Anti-vaxxers

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

The problem is of course Pandremix seems to ( in a good few cases ) accidently teach your immune system to attack hypocretin - the flu itself can make ribbons of the hypocretins n stuff tho




Have to laugh i suppose at the "but the correlllationz don't mean causation" 'tards at the time

The absolute risk was about 3 cases per 100,000 vaccinated and it only affected children. I'm not a clinician or statistician but i'm not convinced full testing prior to approval would of made any difference.

rawn

Carol25 wrote: »

rawn wrote: »

Because no one claims that vaccines are 100% effective, and because antivax fruitbags would be constantly suing vaccine manufacturers when their kid so much as sniffles after getting a shot. It saves both the manufacturer and the tax payer a lot of money.

Oh look calling me an anti-vax ‘fruit bag’. Is this what the sheep on here have to resort to when things don’t go their way? I’m not actually anti vaccine if you’d read my posts. But the companies are getting a free ride, and free ticket by the current set up. I’ve concerns over safety and trials also.

I was actually referring to antivaxxers as a whole but you claim not to be one so why the offence?

It saves the taxpayer money because it saves our court systems from being permanently clogged up by people who think vaccines caused their child's hereditary condition. And I don't know why you think vaccines are untested, they're among the most tested products in the world, and have been tested and retested over and over by different companies with the same results.

gctest50

jh79 wrote: »

The absolute risk was about 3 cases per 100,000 vaccinated and it only affected children. I'm not a clinician or statistician but i'm not convinced full testing prior to approval would of made any difference.

Or they could have refused the big brown envelope just that one time .......


Pandremix was not licenced in the US

There is no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.



here is a nice envelope..........

Ashbourne hoop

Carol25 wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say but despite all the good these companies do, I get the impression they’re largely unregulated and unchecked. They’ve the lawyers, money and influence bought at the top table to ensure this. I’m not saying they’re not doing good jobs, some of them are of course. But this nonsense on here about them and the government being Godlike and should solely be trusted with our health and futures unchecked is both scary and ridiculous at the same time. One has to wonder at the intelligence of some of those arguments. Should we all just buy what we’re presented with without questioning and holding people to account?
It’s like in the tech industry, should Google/Apple and Microsoft be given free reign of what we see/do on the internet to suit all of their own agendas?

Your impression is completely wrong. The amount of research, regulation and checks is staggering to be honest.

Riesen_Meal

nthclare wrote: »

Getting my flu vaccine tomorrow, can't wait.

I'll be able to enjoy the Christmas, working outside with chainsaws and hacking away for the winter isn't good for the body when it decides to recharge over the Christmas.
That's when the flu virus can attack.
Always the Christmas break.

Got the flu nearly every Christmas since I was around 21

Got the flu jab last year, only missed 3 days off work in the last 12 month's.

I can handle colds and back ache, but the flu virus knocks the **** out of me.

The benefits of an outdoorsy state job free flu jab s

Got mine in work and well, I'm fecking dying with the flu the past 2 days...

Literally can't see the amount of snot and water coming out of me...

gctest50

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

You're impression is completely wrong. The amount of research, regulation and checks is staggering to be honest.

They love the testing on the untermensch :

Less chance of getting sued if it goes wrong



GlaxoSmithKline fined over trials on the babies of Argentinian poor

GlaxoSmithKline, Britain's biggest drug firm, has been fined by an Argentine court over clinical trials of a pneumonia vaccine which was tested on thousands of babies from poor families.


Closer to home :


UCC’s Michael Dwyer discovered evidence that Wellcome had carried out vaccine trials on more than 2,000 Irish children in 24 residential institutions between 1930 and 1935.



"The duration of temperatures over 100ºF was under two days for both the KL [children given both killed and living vaccine] and L [children just given living vaccine],” read the 1965 report. “Only 3 children (all in the living-vaccine group) had a rash. 1 child (KL) had conjunctivitis, and 1 child (L) had coeliac disease and vomited. The reactions to the vaccines were all considered trivial by the adults looking after the children.”

- https://bit.ly/2DQyqRB

PlaneSpeeking

Carol25 wrote: »

As all the people replying well know, I’m not a big corporation and can’t come along and present you with ‘data’ and ‘evidence’. I’ve a job and a family.
What I’m telling you is the truth re vaccinations in 2015. I’m not trying to scaremonger, I’m making the point that I can’t even state what I saw without getting attacked. I’m not even that invested in this debate to be honest but statements like mandatory vaccination and people being jumped on for voicing genuine concerns should be enough to make everyone sit up and listen. We should be about making vaccines safer, and more controls and independent oversight to the drug companies test models, not giving Big Pharma a huge amount of power and control over us.
As I said if all if all of these vaccines are so safe, take away the form I’ve signed numerous times letting both Big Pharma and the Government off the hook if something does go wrong or happens to my child. It’s not good enough to say get it, but we the people who made it will not take any responsibility for anything that happens to your child afterwards.

You are aware that the mere use of the phrase "Big Pharma" in anti vax rant is kind of a red flag that the views are as far from scientific reality as I am from Mars ?

ancapailldorcha

gctest50 wrote: »

They love the testing on the untermensch.

Using terms associated with Nazis doesn't exactly help make your point credible.

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

Or they could have refused the big brown envelope just that one time .......


Pandremix was not licenced in the US

There is no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.



here is a nice envelope..........

And i'm saying this would not of been discovered without it being approved in the first place in the EU , fast tracked or not.

What do you suggest should of been done?

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

They love the testing on the untermensch :

Less chance of getting sued if it goes wrong



GlaxoSmithKline fined over trials on the babies of Argentinian poor

GlaxoSmithKline, Britain's biggest drug firm, has been fined by an Argentine court over clinical trials of a pneumonia vaccine which was tested on thousands of babies from poor families.

So is your issue here that the vaccine was tested on kids or that the correct protocols regarding consent were not followed?

Carol25

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Your impression is completely wrong. The amount of research, regulation and checks is staggering to be honest.

I’m glad to hear that. But the sceptic in me hears of these companies wine and dine our HSE staff, doctors, consultants and anyone with influence over health policy...they’re number 1 goal is for profit. How can we be guaranteed they wouldn’t cover up side effects in such a situation.

ancapailldorcha

Carol25 wrote: »

Excuse me I’m not name calling anyone? Point out where, who and quote who I name called because I didn’t?
And was anyone called to account for calling me a ‘fruit bag’? I have to wonder how some people get to moderate on boards. I’m called a name and insulted for making a fair and valid point, and I’m name calling?
You’re not trying to silence me by any chance...

You called anyone not an anti-vaxxer sheep earlier.

I'm not moderating this thread as I am posting in it. I suggest you report the posts in question.

Carol25

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You are aware that the mere use of the phrase "Big Pharma" in anti vax rant is kind of a red flag that the views are as far from scientific reality as I am from Mars ?

I understand that this term has become a favourite of the completely against any vaccines at all crowd which I do not agree with. However I just do not have the time to keep typing out major multinational pharmaceutical companies, or whatever they’re supposed to be called.

Igotadose

Carol25 wrote: »

I understand that this term has become a favourite of the completely against any vaccines at all crowd which I do not agree with. However I just do not have the time to keep typing out major multinational pharmaceutical companies, or whatever they’re supposed to be called.

Pharmaceutical companies, or Pharmaceuticals, works. We'll understand the reference.

VinLieger

Carol25 wrote: »

I understand that this term has become a favourite of the completely against any vaccines at all crowd which I do not agree with. However I just do not have the time to keep typing out major multinational pharmaceutical companies, or whatever they’re supposed to be called.

It probably became a favorite of that crowd as it was basically created by them, anyone who uses it is simply signalling their membership in that club and your excuse is preposterous

Orion

Carol25 wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say but despite all the good these companies do, I get the impression they’re largely unregulated and unchecked.

It's probably the most regulated and checked industry on the planet.

Dan Jaman

VinLieger wrote: »

It probably became a favorite of that crowd as it was basically created by them, anyone who uses it is simply signalling their membership in that club and your excuse is preposterous

I beg to differ. I frequently refer to Big Pharma just for shorting purposes, and I don't have an axe to grind with them really. I'd use the initialisation BP, but that's taken, and may cause confusion.

blanch152

Carol25 wrote: »

Ireland needs to mandate vaccination. Moral objections are lies.
That is one scary statement just there...who are you to tell others what to do.
If Vaccines become mandatory, parents shouldn’t have to sign forms when they’re about to inject their small babies with 6 different samples of diseases in one leg and another 1 or 2 in the other effectively letting State and Big Pharma off the hook regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, I find that ridiculous. The state should take responsibility for the safety and suitability of vaccines for all.
People have genuine concerns about the HPV vaccine...is that to be dismissed because money and power bought the investigations and outcomes In the EU?
Stop making all people out to be ‘loopy anti Vaaxers’. I’ve had myself and my kids vaccinated but I do share some concerns
For your information, I once witnessed a group of Junior Infants in 2015 getting their MMR boosters in Dec 2015. At least 10-12 in the class were extremely sick after it. Out for days, some for a whole week. Do you think that’s acceptable? Do you think that shouldn’t be investigated?

Big Pharma yeah.

https://www.scarymommy.com/nurse-moms-epic-big-pharma-rant-goes-viral/

So I think this nurse is right, anyone who refuses vaccination because of "Big Pharma" should be denied access for themselves and their children to all the other products of Big Pharma. No more antibiotics, no more stents, no more cancer drugs etc.

blanch152

Carol25 wrote: »

As I already stated I’m not a professional involved in this field who’s peer reviewing vaccines, I’m just a normal layperson questioning what’s being shoved down our throats by some on here...
Should I accept these studies without question? As I said I wasn’t heavily invested in this debate until a couple of posts on here mentioned how we should make vaccines mandatory.
If these vaccines are so well checked and safe, why do I have to sign a form absolving these companies of all responsibility re what happens to my child following a vaccine? I tolerated this practice with unease prior to this. But if vaccines would no longer be a choice then why would we have to accept such responsibilities if all these peer reviews and pharmaceutical companies are so fantastic at safety checks.
And let’s not kid ourselves, if one of us was unlucky enough that our child had an adverse reaction to a vaccine, how on earth would they prove it? Are people here seriously suggesting the government or pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t try and bury such a case as it goes against their narrative? What leg would a parent have to stand on having signed prior consent form?

Here is an idea. Let people not take the HPV vaccine. But if they get cervical cancer, let them pay for their treatment in full.

Only those who are vaccinated and get a different variant should be treated.

blanch152

Carol25 wrote: »

I understand that this term has become a favourite of the completely against any vaccines at all crowd which I do not agree with. However I just do not have the time to keep typing out major multinational pharmaceutical companies, or whatever they’re supposed to be called.

No, but you seem to have the time to keep typing out anti-vaxxer nonsense.

https://thestir.cafemom.com/parenting_news/213349/poster-about-getting-kids-vaccinated

This poster should explain it all to you.

When your daughter gets rubella when pregnant, how are you going to explain that you chose to leave her at risk?

What will you say when she calls you and tells you she has cervical cancer, because you decided that she wouldn't need the HPV vaccine?

Do you think that your organic home-cooked food was enough to protect them?

I actually feel very sorry for anti-vaxxers like you, because sooner or later you are going to have to deal with one of these situations.

But hey, just blame "Big Pharma".

Faugheen

I love the way people are suggesting the Big Pharma are bribing the HSE to allow untested and unregulated products into the market.

I mean, if it was a property developer I could understand concerns, but these companies design products which are built to save lives for Christ’s sake.

Anti-vaxxers are the worst kind of people.

Rubberchikken

oh heres one - let people make up their own minds. lets be very cynical about pharmaceutical companies, governments, in fact anyone who talks down to us and just expects is to go along with their 'advice'.

Faugheen

Rubberchikken wrote: »

oh heres one - let people make up their own minds. lets be very cynical about pharmaceutical companies, governments, in fact anyone who talks down to us and just expects is to go along with their 'advice'.

Dont vaccinate your child if you don’t want to.

However, don’t go whinging to the Health Service if your child picks up something that could have been avoided by vaccination.

ohnonotgmail

Rubberchikken wrote: »

oh heres one - let people make up their own minds. lets be very cynical about pharmaceutical companies, governments, in fact anyone who talks down to us and just expects is to go along with their 'advice'.

Faugheen wrote: »

Dont vaccinate your child if you don’t want to.

However, don’t go whinging to the Health Service if your child picks up something that could have been avoided by vaccination.

and dont go whinging because your little incubator is excluded from certain activities

Igotadose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and dont go whinging because your little incubator is excluded from certain activities

No!

That puts *our* lives and health at risk. I could care less about what some anti-vax nutter does with their own children, it's *my* health and *other peoples* health that matters.

No jab, no child benefits, no school benefits, less tax relief, no dole, nothing. Your kid will cost the state more because of the avoidable illnesses it'll contract, and spread.

ohnonotgmail

Igotadose wrote: »

No!

That puts *our* lives and health at risk. I could care less about what some anti-vax nutter does with their own children, it's *my* health and *other peoples* health that matters.

No jab, no child benefits, no school benefits, less tax relief, no dole, nothing. Your kid will cost the state more because of the avoidable illnesses it'll contract, and spread.

that is what i was implying.

Igotadose

Thread on twitter about an 8 year old girl undergoing chemotherapy (had been doing so for months) contracted measles due to contact with some other kid in a grocery store.

Result was that the pediatric chemo unit had to shut down for a 'terminal cleaning', which messed with the chemo schedules for the other kids, and the poor girl that was exposed had to travel around wearing a facemask. Due to her lengthy chemo, she's skeletal with no hair or eyebrows. Imagine that at 8, add the facemask.

At least the chemo patients didn't have to have immune-system boosting drugs, which are difficult and very painful.

All due to an unvaccinated child in a grocery store.

https://twitter.com/SteamLaundry/status/1065153914100604928

dr.fuzzenstein

One can only hope that the problem will sort itself out in the long run.
"I want to choose for myself!" will be a popular inscription on gravestones.
Or how about "I chose this for my child!"

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/1129/1014223-measles-rise/

110,000 people dying of measles per year.

Totally preventable. But making a comeback here in Europe and in South America.


IMHO part of the problem is that disease is rarer now than in the past. It's way too easy to imagine it won't happen to you.

But it's not safe out there. Here's a list of diseases on the watch list. Not all are vaccine related but all are public health risks.

Remember when it comes to viruses,
Vaccines are pretty much your first, last and only line of defence.

http://www.hpsc.ie/notifiablediseases/notificationforms/

Enhanced Surveillance and Investigative Forms

These surveillance forms are for use by Health Care Professionals and relate to specific infectious diseases where enhanced surveillance is undertaken.

Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP)
Avian Influenza
Bacterial Meningitis / Meningococcal Disease
Chickenpox (Varicella)
Clostridium difficile
Cryptosporidiosis
EARSS Enhanced Bacteraemia Surveillance
Gastroenteritis
Gonorrhoea
Haemophilus influenzae
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C
Hepatitis E
HIV
Infectious intestinal disease (IID)
Influenza
Legionellosis
Leptospirosis
Listeriosis
Lymphogranuloma Venereum
Malaria
Measles
MERS-CoV
Mumps
Outbreaks
Pertussis
Plague
Pneumococcal Disease (invasive)
Rubella
Salmonellosis
Streptococcus group A (invasive)
Syphilis
Tetanus
Tuberculosis
Varicella (Chickenpox)
Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC)
Zika virus infection

paw patrol

blanch152 wrote: »

Only those who are vaccinated and get a different variant should be treated.

what about those that get vaccinated and still the virus?
Would you kill them for being failures?