Anti-vaxxers

jive

mountai wrote: »

Strange calling the Regret people " Anti Vaxx " . It is my understanding that everyone in this group are there because their children are believed to have been injured by this Vaccine . I suppose the best thing for them is abuse and vilification . Who the hell cares about their problems.

Yeah it probably is seeing as they are spreading dangerous misinformation. The amount of R&D and scrutiny from agencies to get a drug to the market means that anything which reaches the market, in this day and age, has been proven to be efficacious and safe.

mountai

If anyone cares to examine the Merck Pil ( the one the HSE refuse to give to parents) it is clear that the listed possible side effects SHOULD worry any parent . Trust the HSE ?? Oh yeah .

Canis Lupus

jive wrote: »

Yeah it probably is seeing as they are spreading dangerous misinformation. The amount of R&D and scrutiny from agencies to get a drug to the market means that anything which reaches the market, in this day and age, has been proven to be efficacious and safe.

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I'm open to correction but I thought you can't say for sure until it's used 'in the wild'.

I just googled

https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

One drug released in 2000 Lotronex (Alosetron) was withdrawn after a 8 months due to causing 49 cases of ischemic colitis (inflammation and injury of the large intestine); 21 cases of severe constipation (10 requiring surgery); 5 deaths; mesenteric ischemia (inflammation and injury of the small intestine)

Assuming of course we accept 2000 as 'recent'.

Raptiva (Efalizumab) Used for psoriasis but caused: progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML; a rare and usually fatal disease that causes inflammation or progressive damage of the white matter in multiple locations of the brain) 2003 to 2009

kylith

mountai wrote: »

Strange calling the Regret people " Anti Vaxx " . It is my understanding that everyone in this group are there because their children are believed to have been injured by this Vaccine . I suppose the best thing for them is abuse and vilification . Who the hell cares about their problems.

They believe that their child was injured by the vaccine but, according to all available research, that is not the case.

I'm sorry for their troubles, but if it's not the case that the vaccine caused it then they are just misinformed and unfortunate.

kylith

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I'm open to correction but I thought you can't say for sure until it's used 'in the wild'.

I just googled

https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

One drug released in 2000 Lotronex (Alosetron) was withdrawn after a 8 months due to causing 49 cases of ischemic colitis (inflammation and injury of the large intestine); 21 cases of severe constipation (10 requiring surgery); 5 deaths; mesenteric ischemia (inflammation and injury of the small intestine)

Assuming of course we accept 2000 as 'recent'.

Raptiva (Efalizumab) Used for psoriasis but caused: progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML; a rare and usually fatal disease that causes inflammation or progressive damage of the white matter in multiple locations of the brain) 2003 to 2009

I hate to sound callous, but what kind of numbers are we talking about? If 500,000 people took the tablets then the chances of a reaction are tiny. I looked into the measles vaccine a while ago and despite how vocal the people who's kids have had reaction are you're 27,000 times more likely to be injured by measles than by the vaccine.

knipex

mountai wrote: »

Strange calling the Regret people " Anti Vaxx " . It is my understanding that everyone in this group are there because their children are believed to have been injured by this Vaccine . I suppose the best thing for them is abuse and vilification . Who the hell cares about their problems.

Because THEY Believe.. With no evidence, that injured their children despite multiple studies deciding otherwise they have started or become part of an orchestrated campaign, peddling miss-truths, half truths, downright lies and nonsense as scientific fact. Which has the effect of reducing vaccine uptake across the board and uptake of the HPV virus has halved.

The HPV vaccine can prevent 70% of cervical cancers.. 70%

These people will be directly responsible for thousands of deaths over the next 20 to 30 years. They are a danger to all future

bullvine

200,000 girls have the HPV vaccine, 300 have supposedly had side effect.. Nothing is 100% safe

mountai

kylith wrote: »

They believe that their child was injured by the vaccine but, according to all available research, that is not the case.

I'm sorry for their troubles, but if it's not the case that the vaccine caused it then they are just misinformed and unfortunate.

The manufacturer of this drug Gardasil , is the
the same company that were responsible for Vioxx . We all know how corrupt they were then , now in bed with the HSE , fine bedfellows indeed .

ancapailldorcha

mountai wrote: »

The manufacturer of this drug Gardasil , is the
the same company that were responsible for Vioxx . We all know how corrupt they were then , now in bed with the HSE , fine bedfellows indeed .

That's not evidence of anything. Merck is one of the world's biggest companies and has a huge portfolio.

kylith

bullvine wrote: »

200,000 girls have the HPV vaccine, 300 have supposedly had side effect.. Nothing is 100% safe

That's a 0.15% chance of side effects.

mountai

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's not evidence of anything. Merck is one of the world's biggest companies and has a huge portfolio.

So Merck didn't produce Vioxx , didn't kill 30000 Americans , didn't get fined one billion dollars ??
Do your research and while you are at it look at their Pil.

_Whimsical_

jive wrote: »

Yeah it probably is seeing as they are spreading dangerous misinformation. The amount of R&D and scrutiny from agencies to get a drug to the market means that anything which reaches the market, in this day and age, has been proven to be efficacious and safe.

I would also love to agree with this but unfortunately it really is not true and there are countless examples.

Commonly used ones you may have heard in the media in recent years being the morning after pill sold under different names to the mass market but being found to be ineffective in women over 12 stone. It's no longer sold to women of that weight and over. That's probably half the female population.

Domperidone, sold OTC as Motilium here for nausea and stomach bugs, found to be implicated in heart related deaths and having to have its use curtailed.

Many antidepressant drugs and antihistimines sold OTC have been found substansially to increase memory loss and risk of dementia.

Then there are older ones:
The contraceptive pill increasing clotting risk
HRT increasing breast cancer risk
The H1N1 vaccine increasing risk of narcolepsy in children.

The truth is drugs are released onto the market having R&D yes but real life experience is what ultimately judges their safety and efficacy and a lot of people have been casualties of unexpected side effects. That may be due to alot of things including genetic variation governing how people react to different drugs. It's the chance we take taking any drug, you weigh risks and benefit. It's really not true that you can assume anything coming onto the market is completely safe though.

Canis Lupus

kylith wrote: »

I hate to sound callous, but what kind of numbers are we talking about? If 500,000 people took the tablets then the chances of a reaction are tiny. I looked into the measles vaccine a while ago and despite how vocal the people who's kids have had reaction are you're 27,000 times more likely to be injured by measles than by the vaccine.

That wasn't an argument against vaccines btw. I fully support vaccines just pointing out my understanding that just because something passes the lab tests and human trials doesn't mean it's going to be 100% safe like the poster I quoted said.

Also riskwise I would assume if the FDA withdraws a drug then surely they must consider the side effects to be serious and wide ranging enough to take that action.

super_furry

I’d love to know what the conspiracy theorists actually think the conspiracy is? Why would vaccine makers want to give kids autism for example?

ancapailldorcha

mountai wrote: »

So Merck didn't produce Vioxx , didn't kill 30000 Americans , didn't get fined one billion dollars ??
Do your research and while you are at it look at their Pil.

It's not my job to back up your argument. One bad drug doesn't mean the entire Merck portfolio is worthless. Unless you have proof that Gardasil is harmful then you point can be dismissed.

Canis Lupus

super_furry wrote: »

I’d love to know what the conspiracy theorists actually think the conspiracy is? Why would vaccine makers want to give kids autism for example?

Money, silly billy.

njs030

kylith wrote: »

That's a 0.15% chance of side effects.

Any idea what the statistical chance of dying from cervical cancer is?
A woman who has all her smears etc.

I wonder is it less than 0.15% because if so that means a child is more likely to become seriously ill from a vaccine.

kylith

Canis Lupus wrote: »

That wasn't an argument against vaccines btw. I fully support vaccines just pointing out my understanding that just because something passes the lab tests and human trials doesn't mean it's going to be 100% safe like the poster I quoted said.

Also riskwise I would assume if the FDA withdraws a drug then surely they must consider the side effects to be serious and wide ranging enough to take that action.

I agree with you totally there, its just that some people would latch onto "X amount have a reaction" as 'proof' that a vaccine is bad, and sure for that X amount it is, but neglect the fact that X is 0.01% of the amount of people who have had the vaccine and that X^10 lives were saved because of it.

ancapailldorcha

notjustsweet wrote: »

I wonder is it less than 0.15% because if so that means a child is more likely to become seriously ill from a vaccine.

Except that the vast majority of side effects are quite trivial compared to the disease being vaccinated against. Here's the NHS' list of side-effects for Gardasil:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/hpv-vaccine-cervarix-gardasil-side-effects.aspx

kylith

notjustsweet wrote: »

Any idea what the statistical chance of dying from cervical cancer is?
A woman who has all her smears etc.

I wonder is it less than 0.15% because if so that means a child is more likely to become seriously ill from a vaccine.

The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, about 9,710 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and about 3,700 women will die from the disease

According to this: about 30% of women diagnosed will die from it.

CancerResearchUK wrote:

1 in 135 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer during their lifetime.

So a 0.74% of being diagnosed, and a 30% chance of dying from it.

Gatling

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Money, silly billy.

Must need to sell more bleech

ThisRegard

super_furry wrote: »

I’d love to know what the conspiracy theorists actually think the conspiracy is? Why would vaccine makers want to give kids autism for example?

So they can then work on an autism cure, probably.

Gatling

I know one girl who suffered a similar reaction to the HPV vaccine that's been repeatedly discussed ,
But on the flip side I know 2 girls both mid teens suffering very similar symptoms but yet never received the vaccine .

Some of the symptoms remind me of fibromyalgia symptoms which is linked t stress if im correct

njs030

kylith wrote: »

According to this: about 30% of women diagnosed will die from it.


So a 0.74% of being diagnosed, and a 30% chance of dying from it.

So there's a 0.22% chance of dying from cervical cancer
And a 0.15% chance that a young girl could have severe consequences from the vaccine?

kylith

notjustsweet wrote: »

So there's a 0.22% chance of dying from cervical cancer
And a 0.15% chance that a young girl could have severe consequences from the vaccine?

A 0.15% chance of a reaction to the vaccine and a .74% chance of worry, heartbreak, months of chemo, radiotherapy, and surgery (including hysterectomy). With a 30% chance that those won't work.

You are 5.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than suffer a reaction to the vaccine.

buck65

The rate of cervical cancers found in Ireland is in direct proportion to the heat of the beat.

_Whimsical_

Gatling wrote: »

I know one girl who suffered a similar reaction to the HPV vaccine that's been repeatedly discussed ,
But on the flip side I know 2 girls both mid teens suffering very similar symptoms but yet never received the vaccine .

Some of the symptoms remind me of fibromyalgia symptoms which is linked t stress if im correct

I don't think that's true, it was hypothesised about chronic fatigue syndrome /ME but there's now a lot of biological evidence indicating it's not a stress related illness but biological in nature. The HSE Dr on the radio yesterday actually mentioned that. I believe similar is true with fibromyalgia. During the period they were misunderstood though they were thought to be stress related. That's an example to though of science needing to play catch up and explain what was being reported by patients.

njs030

kylith wrote: »

A 0.15% chance of a reaction to the vaccine and a .74% chance of worry, heartbreak, months of chemo, radiotherapy, and surgery (including hysterectomy). With a 30% chance that those won't work.

You are 5.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than suffer a reaction to the vaccine.

According to cancer uk
"Around 95 out of 100 women (around 95%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis."

That's a lot less than 30% you quoted before.

Gatling

notjustsweet wrote: »

According to cancer uk
"Around 95 out of 100 women (around 95%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis."

That's a lot less than 30% you quoted before.

Actually exactly true,

the full post from cancer UK which is only based off one area in England




There are no UK-wide statistics available for cervical cancer survival by stage.

Survival statistics are available for each stage of cervical cancer in one area of England. These are for women diagnosed between 2002 and 2006.

Stage 1

Around 95 out of 100 women (around 95%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 2

More than 50 out of 100 women (more than 50%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 3

Almost 40 out of 100 women (almost 40%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 4

5 out of 100 women (5%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after being diagnosed.

kylith

notjustsweet wrote: »

According to cancer uk
"Around 95 out of 100 women (around 95%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis."

That's a lot less than 30% you quoted before.

Not according to Cancer Research UK http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/survival#heading-Zero

83% of women survive cervical cancer for at least one year, and this is predicted to fall to 67% surviving for five years or more, as shown by age-standardised net survival  for patients diagnosed with cervical cancer during 2010-2011 in England and Wales.[1]

Were the numbers you quoted for cancer in general or cervical cancer specifically?