank-you

Queen Cleopatra

B0jangles wrote: »

I think that is intentional.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be so ill-informed about something they claim to believe passionately in, and so weirdly hostile to people who are 100% in favour of that same thing.

First I am not ill informed. I know that almost everyone here are pro vac. I asked earlier to thank a post where people believed the anti vaxxer here was spouting nonsense and it only received 1 thanks. People read the post but were too afraid to thank in case they offended someone with a sick relative! Its time to get hardline with vaccination and that attitude of pussyfooting around the issues has obviously not worked. These need to be shut down. There is a reason why this stuff sells papers. We need to look at Australia and follow what they do. Compulsory vaccination!!!

paleoperson

Queen Cleopatra you clearly have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, I would say yes you are ill-informed and I advise you stay quiet about this subject in future.

The concern over side effects from the swine flu vaccine has nothing to do with the "anti-vaxxer" movement in the US where people refuse ALL vaccines regardless of merit. They are not associated or linked in any way. Concerns over narcolepsy and other side effects from the swine flu vaccine are medical science and supported by mainstream medicine - whether they are of the opinion than the narcolepsy effect is genuine or not they support the science and the fact that some vaccines have serious side effects at this time and are not on the market because of that. fwiw it's usually not the active agent that causes the side effects, it's the part of the vaccine that carries the agent.

kunst nugget

B0jangles wrote: »

I think that is intentional.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be so ill-informed about something they claim to believe passionately in, and so weirdly hostile to people who are 100% in favour of that same thing.

Yeah, it's getting more and more obvious they're a troll.

Queen Cleopatra

kunst nugget wrote: »

Yeah, it's getting more and more obvious they're a troll.

Don't like what is being said so resorts to labelling poster as troll! I've better things to do with my time than troll. I've a neighbour that never shuts up about her child and pandemrix and it pissses me off no end. That is why I have such an interest. It's basically a bogus claim and they could end up millionaires after it!

VicMackey1

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

Don't like what is being said so resorts to labelling poster as troll! I've better things to do with my time than troll. I've a neighbour that never shuts up about her child and pandemrix and it pissses me off no end. That is why I have such an interest. It's basically a bogus claim and they could end up millionaires after it!

We are getting to the bottom of it now. Good old begrudgery! I'm sure most families would choose their childs health over their wealth so there is nothing to be getting green eyed about.

Shadow1983

Igotadose wrote:

O.K. if it were me, the gloves would be coming off at this. First off, find another Dr.. Then, complain to the medical board. A Dr. sitting their googling is a pretty scary image imo. You mean, he or she doesn't *know* but is dispensing advice as if they're an authority?!

Igotadose wrote:

As I've posted in this thread previously, I'm nearly 60 and get an MMR regularly. I've never had mumps nor do I want them. And, I've taken to asking parents with children I associate with whether they've had the MMR (both parents and kids), and uninvite/disassociate if not. The risk is too high.

Igotadose wrote:

Now, if you've got some condition that in fact prevents you from being vaccinated, you need to talk with a specialist (again, not this quack you're dealing with.) However, if you don't, please get the MMR.

Thanks for this, definitely some food for thought. I don't have any pre-existing medical conditions so can't understand why on earth he won't do it. I've to go back for a consultation on Wednesday so we'll see what happens then.

endacl

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

First I am not ill informed. I know that almost everyone here are pro vac. I asked earlier to thank a post where people believed the anti vaxxer here was spouting nonsense and it only received 1 thanks. People read the post but were too afraid to thank in case they offended someone with a sick relative! Its time to get hardline with vaccination and that attitude of pussyfooting around the issues has obviously not worked. These need to be shut down. There is a reason why this stuff sells papers. We need to look at Australia and follow what they do. Compulsory vaccination!!!

Thought you were done here?

Shadow1983

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

If it's possible that you may become pregnant, you really should get immunised for rubella asap.

Yes, that's the thing, I want to ensure I've all bases covered if that were to happen.

paleoperson

VicMackey1 wrote: »

We are getting to the bottom of it now. Good old begrudgery! I'm sure most families would choose their childs health over their wealth so there is nothing to be getting green eyed about.

I bet she's one of those people who gets into hysterical feuds with her neighbours over the most petty of things.

Queen Cleopatra

paleoperson wrote: »

I bet she's one of those people who gets into hysterical feuds with her neighbours over the most petty of things.

No I'm not. I am well liked by my neighbours in fact.

Queen Cleopatra

As to being ill informed where exactly have I posted anything that was wrong? I'll admit I didn't look at the Stanford link correctly. Hands up. I made a mistake there but I just misread the link. My posts re vaccination have been perfectly accurate.

Queen Cleopatra

VicMackey1 wrote: »

We are getting to the bottom of it now. Good old begrudgery! I'm sure most families would choose their childs health over their wealth so there is nothing to be getting green eyed about.

Not begrudgingly anyone. I have a disability also thats not my fault. Who can I sue? I have to live on a few hundred every week and raise 3 children with it. What is any different and how do these people deserve a hugh payout?

skepticalme

Shadow1983 wrote: »

Thanks for this, definitely some food for thought. I don't have any pre-existing medical conditions so can't understand why on earth he won't do it. I've to go back for a consultation on Wednesday so we'll see what happens then.

I don't think it's that unusual for a doctor to use google. Have heard many stories including consultants. It's the biggest library in the world after all. I don't think it's fair to label him a quack for being cautious. Not all doctors, nurses, or even scientists are all on the same page regarding vaccines.
I wonder if the particular doctor has seen a side effect in adult women.
On looking at the side effects it appears adult women have a 12% to 26% chance of getting arthritis and arthralgia after MMR either short term or chronic.

jh79

skepticalme wrote: »

On looking at the side effects it appears adult women have a 12% to 26% chance of getting arthritis and arthralgia after MMR either short term or chronic.

Seems quite high, where are you getting these figures from?