'Alternative' doctor has turned my mum off Covid vaccine

NeuralNetwork

Unfortunately this is one of those awkward situations where you discover a friend or family member is a bit of a moron and conspiracy theorist and there's very little you can do about it, other than give them facts and information about the vaccine and let them make their own mind up.

If she doesn't want to take the vaccine, she's making a risk analysis based on whatever she thinks the risks are and in this case, it could well result in a bad outcome for her. However, that's her decision. She's an adult and perfectly capable of making her own decisions be they sensible or not.

The unfortunate bit is that as the rest of the population gets vaccinated, she will end up as an outlier and a risk to others. In which case, they may well make decisions to avoid her. That's also their choice.

She's an adult and entirely competent to make her own decisions, but those decisions aren't without consequences. Unfortunately, we've entered an age where there's a false equivalency between facts and firmly held beliefs and an assumption that all choices should be free of consequences.

The vaccine is new, but it's also proving to be highly effective, particularly the mRNA types, and the disease it prevents is potentially deadly, especially to older people.

There's no getting around that.

Also all this stuff about claims it modifies your genome and all of that is absolute nonsense. You might as well be claiming that traffic lights make you go bald.

monkeybutter

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

Unfortunately this is one of those awkward situations where you discover a friend or family member is a bit of a moron and conspiracy theorist and there's very little you can do about it, other than give them facts and information about the vaccine and let them make their own mind up.

If she doesn't want to take the vaccine, she's making a risk analysis based on whatever she thinks the risks are and in this case, it could well result in a bad outcome for her. However, that's her decision.

The unfortunate bit is that as the rest of the population gets vaccinated, she will end up as an outlier and a risk to others. In which case, they may well make decisions to avoid her. That's also their choice.

She's an adult and entirely competent to make her own decisions, but those decisions aren't without consequences. Unfortunately, we've entered an age where there's a false equivalency between facts and firmly held beliefs and an assumption that all choices should be free of consequences.

The vaccine is new, but it's also proving to be highly effective, particularly the mRNA types, and the disease it prevents is potentially deadly, especially to older people.

There's no getting around that.

Also all this stuff about claims it modifies your genome and all of that is absolute nonsense. You might as well be claiming that traffic lights make you go bald.

Look I'm all for flat earthers not taking the vaccine

More for me

Also why protect them from the ravages of evolution, perhaps we are causing this in the first place by protecting these people

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

And?


BTW the development has not been rushed. Outside of obvious long term research, this is how fast vaccines should be produced if it were not for funding delays at every step.

How many dead, from COVID, again?

I like how every attempt to counter those points has to confirm that they're both true and then fall back on the fact that we've no choice in these circumstances as though thats a refutation rather than affiirmation of their veracity

Some very strange people who think like that.

eleventh

is_that_so wrote: »

I think a lot of people can see a logical path through it. That it dovetails with a high level of emotions doesn't make that any less true. Public messaging is an entirely different beast.

Logic would take into account whether a decision-maker is trustworthy or not.

Logic would also take into account the facts of a situation starting with first principles, using scientific rigour to arrive at conclusions.

There is no logical basis for any decision made by government etc since the start of this thing in March 2020.

monkeybutter

eleventh wrote: »

Logic would take into account whether a decision-maker is trustworthy or not.

Logic would also take into account the facts of a situation starting with first principles, using scientific rigour to arrive at conclusions.

There is no logical basis for any decision made by government etc since the start of this thing in March 2020.

So you would you have done everything differently?

Tell us what you would have done, entertain us

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

Look I'm all for flat earthers not taking the vaccine

More for me

Also why protect them from the ravages of evolution, perhaps we are causing this in the first place by protecting these people

Honest answer, because there are people who can not take the vaccine for medical reasons (allergies, immunocompromised, etc)
The rest of us need to take the vaccine to generate actual herd immunity to protect these people.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

I like how every attempt to counter those points has to confirm that they're both true and then fall back on the fact that we've no choice in these circumstances as though thats a refutation rather than affiirmation of their veracity

Some very strange people who think like that.

And another complete lack of the understanding of medicines. All medicines have risk



EG aspirin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118944/


But science/medicine has to weight the risks of medicating Vs the risks of not, again see aspirin.
COVID is vastly, by orders of magnitude (you probably need to look that term up), than any adjuncts in a vaccine.


Vaccine has miniscule (potential) dangers, COVID has exceptionally common injury and/or fatal effects.


I, honestly, assume that you don't have a science qualification, yeah?

Risteard81

mloc123 wrote: »

Are you heading over to the mainland to get your British vaccine?

As a citizen of the 32-County Irish Republic I am not leaving the Irish mainland to receive any vaccine. I am also repudiating it on Irish soil.

monkeybutter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honest answer, because there are people who can not take the vaccine for medical reasons (allergies, immunocompromised, etc)
The rest of us need to take the vaccine to generate actual herd immunity to protect these people.

Surely the percentage of flat earthers is low right

monkeybutter

Risteard81 wrote: »

As a citizen of the 32-County Irish Republic I am not leaving the Irish mainland to receive any vaccine. I am also repudiating it on Irish soil.

Plus if you leave Ireland you may fall off the edge of the earth

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

Surely the percentage of flat earthers is low right

Flat-earthers are a horribly high number, afaik.


As for anti-vaxxers, there are enough of them to eliminate herd immunity in our most common vaccine programs, putting millions at risk of measles and such

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

Plus if you leave Ireland you may fall off the edge of the earth

That's more like leaving Cork

hmmm

If she's anything like my mother, she knows he's a quack but is hoping that there is some element of truth and feels it is worth trying. Telling her bluntly to cop herself on and get vaccinated will work.

Risteard81

monkeybutter wrote: »

Plus if you leave Ireland you may fall off the edge of the earth

The Earth is round you silly, silly boy.

Risteard81

Risteard81 wrote: »

You can't speed up the onset of long-term side effects.

I am trying to figure out are you a deliberate spreader of misinformation or just a gullible patsy

monkeybutter

Risteard81 wrote: »

The Earth is round you silly, silly boy.

There's hope for you yet

monkeybutter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's more like leaving Cork

If you couldn't get a breast in a bun boy you'd have to throw yourself off the edge

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

If you couldn't get a breast in a bun boy you'd have to throw yourself off the edge

Mmm Hillbillies (branches in select Not-Cork sites now)

Risteard81

Deleted User wrote: »

I am trying to figure out are you a deliberate spreader of misinformation or just a gullible patsy

How is that misinformation? Now run along with your fifteen masks on.

ODriscoll

Would not want to put anyone off, as I like you, just don't know yet to be so certain either way!
The need appears stronger than the risk, but! to not even wonder is only for those who applaud a emperors new clothes

Deleted User wrote: »

And?


BTW the development has not been rushed. Outside of obvious long term research, this is how fast vaccines should be produced if it were not for funding delays at every step.

How many dead, from COVID, again?

A family member who is an actual Bio chemist who is working (and has been throughout) frontline at a large pharma in quality control for vaccines.
Inform me that Typically vaccines to market take around 6 to 8 years.
The so called 'delays' are not primarily because of lack of funding, the so called delays would be down in laymans terms because of proper validated analyzed testing, which takes time, not a few months.
They also inform me that most of their qualified colleagues are unsure,holding back.
Much like the actually qualified states here
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

Note the ending of one of these very experts when asked directly

But when asked if she would take the vaccine right away, she responded: “I won’t be taking it immediately – probably not for at least the coming year,” she told the Post. “We have to wait and see whether it really works.”

So like most everything else, there are legitimate causes for concern regardless of the shouts from the extremes of 'both sides' of the debate.

there is btw no vaccine, there are numerous vaccines, not one of which to date could be regarded as having had complete testing and complete studies done, as that would by definition take years.

yes exceptional times, but don't dismiss people just because you imagine you know better because something you want to, need to believe in.
We all want to believe, but only ages old fools just accepts without question.

hmmm

ODriscoll wrote: »

yes exceptional times, but don't dismiss people just because you imagine you know better because something you want to, need to believe in.
We all want to believe, but only ages old fools just accepts without question.

Ah get out of here with yer nonsense, a 74 year old should be taking a vaccine without a second thought.

Your "family member" who works in vaccines and thinks it takes 6-8 years to develop a vaccine is clearly made-up, we have about 5 different vaccines from different families of vaccines developed by now. mRNA vaccines take literally days to develop, and even the old-school inactivated virus vaccines are developed within a year now.

monkeybutter

ODriscoll wrote: »

Would not want to put anyone off, as I like you, just don't know yet to be so certain either way!
The need appears stronger than the risk, but! to not even wonder is only for those who applaud a emperors new clothes




A family member who is an actual Bio chemist who is working (and has been throughout) frontline at a large pharma in quality control for vaccines.
Inform me that Typically vaccines to market take around 6 to 8 years.
The so called delays would be down in laymans terms as proper validated testing, which takes time, not a few months.
They also inform me that most of their qualified colleagues are unsure,holding back.
Much like the actually qualified states here
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

Note the ending of one of these very experts when asked directly


So like most everything else, there are legitimate causes for concern regardless of the shouts from the extremes of 'both sides' of the debate.

there is btw no vaccine, there are numerous vaccines, not one of which to date could be regarded as having had complete testing and complete studies done, as that would by definition take years.

yes exceptional times, but don't dismiss people just because you imagine you know better because something you want to need to believe.
We all want to believe, but only ages old fools just accepts without question.

They weren't starting from scratch on this thankfully

They threw a load of money at it

It was a worldwide effort


Science moves on

ODriscoll

hmmm wrote: »

Ah get out of here with yer nonsense, a 74 year old should be taking a vaccine without a second thought.

Doubt the likes of you would even understand a concept, let alone be able to actually read free minded. now do go away from here yourself with your mindless ignorance.

See we can all be as ****ing stupid as you!

OK let people not take the vaccine but society should be able to choose to disengage with them.
No public schools, colleges, in person services, shops and pubs allowed refuse entry, no public transport etc.

They can make their choice and so can we

ODriscoll

monkeybutter wrote: »

They weren't starting from scratch on this thankfully

They threw a load of money at it

It was a worldwide effort


Science moves on

Good points, but unfortunately analysis by and large remains the same -- proper analysis only comes from looking at data and that can only come from actual outcomes over time!

But Let's hope so.

As for the previous idiots comments, they obviously have not read or had an open enough mind to realize that some nations are no longer using certain vaccines for the elderly, not just the Oxford!
so their idea of give without 2nd thought or question is just so pathetically simple!

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

And another complete lack of the understanding of medicines. All medicines have risk



EG aspirin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118944/


But science/medicine has to weight the risks of medicating Vs the risks of not, again see aspirin.
COVID is vastly, by orders of magnitude (you probably need to look that term up), than any adjuncts in a vaccine.


Vaccine has miniscule (potential) dangers, COVID has exceptionally common injury and/or fatal effects.


I, honestly, assume that you don't have a science qualification, yeah?

I never said medicine does not have risk.

Its very strange that you have to invent points to refute.

I said these vaccines were fast tracked to such a degree that the manufacturers required indemnity from potential consequences

I said that mrna vaccines are completely new

You're not refuting either of these points, the most you've done is claim that outright indemnity for manufacturers is common, without backing it up, and that the neccissity for the vaccines outweigh the potential risks of their development, which is an entirely belief based statement, and actually irrelevant to the point at hand.

Very emotive and very odd.

oisinog

lemush wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea where you are getting the figure 60 from considering at least 800 known cases were confirmed pretty early mainly in Scandinavia and the increased risk of narcolepsy due to vaccination was around 1 incident per 18,400 doses. Pretty ironic considering your "suit the narrative" comment earlier.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1087079217300011

The case numbers where from the article that was shared with me. In fact that was 80

SafeSurfer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

OK let people not take the vaccine but society should be able to choose to disengage with them.
No public schools, colleges, in person services, shops and pubs allowed refuse entry, no public transport etc.

They can make their choice and so can we

So basically anyone who has reservations about taking a brand new vaccine for a year old virus should be treated like a second class citizen?

The more I see the reaction of people to Covid the more I believe a dystopian future is inevitable.

oisinog

ODriscoll wrote: »

As for the previous idiots comments, they obviously have not read or had an open enough mind to realize that some nations are no longer using certain vaccines for the elderly, not just the Oxford!
so their idea of give without 2nd thought or question is just so pathetically simple!

What other vaccines are they not using. Only one I can see is the Oxford one as they are staying the data is inconclusive because not enough over 65s became infected.

oisinog

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So basically anyone who has reservations about taking a brand new vaccine for a year old virus should be treated like a second class citizen?

The more I see the reaction of people to Covid the more I believe a dystopian future is inevitable.

Yes the virus is a year old is it not a testiment to the scientists that they have been able to develop something so quickly.

Look at how medicine has adapted they are testing patients differently now as they are sharing data and Information.

This is forced science to move forward possibly the only good thing to come out of this.

SafeSurfer

oisinog wrote: »

Yes the virus is a year old is it not a testiment to the scientists that they have been able to develop something so quickly.

Look at how medicine has adapted they are testing patients differently now as they are sharing data and Information.

This is forced science to move forward possibly the only good thing to come out of this.

Well as Zhou Enlai said when asked if the French Revolution had had a positive impact “it’s too early to say”.

SafeSurfer

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So basically anyone who has reservations about taking a brand new vaccine for a year old virus should be treated like a second class citizen?

The more I see the reaction of people to Covid the more I believe a dystopian future is inevitable.

Choices have consequences

SafeSurfer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Choices have consequences

So does lack of choice.


What happened “My body my choice”?

Squatman

Risteard81 wrote: »

Does informed consent not include considering views other than the status quo?

thats what the doctor should have done. peer reviewed, fact based, evidence based testing, with double blind controls, quality, capability studies, FDA audits, NSAI audits, etc etc, vs chinese guys that grind up pengolins for boners. That quack is taking advantage of vulnerable people and if licenced, should have his medical licence revoked. Dangerours in the extreme, and fundamentally flawed.

Natterjack from Kerry

Risteard81 wrote: »

Does informed consent not include considering views other than the status quo?

Only if one is informed enough in the first place to analyse the status quo. Otherwise, the rational path is not to consider, but follow the expert consensus.

Squatman

Risteard81 wrote: »

It's shouldn't be discredited to state that the safety of a rushed novel vaccine (mRNA which has never safely been done before) is not certain.

1. yes it absolutely should, again, look at peer reviewed data. the fact that despite richard head proclaiming that it was "rushed" the research into this is going back 15 years. 2. The FDA, NSAI, & all other governing bodies didnt over night reduce their quality control & compliance requirements. The companies still had to deliver to the same standard. 3. More funding, more people, and more control testing was carried out on this than any other vaccine in the history of vaccines. But again, theres always a richard head that comments against "big pharma" between tokes

Squatman

also, for anyone with elderly parents or grandparents, ask them about their relatives that died at 5/6 years of age due to polio. And ask again when was the last time you heard of someone dying of polio...

Mimon

Hunchback wrote: »

It does. But the anti vaxx position is widely discredited. And she is 74, so very susceptible to Covid 19.

Yes, it's all very well having airy fairy ideas but this could mean the difference between life and death.
I trust vaccines in general because if you look at the health of populations before vaccines it is like night and day.

Who wants to go back to that horrific infant mortality rate or people dying of measles etc?

harrylittle

Aegir wrote: »

Show her this from the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/av/53154442

They are doing a number of different versions in different languages as there are also myths that the vaccines contain pork/beef/alcohol depending on who is being targeted.

the anti vaxxers really are arrogant little tossers.

The BBC you gotha be joking.. their worse than RTE .. BBC = Bull broadcasting corporation

I regurgitate the news

Squatman wrote: »

also, for anyone with elderly parents or grandparents, ask them about their relatives that died at 5/6 years of age due to polio. And ask again when was the last time you heard of someone dying of polio...

I am not doubting the success of vaccines in relation to polio.

Why are the manufacturers needing to be protected against legal actions as a result of any problems with the vaccine.

The US government has paid out $4 billion in vaccine-injury compensations.

Would it be acceptable to say depending on the person there is a risk in taking a vaccine as well as a risk in not taking one?

eleventh

Deleted User wrote: »

OK let people not take the vaccine but society should be able to choose to disengage with them.

Do you have believe that the vaccines work or not?
If you believe they work, it shouldn't matter to you what anyone else does.

beaufoy

There are OAPs in care homes in England refusing to take the pfier vacine. There are cases in care homes where more people have died in a few weeks after taking the vaccine than died in the months before they took the vaccine. These figures might not tell the whole story ie when an old person is infected by the vaccine their resistance is reduced for a few weeks whilst the vaccine gets to work. Hence there might be a increase in deaths for a few weeks and then the death rate might go down to a rate below that of the people who did not take the vaccine. The Doctors and nurses are not allowed to deter people from taking the vaccine. Some of the anti vaccine advocates just talk rubbish..others show figures from ONS to back up their theories and they make a good case. The main stream media and the establishment just say the anti vaccine people are lying, but if the anti vaccine people are forging ONS papers to make their case then the main stream media should prove the papers were forged. When I was 11 I went to the USA and had to take a small pox jab and got sick. Everybody told my mum small pox jabs were safe...a few years later the jabs were stopped because they were dangerous

harrylittle

"an alternative/homeopathic doctor has turned my mum agsainst the idea of getting vaccinated against the Covid 19 virus. She is 74 years old."

fair play to the doctor and fairplay to your mother...

recent report ...

Concerns over the mRNA vaccine intensified following a Russia Today report on Monday that all 78 residents at a nursing home in Madrid, Spain had tested positive for COVID-19 after being given their first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on January 13, and at least seven people have died.

A Chinese virologist advised elderly people, especially those with underlying conditions, not to take mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer's, as it could induce their condition and worsen their health

KaneToad

Homeopathy
Chiropracty
Reiki
Accupuncture
Reflexology
Ayurveda

All bunkum. Pseudoscience. Ways to part gullible people from their money.

I regurgitate the news

KaneToad wrote: »

Homeopathy
Chiropracty
Reiki
Accupuncture
Reflexology
Ayurveda

All bunkum. Pseudoscience. Ways to part gullible people from their money.

Speaking of gullible people...........Do you remember people were dropping dead from the virus in China last year?

harrylittle

NORWAY’S HEALTH REGULATOR has said that common side effects may have contributed to the deaths of 23 elderly people who are frail after they received the Covid-19 vaccine.

“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency, told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

In a statement, the Norwegian Medicines Agency said that 13 autopsies had been carried out on those who had died, and suggested that common side effects to mRNA vaccines, such as a fever, nausea and diarrhoea, may have contributed to their deaths.

“There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,” Madsen said.

joe40

harrylittle wrote: »

NORWAY’S HEALTH REGULATOR has said that common side effects may have contributed to the deaths of 23 elderly people who are frail after they received the Covid-19 vaccine.

“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency, told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

In a statement, the Norwegian Medicines Agency said that 13 autopsies had been carried out on those who had died, and suggested that common side effects to mRNA vaccines, such as a fever, nausea and diarrhoea, may have contributed to their deaths.

“There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,” Madsen said.

There is a very definite link between covid and death.
Simple maths really pick the one with the lowest risk.
In a global pandemic that has to be the vaccine.

plodder

eleventh wrote: »

Even if they did such a study, it would have to be a sample size of several thousand to conclude what you're getting at.

If you have time to write posts, you have time to find 1 link to a study to support what you're saying about studies done... Unless of course all you have is regurgitated media spin, which is the standard here in this forum - in that case, don't worry about it.

"Even if they did such a study" We've been talking about these studies (phase 3 trials) for several weeks now.

beaufoy

It is somewhat worrying that most of the anti jab people give a good argument backed up with documents reports, but most of the pro jab people just say do as your told the jabs are good take the jabs

Strumms

Has the homeopathic practitioner got a degree in medicine ? If not, he needs to shut the fück up giving medical advice... “consult your gp” should be their answer.