Anti-vaxxers

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 11:19am

sullivlo wrote: »

By watching Vaxxed, you are.

.

I overlooked this on my original reply. By watching Vaxxed I'm nailing my colours to the wall? Do you know how patronising that sounds, that there is something inherently wrong with listening to the claims of one side and trying to contrast it with the claims of the other?

Is there a link, or better yet a Youtube video, clawing through the numerous claims made in the film? Rather than an attitude of "your first and only mistake was watching it in the first place". As to me it speaks of people who fear the material rather than laugh at it.

ancapailldorcha · 04-08-2018 11:20am

Mike Hoch wrote: »

What in the jaysus does that mean?

Film makes point. You are asked if point is correct. You say point is incorrect but refuse to explain how or why.

I'm not for a second saying the film is right. I'm saying it raises a handful of concerning questions that I have not been able to find rebuttals to via Google. Compare that to how many essays are out there explaining that, yes, jet fuel actually can weaken, if not melt, steel beams.

Your aggressive tone really doesn't help your argument. The film raises what it regards as important questions. All I'm looking for it a rebuttal of them.

It's crystal clear. You say the CDC massaged figures but provide no evidence that they did. As Sullivlo points out, autism isn't within their mandate.

My tone comes from the fact that I really, really try to confront myself with differing opinions on this site and people who push the usual nonsense narratives continually obfuscate, lie, deflect or play the victim card when challenged in any way.

In my experience, such people do not want to be convinced. They want an echo chamber where they can give each other thanks while congratulate themsevles for taking on vested interests (not the anti-vaxxer vested interests of course) without actually having to do anything with the ultimate result being that they push misinformation and pseudoscience which causes actual suffering and death just so they can pat themselves on the back. It's sick.

Here's a Meta-Analysis on studies which were collectively performed on over a million children finding no link between MMR and autism:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

And then you move the goalposts going on about jet fuel and steel. What is that about?

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 11:33am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's crystal clear. You say the CDC massaged figures but provide no evidence that they did. As Sullivlo points out, autism isn't within their mandate.

I didn't. I asked if the films claims that they did were truthful.

If it isn't in their mandate, why did they do some sort of study, massaged or not?

My tone comes from the fact that I really, really try to confront myself with differing opinions on this site and people who push the usual nonsense narratives continually obfuscate, lie, deflect or play the victim card when challenged in any way.

I've not played a victim card. I watched a film, took a few points away from it and asked where I could find a rebuttal of those points.

In my experience, such people do not want to be convinced. They want an echo chamber where they can give each other thanks while congratulate themsevles for taking on vested interests (not the anti-vaxxer vested interests of course) without actually having to do anything with the ultimate result being that they push misinformation and pseudoscience which causes actual suffering and death just so they can pat themselves on the back. It's sick.

I'm not even convinced the autism prevalance figures are correct

Here's a Meta-Analysis on studies which were collectively performed on over a million children finding no link between MMR and autism:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

And I'm simply asking whether a large scale study has ever been done showing prevalance in vaccinated and non vaccinated. Or whether studies have been done on populations in the least developed parts of the world which lack the environmental factors we live around (pollution, treated water etc etc.

And then you move the goalposts going on about jet fuel and steel. What is that about?

That every other conspiracy theory out there has dozens of links that debunk it piece by piece. I'm simply asking is there something similar for Vaxxed, seeing as there is for snake oil nonsense like Loose Change or anything Alex Jones has ever produced.

I am not an anti vaxxer. Neither is Andrew Wakefield strictly speaking, he approves of single shot vaccines. I'm simply asking where I can find a full rebuttal of the most concerning points brought up in the film, or asking for one here.

ancapailldorcha · 04-08-2018 11:40am

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I didn't. I asked if the films claims that they did were truthful.

Why not check the film's sources then?

Mike Hoch wrote: »

If it isn't in their mandate, why did they do some sort of study, massaged or not?

Did they?

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I'm not even convinced the autism prevalance figures are correct

And I'm simply asking whether a large scale study has ever been done showing prevalance in vaccinated and non vaccinated. Or whether studies have been done on populations in the least developed parts of the world which lack the environmental factors we live around (pollution, treated water etc etc.

I just posted a link disproving any association between MMR and autism.

You can't do a study like that in human beings for ethical reasons. You're denying a cohort access to a vaccine which would be hugely unethical.

Mike Hoch wrote: »

That every other conspiracy theory out there has dozens of links that debunk it piece by piece. I'm simply asking is there something similar for Vaxxed, seeing as there is for snake oil nonsense like Loose Change or anything Alex Jones has ever produced.

Well, that link disproves the MMR-Autism nonsense. What more are you after. That was the key point anti-vaxxers were making.

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I am not an anti vaxxer. Neither is Andrew Wakefield strictly speaking, he approves of single shot vaccines. I'm simply asking where I can find a full rebuttal of the most concerning points brought up in the film, or asking for one here.

Wakefield is a nonsense-peddler. The single shot crap is just a pretense at being a reasonable moderate.

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 11:42am

I've decided to repost these numbered, as some people here seem to think I'm on a rant rather than issuing structured reasonable questions.

1- What is the full story about the CDC doing a study that came up with unwanted results and then attempting to massage the figures? If autism is not within the CDC remit why did they do a study on it, or did they?

2- Why does the US government cover compensation for "vaccine injuries" and not the pharma firms? What is the law regarding this in Ireland?

3- Whether the MMR is responsible for the bulk of the rise in autism or isn't, the chances of anything other than the vaccine being responsible for the cases where the child instantly regressed within hours of the vaccine being given seem pretty feckin far fetched. Would you agree that in at least a small percentage of cases the vaccine has had an impact?

4- Is it true that the CDC has refused to do a comprehensive study of the prevalence of autism in vaccinated vs non vaccinated children? If it isn't ther remit, whose remit is it, and has such a study been done?

5- Why won't the health authorities issue single vaccines? Wakefield says he is not anti vaccine, but believes that a triple shot at a young age is unnecessarily risky. Why not offer this to dissuade any concerns?

6- If autism truly has become more common, and the under diagnosis excuse is plainly rubbish (how would it explain an increase from the start of this century to the present day), have studies been done on its prevalence in countries with entirely different environments to ours? Rural Africa for example, places with minimal air pollution, processed food, mobile phone masts, pharmaceutical intake, treated/ recycled water, electricity and wi fi, and any other outlier that has been touted as a potential cause.

7- There are just shy of one million people aged 0- 14 in Ireland. The HSE reports a vaccine rate of 93% uptake. Assuming this figure has been fairly stable since 2003, there are circa 70,000 unvaccinated children in Ireland. According to a quick Google there are 14,000 ASD children attending Irish schools. A 93% rate would mean circa 960 of these children would have not been vaccinated in childhood. Is there any willingness to study whether this indeed is the case, or whether the percentage of the 14,000 cases who were vaccinated is higher than 93%?

8- is it easy to con a psychologist into writing one off as autistic, given the financial incentives for a parent? Are ASD diagnosis more common in lower socio economic groups? Is there an industry with a vested interest in churning out more diagnosis for their own financial gain?

ancapailldorcha · 04-08-2018 11:44am

You're just posting the same drivel again.

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 11:48am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why not check the film's sources then?

What difference would that make? They are citing a source, I'm looking for someone to explain the fallacy of that source.

Did they?

I don't know. I'm asking people here who claim to be in the know.

I just posted a link disproving any association between MMR and autism.

You can't do a study like that in human beings for ethical reasons. You're denying a cohort access to a vaccine which would be hugely unethical.

We're not talking about witholding vaccines from a section of the child population for the purposes of a study. I'm talking about a study or children born in the year 2003, of which circa 93% were vaccinated, to see whether there is any substantially lower incidence of autism in the 7 percent who were not vaccinated before the age of X. There's nothing immoral about that.

Well, that link disproves the MMR-Autism nonsense. What more are you after. That was the key point anti-vaxxers were making.

Again, studies of inocculated vs not, studies of prevalance in children growing up in environments that are little different to Europe 90 years ago in terms of food, technology, water supply, drug intake et al.

Wakefield is a nonsense-peddler. The single shot crap is just a pretense at being a reasonable moderate.

So what would be the problem with making the single shot optional?

These are all reasonable questions. Is it any wonder people feel nervous about the topic when confronted in such an aggressive manner?

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 11:50am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're just posting the same drivel again.

They are eight reasonable questions. They can be simply answered or debunked, rather than drivel.

I wouldn't call questions about what someone read about the 9/11 conspiracy to be drivel. The theories are, the questions are reasonable and can be logically explained in all cases.

Again, I'm not anti vax. I simply have 8 questions I think are pertinent. Would you feel confident vaccinating a child if a doctor told you your questions were drivel, rather than explaining the folly behind each theory?

ancapailldorcha · 04-08-2018 11:57am

Mike Hoch wrote: »

They are eight reasonable questions. They can be simply answered or debunked, rather than drivel.

If you make a claim, it is on you to substantiate it. Lazily expecting other people to do your work for you is incredibly poor debating etiquette. So, yes it is drivel.

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 12:02pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you make a claim, it is on you to substantiate it. Lazily expecting other people to do your work for you is incredibly poor debating etiquette. So, yes it is drivel.

I didn't make a claim. I asked if there was a rebuttal to the claims made.

With all due respect I'm done debating this with you and will not be responding further to your comments. I find your tone condescending, rude and largely without any actual rebuttal of the questions raised. They are a couple of reasonable questions rising from a film I watched, all I'm looking for are a few answers from people more clued into the politics of the debate than I currently am. I'm not and have not been making any claims or arguments against vaccination, I have been asking for the truth behind certain claims made by others in as respectful a tone as I can.

If anyone else would be able to answer the 8 questions in a respectful manner I'd be grateful for the input.

jh79 · 04-08-2018 12:09pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I've decided to repost these numbered, as some people here seem to think I'm on a rant rather than issuing structured reasonable questions.

1- What is the full story about the CDC doing a study that came up with unwanted results and then attempting to massage the figures? If autism is not within the CDC remit why did they do a study on it, or did they?

2- Why does the US government cover compensation for "vaccine injuries" and not the pharma firms? What is the law regarding this in Ireland?

3- Whether the MMR is responsible for the bulk of the rise in autism or isn't, the chances of anything other than the vaccine being responsible for the cases where the child instantly regressed within hours of the vaccine being given seem pretty feckin far fetched. Would you agree that in at least a small percentage of cases the vaccine has had an impact?

4- Is it true that the CDC has refused to do a comprehensive study of the prevalence of autism in vaccinated vs non vaccinated children? If it isn't ther remit, whose remit is it, and has such a study been done?

5- Why won't the health authorities issue single vaccines? Wakefield says he is not anti vaccine, but believes that a triple shot at a young age is unnecessarily risky. Why not offer this to dissuade any concerns?

6- If autism truly has become more common, and the under diagnosis excuse is plainly rubbish (how would it explain an increase from the start of this century to the present day), have studies been done on its prevalence in countries with entirely different environments to ours? Rural Africa for example, places with minimal air pollution, processed food, mobile phone masts, pharmaceutical intake, treated/ recycled water, electricity and wi fi, and any other outlier that has been touted as a potential cause.

7- There are just shy of one million people aged 0- 14 in Ireland. The HSE reports a vaccine rate of 93% uptake. Assuming this figure has been fairly stable since 2003, there are circa 70,000 unvaccinated children in Ireland. According to a quick Google there are 14,000 ASD children attending Irish schools. A 93% rate would mean circa 960 of these children would have not been vaccinated in childhood. Is there any willingness to study whether this indeed is the case, or whether the percentage of the 14,000 cases who were vaccinated is higher than 93%?

8- is it easy to con a psychologist into writing one off as autistic, given the financial incentives for a parent? Are ASD diagnosis more common in lower socio economic groups? Is there an industry with a vested interest in churning out more diagnosis for their own financial gain?

Have a read of this article from Science Based Medicine, just skimmed through it but should answer a few of your questions;

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/andrew-wakefields-vaxxed-antivaccine-propaganda-at-its-most-pernicious/

04-08-2018 12:22pm

jh79 wrote: »

She was asked to clarify her postion on the HPV vaccine on twitter, by David Robert Grimes and rather than do so, blocked him.

While she might have only been given the consent form the day before it was a high profile vaccination campaign that everybody in the country knew about.

'Everybody in the country knew about'? That's a pretty big assumption. You didn't really answer the question did you? People on here are calling on others to do their own proper research on this (a point I agree with btw). I'd want more than 24 hours though, wouldn't you?

jh79 · 04-08-2018 12:41pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

'Everybody in the country knew about'? That's a pretty big assumption. You didn't really answer the question did you? People on here are calling on others to do their own proper research on this (a point I agree with btw). I'd want more than 24 hours though, wouldn't you?

I was familiar with the vaccine controversy and am a scientist so would keep up to date on these type of things so the 24 hours notice wouldn't bother me. Could of been handled better by the HSE.

Anyways she's had plenty of time now so is she still against the vaccine ? Is her daughter now vaccinated?

alaimacerc · 04-08-2018 12:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

'Everybody in the country knew about'? That's a pretty big assumption. You didn't really answer the question did you? People on here are calling on others to do their own proper research on this (a point I agree with btw). I'd want more than 24 hours though, wouldn't you?

If the "doing their own research" exercise is going to be googling for crank sites to support their initial prejudices -- and lets's face it, it often is -- 24h seems plenty.

alaimacerc · 04-08-2018 12:51pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

[....] the chances of anything other than the vaccine being responsible for the cases where the child instantly regressed within hours of the vaccine being given seem pretty feckin far fetched.

"Just asking questions."

Would you agree that in at least a small percentage of cases the vaccine has had an impact?

Would you agree that "would you agree" questions are statements in thin disguise? Hence their legal impermissibility in direct examination of a witness, and their low reputation as a parliamentary device. "Would the minister agree with me that [my partisan soundbite go here]."

04-08-2018 12:52pm

jh79 wrote: »

I was familiar with the vaccine controversy and am a scientist so would keep up to date on these type of things so the 24 hours notice wouldn't bother me. Could of been handled better by the HSE.

Anyways she's had plenty of time now so is she still against the vaccine ? Is her daughter now vaccinated?

I'm pro-vaccine myself, it was the 24 hour aspect of the story that interested me. I don't know what her current stance is or whether her daughter has been vaccinated or not.

Originally posted by alaimacerc: If the "doing their own research" exercise is going to be googling for crank sites to support their initial prejudices -- and lets's face it, it often is -- 24h seems plenty.

'Googling for crank sites'. Who is suggesting that?

alaimacerc · 04-08-2018 1:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

'Googling for crank sites'. Who is suggesting that?

I'm suggesting that "I've done my own research and [...]" wild counter-consensus claims made on t'internet more often than not give every basis to presume that's what happened. Especially when their slam-dunk evidence is links to the crank sites in question.

Yes, 24h notice to sign the form seems rather indecently hasty -- enough so I'm raising my eyebrows at her claim, tbh. Or the school's basic level of organisation, if it's indeed accurate. But what sort of "research" is it reasonable or even plausible to expect parents will do? Set up their own large-scale clinical trial? "Research" in this context is going to be either reading the consensus medical view -- i.e., the people recommending and providing the vaccine in the first place -- or the conspiracy-theorist fringe. Or both, and deciding which they like better.

04-08-2018 1:08pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

But what sort of "research" is it reasonable or even plausible to expect parents will do? Set up their own large-scale clinical trial? "Research" in this context is going to be either reading the consensus medical view -- i.e., the people recommending and providing the vaccine in the first place -- or the conspiracy-theorist fringe. Or both, and deciding which they like better.

Yes, 'research' would be an inaccurate word in this context. 'Reading' would be the more accurate term for the majority of people interested in the topic.

alaimacerc · 04-08-2018 1:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, 'research' would be an inaccurate word in this context. 'Reading' would be the more accurate term for the majority of people interested in the topic.

Indeed. No harm in giving people a week (I'd think, to pluck a figure out of the air). Reasonable interval to read a leaflet, or a website or two, manage to have a chat over a cuppa with the other half over it, etc.

But in Ni Riada's case, she apparently had time to sign it in haste, and then repent at somewhat more leisure by rescinding her permission. So I'm skeptical of her reliance on this account of the timeline as the crucial reason for her refusal.

Pedro K · 04-08-2018 1:16pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I didn't. I asked if the films claims that they did were truthful.

If it isn't in their mandate, why did they do some sort of study, massaged or not?

I've not played a victim card. I watched a film, took a few points away from it and asked where I could find a rebuttal of those points.

I'm not even convinced the autism prevalance figures are correct

And I'm simply asking whether a large scale study has ever been done showing prevalance in vaccinated and non vaccinated. Or whether studies have been done on populations in the least developed parts of the world which lack the environmental factors we live around (pollution, treated water etc etc.

That every other conspiracy theory out there has dozens of links that debunk it piece by piece. I'm simply asking is there something similar for Vaxxed, seeing as there is for snake oil nonsense like Loose Change or anything Alex Jones has ever produced.

I am not an anti vaxxer. Neither is Andrew Wakefield strictly speaking, he approves of single shot vaccines. I'm simply asking where I can find a full rebuttal of the most concerning points brought up in the film, or asking for one here.

Because prior to the scandal Wakefield had filed a patent for a single shot vaccine. He had a financial conflict of interest which he never disclosed and lied about afterwards. He's a quack. Funny, that his advocates would be like flies on **** if they found the slightest hint of a conflict in a 'Big Pharma' study or patent, but are strangely quiet about this one.

https://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 1:24pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Just asking questions."

Would you agree that "would you agree" questions are statements in thin disguise? Hence their legal impermissibility in direct examination of a witness, and their low reputation as a parliamentary device. "Would the minister agree with me that [my partisan soundbite go here]."

The US government has paid out billions in vaccine compensation claims. Like it or not, sometimes vaccines have adverse effects. That's not to say that they cause autism, or that the 1 in 80 (or whateevr the current figure is) has been reached by doling out vaccines.

jh79 wrote: »

Have a read of this article from Science Based Medicine, just skimmed through it but should answer a few of your questions;

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/andrew-wakefields-vaxxed-antivaccine-propaganda-at-its-most-pernicious/

Thanks for that. Some people here could learn what a respectful response is rather than some of the posts that have been made in regards to my questions.

It's a long long read and I've only skimmed it myself, they make some good points but they seem to be bogged down in belittling qualifications of some contributors to the film and launching personal attacks on the parents of those who claim a link. They'd fit in quite well here with some posters. Also, I find their criticism of the credentials of other physicians bizarre given this piece was written by an oncologist. It's like a plumber claiming he knows more about electrics than a carpenter.

Interestingly, the "vaccinated vs non vaccinated" rebuttal links to this as evidence, which a far as I can see didn't actually investigate regarding autism but rather actual diseases.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/04/10/myth-no-studies-compare-the-health-of-unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-people/

The comments are interesting.

Sadb · 04-08-2018 1:27pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I've decided to repost these numbered, as some people here seem to think I'm on a rant rather than issuing structured reasonable questions.

1- What is the full story about the CDC doing a study that came up with unwanted results and then attempting to massage the figures? If autism is not within the CDC remit why did they do a study on it, or did they?

2- Why does the US government cover compensation for "vaccine injuries" and not the pharma firms? What is the law regarding this in Ireland?

3- Whether the MMR is responsible for the bulk of the rise in autism or isn't, the chances of anything other than the vaccine being responsible for the cases where the child instantly regressed within hours of the vaccine being given seem pretty feckin far fetched. Would you agree that in at least a small percentage of cases the vaccine has had an impact?

4- Is it true that the CDC has refused to do a comprehensive study of the prevalence of autism in vaccinated vs non vaccinated children? If it isn't ther remit, whose remit is it, and has such a study been done?

5- Why won't the health authorities issue single vaccines? Wakefield says he is not anti vaccine, but believes that a triple shot at a young age is unnecessarily risky. Why not offer this to dissuade any concerns?

6- If autism truly has become more common, and the under diagnosis excuse is plainly rubbish (how would it explain an increase from the start of this century to the present day), have studies been done on its prevalence in countries with entirely different environments to ours? Rural Africa for example, places with minimal air pollution, processed food, mobile phone masts, pharmaceutical intake, treated/ recycled water, electricity and wi fi, and any other outlier that has been touted as a potential cause.

7- There are just shy of one million people aged 0- 14 in Ireland. The HSE reports a vaccine rate of 93% uptake. Assuming this figure has been fairly stable since 2003, there are circa 70,000 unvaccinated children in Ireland. According to a quick Google there are 14,000 ASD children attending Irish schools. A 93% rate would mean circa 960 of these children would have not been vaccinated in childhood. Is there any willingness to study whether this indeed is the case, or whether the percentage of the 14,000 cases who were vaccinated is higher than 93%?

8- is it easy to con a psychologist into writing one off as autistic, given the financial incentives for a parent? Are ASD diagnosis more common in lower socio economic groups? Is there an industry with a vested interest in churning out more diagnosis for their own financial gain?

In answer to no.2 because it is anecdotal evidence that is presented, not scientific. If their government decide to pay out for anecdotal evidence that is their decision. Afaik USA is the only country that pay for “vaccine injury”.

No.3 again anecdotal evidence. It is only upon looking back that the parents decide that the vaccine caused the regression, that it happened within hours. I have a friend whose child is on the autistic spectrum. She firmly believes it was the mmr, in truth the baby showed many early signs and didn’t just “regress after the vaccine”.

No.4 it just can’t work, most third world and even some second world countries don’t diagnose children for anything (or even record births in many cases) so there is no way of knowing how many children are on the autistic spectrum in these countries.

No.5 Wakefield had vested interest in single vaccines, that is why he was pushing for them. There is no scientific evidence that single vaccines work better. While on the subject of Wakefield, have you actually read his study? Are you aware of the number of participants and that the “evidence” was purely anecdotal?

No. 6 seeing as the mmr has been around since the late 70’s early 80’s how would it explain an increase from the start of this century to the present day?

Pedro K · 04-08-2018 1:27pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

What difference would that make? They are citing a source, I'm looking for someone to explain the fallacy of that source.

I don't know. I'm asking people here who claim to be in the know.

We're not talking about witholding vaccines from a section of the child population for the purposes of a study. I'm talking about a study or children born in the year 2003, of which circa 93% were vaccinated, to see whether there is any substantially lower incidence of autism in the 7 percent who were not vaccinated before the age of X. There's nothing immoral about that.

Again, studies of inocculated vs not, studies of prevalance in children growing up in environments that are little different to Europe 90 years ago in terms of food, technology, water supply, drug intake et al.

So what would be the problem with making the single shot optional?

These are all reasonable questions. Is it any wonder people feel nervous about the topic when confronted in such an aggressive manner?

No. This is not how science works. There are peer reviewed, respected journals, and there are numerous pay to publish journals, where I could publish a paper that says Mike Hooch is a great big nonce. My paper would then be citeable.

Would you be happy for people to make scurrilous accusations about you, citing my paper, and it to be incumbent on readers to check that the source (my nonsense paper in a pay to publish journal) is fallacious?

Taytoland · 04-08-2018 1:30pm

I always rejected that government muck, good luck to any other fool falling for it.

alaimacerc · 04-08-2018 1:42pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Like it or not, sometimes vaccines have adverse effects. That's not to say that they cause autism[...]

Like it or not, your claims need evidence, not mere repetition. The "adverse effect" you were asserting is that "the child instantly regressed within hours". So, that is precisely "to say that" your claim is that it's caused autism.

Mike Hoch · 04-08-2018 2:07pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Like it or not, your claims need evidence, not mere repetition. The "adverse effect" you were asserting is that "the child instantly regressed within hours". So, that is precisely "to say that" your claim is that it's caused autism.

They're not my claims. But it would be a very unlikely coincidence for someone to start feeling adverse effects straight after a vaccine and it to be completely unrelated.

I'm still not sold on either side of the debate, but the pro side seem to resort to the same sort of tactics as the remainers in Britain, or the Russians fixed the election loons in the US.

alaimacerc · 04-08-2018 2:18pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

They're not my claims. But it would be a very unlikely coincidence for someone to start feeling adverse effects straight after a vaccine and it to be completely unrelated.

Claims you've repeated here as a flat assertion. And not merely "adverse effects" in general, mind. I mean, I felt the need for a bit of a lie down and a cuppa after giving blood, and had a slight rash on my arm, are those "adverse effects"? But "instant regression" in the case of claimed cause of autism.

I'm still not sold on either side of the debate, but the pro side seem to resort to the same sort of tactics as the remainers in Britain, or the Russians fixed the election loons in the US.

What each side "seems" like "seems" to me to be an unprofitable line of rhetoric for the side of the debate of which you "seem" to be uncritically repeating the talking points and wilder claims.

donspeekinglesh · 04-08-2018 2:42pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Would I be right in saying pharma drugs/ vaccines are licenced for legal use by the CDC?

No. The FDA in the US and the HPRA in Ireland.

Anti-Vaxxers are obsessed with the CDC. Do they think it's all Dustin Hoffman chasing monkeys?

GreeBo · 04-08-2018 5:57pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

They're not my claims. But it would be a very unlikely coincidence for someone to start feeling adverse effects straight after a vaccine and it to be completely unrelated.

1 case it of millions of patients is an unlikely coincidence?

sullivlo · 04-08-2018 6:21pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I overlooked this on my original reply. By watching Vaxxed I'm nailing my colours to the wall? Do you know how patronising that sounds, that there is something inherently wrong with listening to the claims of one side and trying to contrast it with the claims of the other?

Is there a link, or better yet a Youtube video, clawing through the numerous claims made in the film? Rather than an attitude of "your first and only mistake was watching it in the first place". As to me it speaks of people who fear the material rather than laugh at it.

As I have posted previously in the thread, I have worked in vaccine development. Vaxxed is about as scientifically accurate as Sharknado. Your questions were raised as a result of watching Vaxxed, therefore your questions are inherently biased against vaccines.

But here is the thing. You are correct. I DO fear Vaxxed. Absolutely. I do. Not because I believe it, but because some people do. Because of things like Vaxxed, there has been a decreased in vaccine uptake worldwide. There are several cases of measles in Dublin at the minute. That shouldn’t happen. People don’t vaccinate because of scaremongering from the people who make Vaxxed.

Are vaccines perfect? No. Are there side effects? Yes, but most are minor. But they are regulated. There is a system in place. They do a risk/reward of what it means to be vaccinated vs the potential side effects of being vaccinated.

If vaccines don’t work, or there are an unusual level of side effects, they are investigated by the FDA (or equivalent). They are removed from the market, if required. New vaccines are developed too, and they replace the old ones.

Example: Bortadella pertussis is the pathogen that causes whooping cough. There was a vaccine that worked incredibly well, and rates of “the whoop” declined. However, the vaccine was associated with a higher-than-normal incidence of side effects, so it was taken off the market and replaced with a new vaccine. Unfortunately the new vaccine is not as efficient, so people are losing immunity more rapidly and therefore need boosters. The old vaccine gave lifetime protection; the new one loses protection after 10 years.

I am not aware of any Youtube videos that debunk vaccine myths, because I have never looked for one. When I look for information on a topic I go to websites that are regulated or official, rather than what is essentially a video-blog site.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments