Anti-vaxxers

Sadb · 01-09-2017 8:39pm

mountai wrote: »

But the MAJORITY DONT

I certainly wouldn't say majority, in many hospitals you simply can't work there if you refuse the flu jab.

mountai · 01-09-2017 8:41pm

Army_of_One wrote: »

you made the claims , you provide the links.

Cant do links but according to The Health Protection Surveillance Centre ( official body) the figure is as low as 20% .

Annasopra · 01-09-2017 8:45pm

mountai wrote: »

Look up HSE figures , Chocolate and Ipads!!!

So you just made shįt up

mountai · 01-09-2017 8:56pm

Just to make another point . If anyone is interested Jonathan Irwin , founder of Jack and Jill foundation has recently aligned himself with Regret . This is a gentleman of the highest standards whose reputation is beyond question . See what he has to say about the treatment of the Parents of Regret . Yeah they are Terrorists all right . Some of you seem to forget , they are fighting for their Childrens health against a movement of ignorance , vilification and corruption . Any of you critics looked at the Merck Pil yet ? .

mzungu · 01-09-2017 9:09pm

mountai wrote: »

Just to make another point . If anyone is interested Jonathan Irwin , founder of Jack and Jill foundation has recently aligned himself with Regret . This is a gentleman of the highest standards whose reputation is beyond question . See what he has to say about the treatment of the Parents of Regret . Yeah they are Terrorists all right . Some of you seem to forget , they are fighting for their Childrens health against a movement of ignorance , vilification and corruption . Any of you critics looked at the Merck Pil yet ? .

Appeal to authority? No thanks. He is a man with an opinion, and a wrong opinion at that. Does he have any proof of his claims? Thought not.

sideswipe · 01-09-2017 9:11pm

Everywhere I look lately I seem to be reading or watching vaccination related material. Watched a program about Trump and that UK doctor that was struck off. Suppose it's because I've young kids going through the system. There seems to be no middle ground with this subject. I have my own reasons not to blindly trust the medical profession. I also worry if I'm doing the right thing by my kids getting vaccinations when I've read stories of things going wrong. Ultimately I have to protect them against preventable diseases, I'd be stupid not to- this still doesn't mean I'm not worried about side effects. My OH was reading a book about the whole vaccination dilemma which she loved- might be of interest to a few on here-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Keep-You-Safe-Melissa-Hill/dp/0008217122

mrkiscool2 · 01-09-2017 9:15pm

sideswipe wrote: »

Everywhere I look lately I seem to be reading or watching vaccination related material. Watched a program about Trump and that UK doctor that was struck off. Suppose it's because I've young kids going through the system. There seems to be no middle ground with this subject. I have my own reasons not to blindly trust the medical profession. I also worry if I'm doing the right thing by my kids getting vaccinations when I've read stories of things going wrong. Ultimately I have to protect them against preventable diseases, I'd be stupid not to- this still doesn't mean I'm not worried about side effects. My OH was reading a book about the whole vaccination dilemma which she loved- might be of interest to a few on here-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Keep-You-Safe-Melissa-Hill/dp/0008217122

It's tougher with babies and such as we don't always know what they are allergic too. However, if they are not allergic to anything in the vaccine there is no permanent damage. Sure, cranky, a little worn down (as anyone would be when there are chemicals placed in your body) etc. but, unlike not vaccinating them, no chance of any lasting damage. Not vaccinating them can lead to horrible diseases that can lead them physically deformed, both externally and internally, and massively weaken their already frail immune system.

There is no argument, ever, to not get your children vaccinated. And the state has a duty of care to everyone vunerable person, including children. It should, in my scientific opinion, be illegal to not vaccinate your kids until a time where either a. vaccines are scientifically found to cause everlasting damage to children or b. that child is 16. Until that point, vaccines should be mandatory and parents who do not give their kids vaccines should be charged with neglect.

mountai · 01-09-2017 9:21pm

For anyone who has doubts , look at the manufacturers Pil . Ask the question , Why wont the HSE include this document in the "Consent Pack ". The information is out there . Why , all of a sudden , is the Government going to establish a fund for vaccine damage ?? . I predict , there WILL be laws passed making it impossible to sue a Drug manufacturer for damages , just as it is law in the USA . The Pharma industry has gotten too big and powerful in this country and of course we are at the begging table for the EMA to be located in Ireland post Brexit .

Gatling · 01-09-2017 9:29pm

mountai wrote: »

For anyone who has doubts ,

Don't believe the anti crowd who can Back up claims

ohnonotgmail · 01-09-2017 9:30pm

mountai wrote: »

For anyone who has doubts , look at the manufacturers Pil . Ask the question , Why wont the HSE include this document in the "Consent Pack ". The information is out there . Why , all of a sudden , is the Government going to establish a fund for vaccine damage ?? . I predict , there WILL be laws passed making it impossible to sue a Drug manufacturer for damages , just as it is law in the USA . The Pharma industry has gotten too big and powerful in this country and of course we are at the begging table for the EMA to be located in Ireland post Brexit .

you're just spouting conspiracy nonsense at this stage.

mountai · 01-09-2017 9:33pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're just spouting conspiracy nonsense at this stage.

Can You answer why the Pil is not included? Thought not.

Grayson · 01-09-2017 9:33pm

It's simple. You have something that 99999 doctors say will help your child. You have one doctor that says it won't.

Who do you listen to?

sideswipe · 01-09-2017 9:34pm

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

It's tougher with babies and such as we don't always know what they are allergic too. However, if they are not allergic to anything in the vaccine there is no permanent damage. Sure, cranky, a little worn down (as anyone would be when there are chemicals placed in your body) etc. but, unlike not vaccinating them, no chance of any lasting damage. Not vaccinating them can lead to horrible diseases that can lead them physically deformed, both externally and internally, and massively weaken their already frail immune system.

There is no argument, ever, to not get your children vaccinated. And the state has a duty of care to everyone vunerable person, including children. It should, in my scientific opinion, be illegal to not vaccinate your kids until a time where either a. vaccines are scientifically found to cause everlasting damage to children or b. that child is 16. Until that point, vaccines should be mandatory and parents who do not give their kids vaccines should be charged with neglect.

While I agree with much of what you have said, making vaccines compulsory is scary. When my wife was expecting she was advised to get a fast tracked swine flu vaccination- we worried if this could effect or child. Maybe its easier not to think and jus do what you are told!!

whoopsadoodles · 01-09-2017 9:43pm

mountai wrote: »

Can You answer why the Pil is not included? Thought not.

I have the pack in front of me. The information booklet gives you a QR code to get the pil.

pitifulgod · 01-09-2017 9:44pm

Grayson wrote: »

It's simple. You have something that 99999 doctors say will help your child. You have one doctor that says it won't.

Who do you listen to?

More often than not, they're not actual doctors who do fear mongering, normally the likes of chiropractors or homeopaths if they use title of doctor.

mrkiscool2 · 01-09-2017 9:55pm

sideswipe wrote: »

While I agree with much of what you have said, making vaccines compulsory is scary. When my wife was expecting she was advised to get a fast tracked swine flu vaccination- we worried if this could effect or child. Maybe its easier not to think and jus do what you are told!!

Obviously that's completely different. Your wife is above 16, therefore can refuse. Not sure if doctors advise women to have vaccines when pregnant. I meant for the child, they should, from birth to 16, be required to get vaccines and if parents refuse then the parent is charged with neglect. And I don't think it's scary, I think that any law that protects a child is an inherently good thing.

mcmoustache · 01-09-2017 9:57pm

The internet is a wonderful thing, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Put them together and what have you got? Antivaxers! SING IT WITH ME NOW!!!

groovyg · 01-09-2017 10:08pm

mountai wrote: »

Just to make another point . If anyone is interested Jonathan Irwin , founder of Jack and Jill foundation has recently aligned himself with Regret . This is a gentleman of the highest standards whose reputation is beyond question . See what he has to say about the treatment of the Parents of Regret . Yeah they are Terrorists all right . Some of you seem to forget , they are fighting for their Childrens health against a movement of ignorance , vilification and corruption . Any of you critics looked at the Merck Pil yet ? .

oh yeah a real gentleman same guy who used funds from Jack and Jill foundation to fund his personal Seanad election campaign
Are you having a larf ..gentleman my arse

mountai · 01-09-2017 10:17pm

groovyg wrote: »

oh yeah a real gentleman same guy who used funds from Jack and Jill foundation to fund his personal Seanad election campaign
Are you having a larf ..gentleman my arse

Perfectly explained by the gentleman in question , who devoted twenty years of his life to the JandJ foundation , is a hugely wealthy man and has raised millions to help children in this country . You wouldnt be fit to lick his boots , but if the Sun said it , it must be so .

njs030 · 01-09-2017 10:24pm

mountai wrote: »

Perfectly explained by the gentleman in question , who devoted twenty years of his life to the JandJ foundation , is a hugely wealthy man and has raised millions to help children in this country . You wouldnt be fit to lick his boots , but if the Sun said it , it must be so .

I don't see any explanation?
Attacking people who disagree with you just takes away from your argument tbh.

Annasopra · 01-09-2017 10:28pm

mountai wrote: »

Just to make another point . If anyone is interested Jonathan Irwin , founder of Jack and Jill foundation has recently aligned himself with Regret . This is a gentleman of the highest standards whose reputation is beyond question .

You are having a laugh

Jonathan Irwin? The one who spent charity money on his personal Seanad campaign

https://www.thesun.ie/archives/irish-news/162175/jack-jill-founder-jonathan-irwin-admits-donor-cash-spent-on-seanad-lobbying-bid/

uptherebels · 01-09-2017 10:29pm

mountai wrote: »

Perfectly explained by the gentleman in question , who devoted twenty years of his life to the JandJ foundation , is a hugely wealthy man and has raised millions to help children in this country . You wouldnt be fit to lick his boots , but if the Sun said it , it must be so .

i wouldn't use the word devoted, not like he gets approx 90k salary in exchange for his devotion.
Perfectly explained? if you say so- his charity running a joint campaign at the charities expense to get him elected.
sure he didn't charge them for petrol:rolleyes:

groovyg · 01-09-2017 10:31pm

mountai wrote: »

Perfectly explained by the gentleman in question , who devoted twenty years of his life to the JandJ foundation , is a hugely wealthy man and has raised millions to help children in this country . You wouldnt be fit to lick his boots , but if the Sun said it , it must be so .

Well why didn't he use his own money so?

Annasopra · 01-09-2017 10:33pm

mountai wrote: »

Perfectly explained by the gentleman in question , who devoted twenty years of his life to the JandJ foundation , is a hugely wealthy man and has raised millions to help children in this country . You wouldnt be fit to lick his boots , but if the Sun said it , it must be so .

Sorry you said he has the highest standards and a reputation beyond question.

If he is using charity funds for his own political gain then clearly he has very low standards and a questionable reputation.

snowflaker · 01-09-2017 10:42pm

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/903282251772899338

For Forks Sake · 01-09-2017 10:43pm

groovyg wrote: »

Well why didn't he use his own money so?

If he had any sense he'd have done what his wife did and gotten a Taoiseachs nomination to the Seanad: no campaign or associated costs required.

_Whimsical_ · 01-09-2017 11:24pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sorry you said he has the highest standards and a reputation beyond question.

If he is using charity funds for his own political gain then clearly he has very low standards and a questionable reputation.

He really is not a man of questionable reputation. He wasn't running for his own political gain. He clearly set out the reasons why he was attempting to enter politics, to lobby for better care for disabled children and also to help influence the outcome of the situation with location of the children's hospital, things he has always worked for. Right now his charity alone provides home care for very disabled babies, no homecare is state funded. He didn't have ambitions for himself, he saw the desperate state of the childrens hospital proposed location and he was desprate to help, he had very poor health at the time of entering the race and was forced to pull out because of that. He has been one of the most effective and passionate campaigners for ill children in Ireland ever. To sully him as a person of low standards is very unfair.
Jack and Jill do unbelievable work, someone in my family uses their service and it's been life saving. Had he entered politics and been successful he could've used that platform to do very good things that would have really benefited children. If he used money from the charity I would imagine he did so with that ends in mind.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 01-09-2017 11:25pm

Mountai, if you are so certain, particularly with all the figures maybe you should approach the WHO. They then can investigate and advise the HSE.

Annasopra · 01-09-2017 11:30pm

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

He really is not a man of questionable reputation.

He used the funds of Jack and Jill for his political campaign. That is really unethical and in that case I cannot see how anyone can claim his reputation is not questionable.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

To sully him as a person of low standards is very unfair.

He may have done great work with Jack and Jill. That does not put him personally above reproach for his low political standards. If I donated to Jack and Jill I would be horrified to think money was spent on his campaign.

_Whimsical_ · 01-09-2017 11:45pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He used the funds of Jack and Jill for his political campaign. That is really unethical and in that case I cannot see how anyone can claim his reputation is not questionable.

He may have done great work with Jack and Jill. That does not put him personally above reproach.

He told the Irish Sun: “I am running under the Jack & Jill banner — it is our campaign.

“We have achieved one hell of a lot on the outside in the last 20 years and we are determined to put our voice into the House.

“We are using our writing paper because this is the Jack & Jill campaign. It mightn’t cost 1,000 quid. I am not charging for petrol or anything. This is something for good.”

I have to absolutely disagree. Above is his response to the claims. His platform was entirely Jack and Jill. His appeal for votes was completely on the basis of what he hoped he could achieve on behalf of Jack and Jill and it's users. Perhaps he should have paid for the headed paper but using it was wise for his campaign, to remind voters of his premise and his reputation in that area. To vilify the most passionate and important campaigner we have ever had in our country on the basis of understandably using paper to promote that campaign is so extremely unfair, it's worthy of a Sun headline, I'd really hope thinking people would not be so reactionary and thoughtless though.
If his health had allowed him to continue that campaign we really would hopefully be looking at proper debate in our houses of parliment about where our children should be best treated and how the most vulnerable parents and babies are treated. If it weren't for him, they'd be entirely on the scrap heap.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments