Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anti-vaxxers

Options
1…3233353738…199

Comments

  • Options
    #1022
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Mike Hoch wrote: »

    That's not a rebuttal of any of my questions. It's an incoherent rant.


    The tone here, you'd swear you actually did have something to hide, such is the derision for even asking questions.
    Not incoherent, it highlights the fact that you are treating a documentary by a man who falsified a scientific report for his own profit as credible. It is not. You are also ignoring the real world impact of people not getting vaccines as a result of such conspiracy documentaries.


  • Options
    #1023
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,543 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mike Hoch wrote: »
    You should probably do your own research instead of watching Sky News take on it.

    Although it seems in this thread it's better to be spoon fed on a no questions back basis.
    So where are these 'reasonable economic forecasts' showing that Brexit will be a resounding success?


    Can I take it that you don't consider the chair of the Bank of England to be a reasonable economic forecaster?


  • Options
    #1024
    Mike Hoch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 173 ✭✭Mike Hoch


    batgoat wrote: »
    Not incoherent, it highlights the fact that you are treating a documentary by a man who falsified a scientific report for his own profit as credible. It is not. You are also ignoring the real world impact of people not getting vaccines as a result of such conspiracy documentaries.

    I am not treating the documentary as credible. I am raising eight points from a documentary that has been written off as nonsense, and asking for further feedback on the lack of credibility surrounding them.

    The whole thing stinks a bit of non platforming. Non platforming is whereby activists, typically from the far left, seek to bar opposing viewpoints from being given speaking slots at universities, media, social media etc etc. Anyone with a case to argue would seek to debate and lampoon the points the opposing side raise. Non platforming merely shows that the other side are afraid of the content, rather than being be to argue against it.


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    So where are these 'reasonable economic forecasts' showing that Brexit will be a resounding success?


    Can I take it that you don't consider the chair of the Bank of England to be a reasonable economic forecaster?

    Google is your friend.

    Jesus, imagine a state controlled central bank toeing the party line. Not like that ever happened before anywhere familiar :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Project Fear is the millennium bug of 2019.


  • Options
    #1025
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,543 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mike Hoch wrote: »
    Google is your friend.

    Jesus, imagine a state controlled central bank toeing the party line. Not like that ever happened before anywhere familiar :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Project Fear is the millennium bug of 2019.
    So you've no such forecasts to share then. Google won't tell me which particular forecasts YOU think are reasonable, which I why I asked the reasonable question - but your reluctance to share speaks volumes.


    Mark Carney is no friend of the Tories, and doesn't toe anyone's party line.


  • Options
    #1026
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Mike Hoch wrote: »
    You should probably do your own research instead of watching Sky News take on it.

    Although it seems in this thread it's better to be spoon fed on a no questions back basis.

    Sky News, stop it, you're killing me!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1027
    skepticalme
    Registered Users Posts: 229 ✭✭skepticalme


    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?



    1. This is the link for Dr William Thompson the CDC scientist/ whistle blowers statement to congress. It includes why they did the study, what they found and what they did and did not report.
    http://canaryparty.org/Thompson/StatementofDrWilliamThompsonToCongress.pdf

    Autism is in the CDC remit. They research, look for risk factors and keep count of the rising number of autistic children. Their most recent data is 1 in 36 children in the US has autism of which 1 in 28 are boys. The prediction is 1 in 2 children will have autism by 2032.

    This gives the timeline before Vaxxed. It includes the CDC statement, Dr William Thompsons statement, Rep Bill Posey statement and the above link.
    http://canaryparty.org/commentary/timeline-of-events-in-the-william-thompson-cdcwhistleblower-scandal/



    2. The vaccine court was set up because pharmaceutical companies threatened to stop making vaccines as they were being sued.

    From the hrsa.gov site.

    The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PDF - 312 KB), as amended*, created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system. It provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. Even in cases in which such a finding is not made, petitioners may receive compensation through a settlement.
    The VICP was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates. The Program began accepting petitions (also called claims) in 1988. The Program's objectives are to:
    ensure an adequate supply of vaccines,
    stabilize vaccine costs, and
    establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.

    In Ireland there has been discussion for years about a vaccine injury compensation scheme but nothing set up yet.

    From WHO site
    http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/5/10-081901/en/

    If there is no formal compensation scheme, the only source of compensation is through the courts, usually under the law of tort. Tort law requires a claimant to prove that he or she has suffered a wrong due to another person’s negligence or deliberate harm. The problem with this process, in the case of vaccination, is that there is often no clearly negligent party. A court-based approach to compensation can be inequitable and unpredictable, resulting in high monetary awards for some, while those who do not seek legal recourse receive nothing.


  • Options
    #1028
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Let's have a wee look at who directed Vaxxed, shall we?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed

    Oh look, written AND directed by one Andrew Wakefield.

    If he said the sun was splitting the stones, I'd put on a coat.


  • Options
    #1029
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    skepticalme wrote: »
    1. This is the link for Dr William Thompson the CDC scientist/ whistle blowers statement to congress. It includes why they did the study, what they found and what they did and did not report.
    http://canaryparty.org/Thompson/StatementofDrWilliamThompsonToCongress.pdf

    Autism is in the CDC remit. They research, look for risk factors and keep count of the rising number of autistic children. Their most recent data is 1 in 36 children in the US has autism of which 1 in 28 are boys. The prediction is 1 in 2 children will have autism by 2032.

    This gives the timeline before Vaxxed. It includes the CDC statement, Dr William Thompsons statement, Rep Bill Posey statement and the above link.
    http://canaryparty.org/commentary/timeline-of-events-in-the-william-thompson-cdcwhistleblower-scandal/


    None of that helps me in finding out what happens when you sail over the edge. We all can see that the world is flat and that if you sail too close to the edge you will fall over. What happens next is my question?


  • Options
    #1030
    Anthracite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭Anthracite


    Mike Hoch wrote: »
    Jesus, imagine a state controlled central bank toeing the party line. Not like that ever happened before anywhere familiar :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Project Fear is the millennium bug of 2019.
    The bank of England is independent for over 20 years now.


  • Options
    #1031
    Anthracite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭Anthracite


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    One imagines flat earthers (be they literal or metaphorical), climate change sceptics, anti vaccination believers, Brexit backers and Trump voters largely occupy the same space in a Venn diagram.

    This is weird, and in my experience, true. These beliefs seem to come in a package. You can often throw strong pro-religious views in there too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1032
    waxmoth
    Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭waxmoth


    sullivlo wrote: »
    How would you propose screening every child before the age of 6 weeks, prior to their first vaccination? Or test for a disease that may not have symptoms? Or that may not have any genetic markers? Or that may take more than 6 weeks to return results (& there is scientific rationale to do with mothers passing on immunity to babies, which wanes rapidly, thus needing early vaccination)? And who should pay for this screening? And when there is a screw up in a screening service, who is at fault? And if a genetic screening test shows that the baby is at risk of developing certain illnesses or degenerative conditions, is there an ethical or moral obligation to inform the parents, who in turn have to inform the kids, who in turn have to inform insurance companies and banks...

    Genuine questions.

    I wasn’t referring to a particular vaccine – from my reading some are more of a risk than others. Hypovitaminosis D is commonly associated with autoimmunity so that could be checked with a blood test. Not sure what the procedure for HLA DRB1 testing is, but it is done in suspected autoimmune cases and it seems to predispose for autoimmunity. Family history could be used initially if it is not already taken into account. The screening would pay for itself if it reduced the risk of chronic long term illnesses. Medical errors already have a process. There is an obligation to inform patients/guardians or at least the option to be given.
    From memory the two vaccines (or their incorporated adjuvants) with the greatest risk are HPV and Hep B. The Gardasil trial was not designed to give a true reflection of autoimmune risk.


  • Options
    #1033
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Mike Hoch wrote: »
    Jesus, imagine a state controlled central bank toeing the party line. Not like that ever happened before anywhere familiar :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Project Fear is the millennium bug of 2019.

    Are you just going to drag all kinds of nonsense into this thread. At least the pretense of looking for debunking of Vaxxed claims has been dropped at least.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #1034
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Had a good discussion there with the wife about this thread. She's a health care professional so would be supportive of vaccination as would I. We couldn't figure out any way to encourage anti vaxxers to go for vaccinations. Education wouldn't work as it might just be seen as an attempt by "big pharma" to sway public opinion. I suggested a look to the past and Ireland's struggle with polio and TB, but we thought people might not connect the dots and they would see the past as irrelevant.

    Unfortunately we concluded the best thing to turn opinion is deaths which of course would be terrible. Too many see measles, mumps etc. as minor illnesses with no long term consequences.


  • Options
    #1035
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Karla Future Whirlwind wrote: »
    Had a good discussion there with the wife about this thread. She's a health care professional so would be supportive of vaccination as would I. We couldn't figure out any way to encourage anti vaxxers to go for vaccinations. Education wouldn't work as it might just be seen as an attempt by "big pharma" to sway public opinion. I suggested a look to the past and Ireland's struggle with polio and TB, but we thought people might not connect the dots and they would see the past as irrelevant.

    Unfortunately we concluded the best thing to turn opinion is deaths which of course would be terrible. Too many see measles, mumps etc. as minor illnesses with no long term consequences.


    Unfortunately deaths aren't working either.

    Some of the people on threads spouting anger about the failures of cervical cancer screeeing are the same people who refuse to support HPV vaccination.

    The inability to see the link between the two is mind-boggling.


  • Options
    #1036
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Karla Future Whirlwind wrote: »
    Had a good discussion there with the wife about this thread. She's a health care professional so would be supportive of vaccination as would I. We couldn't figure out any way to encourage anti vaxxers to go for vaccinations. Education wouldn't work as it might just be seen as an attempt by "big pharma" to sway public opinion. I suggested a look to the past and Ireland's struggle with polio and TB, but we thought people might not connect the dots and they would see the past as irrelevant.

    Unfortunately we concluded the best thing to turn opinion is deaths which of course would be terrible. Too many see measles, mumps etc. as minor illnesses with no long term consequences.

    See

    https://www.healthmanager.ie/2017/07/only-one-third-of-healthcare-workers-getting-flu-vaccine/


  • Options
    #1037
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Unfortunately deaths aren't working either.

    Some of the people on threads spouting anger about the failures of cervical cancer screeeing are the same people who refuse to support HPV vaccination.

    The inability to see the link between the two is mind-boggling.

    The two are unrelated. Had screening been effective, no deaths. Blaming one on the other is more than mind boggling and discredits many of your arguments.


  • Options
    #1038
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Had screening been effective, no deaths.

    You can't really say that. Screening will just tell you that you have a cancer. It may or may not be at an early enough stage to treat and cure.


  • Options
    #1039
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Graces7 wrote: »
    See

    https://www.healthmanager.ie/2017/07/only-one-third-of-healthcare-workers-getting-flu-vaccine/

    That's a disgrace alright. My wife would be in the one third bracket.


  • Options
    #1040
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Graces7 wrote: »
    The two are unrelated. Had screening been effective, no deaths. Blaming one on the other is more than mind boggling and discredits many of your arguments.


    That is among the worst posts I have seen on these boards.

    The HPV virus causes cervical cancer.

    The HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer.

    Saying there is no link between people refusing the vaccine and deaths from the cancer is a disgrace. I really can't believe you are saying that.

    As for the statement that effective screening means no deaths, that is shocking. For that to be be true, stage 0 survival rate would have to be 100%.

    https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival.html

    The only way to prevent women dying horrific deaths from cervical cancer is the widespread use of the vaccine. Simple as.


  • Options
    #1041
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭sullivlo


    Graces7 wrote: »
    The two are unrelated. Had screening been effective, no deaths. Blaming one on the other is more than mind boggling and discredits many of your arguments.

    My eyes are rolling so much that I can see behind me :rolleyes:

    What an absolutely awful post.

    Nice to see you can come and spout ****e, but still ignore the questions that you are being asked.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1042
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Graces7 wrote: »
    The two are unrelated. Had screening been effective, no deaths. Blaming one on the other is more than mind boggling and discredits many of your arguments.

    I honestly have no idea what drives you to post such hateful things.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #1043
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,861 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Remind me again how we cure viral diseases ?


    Once you understand that you'll understand why vaccination is used.


  • Options
    #1044
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Sure, we still have people dying in car accidents, so why bother with wearing seatbelts, Grace.


  • Options
    #1045
    NickNickleby
    Registered Users Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭NickNickleby


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Had screening been effective, no deaths.

    I've listened to a lot of stuff on TV and Radio about the screening 'failures' and I'm surprised at the lack of understanding of the purpose of a screening program, and worse, the expectation that anything less than 100% success in diagnosis is somehow a failure of the system.

    Here's a source far more qualified than I to defend it.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medical-council-voices-concern-over-inaccurate-information-on-cervicalcheck-1.3587936

    edit to add:
    Graces, please don't consider this as a personal put-down. I'm simply alluding to the problem of people not being sufficiently informed about this 'crisis', and I hold our national broadcaster responsible for this, by their loose and sensational reporting.


  • Options
    #1046
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/vaccines-trial-us-court-separates-fact-fiction

    For the Mike Hochs and Graces7s of this world, the linked article is good reading, where it separates the scaremongering from the facts, and demonstrates the clear scientific rationale behind vaccination, and despite the extremely rare side-effects, the reason why we should all be vaccinated.

    In particular, the following extract from one case is interesting: "The factual record simply does not support Petitioners' contention that the MMR vaccine had any connection to R.A.'s ASD [autism spectrum disorder] diagnosis".

    One thing that can be learned from articles like this is that a refusal to be vaccinated is probably one of the most selfish and self-centred acts that an individual can take in putting the rest of society at risk. If everyone else in the world is vaccinated, you gain all of the benefit of herd immunity without having to take the tiniest risk. A disgustingly selfish attitude.


  • Options
    #1047
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Pointing at a collection of anecdotes about some people who might possibly have been damaged by a vaccine while ignoring the millions who didn't, and then claiming this means vaccination is risky is like looking at all the people who've won the national lottery, ignoring the millions who didn't and deciding that buying a couple of lottery tickets is a solid investment strategy.


  • Options
    #1048
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It is the Indo which usually gets the wrong end of the stick on sensationalist health stories but this is interesting:

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unique-health-risk-crowds-at-papal-mass-run-risk-of-infectious-diseases-37191262.html


    "When they occur, they most commonly involve vaccine -preventable diseases such as measles, influenza, mumps and hepatitis. Other reported outbreaks are mainly of gastrointestinal infections caused by a number of different pathogens," Dr O'Riordan said.

    "Given the nature of this historic papal visit, a large number of young children and elderly visitors are expected to attend the final Mass, including many international visitors.

    "In the current context of ongoing measles spread in Europe, it is highly advisable that all attendants, especially young children, ensure that they are up to date with their vaccinations," Dr O'Riordan added.

    According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the measles outbreak is continuing across Europe with more than 30 deaths reported in 2018."


    Hopefully, the measles chicken will not come home to roost.


  • Options
    #1049
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Pointing at a collection of anecdotes about some people who might possibly have been damaged by a vaccine while ignoring the millions who didn't, and then claiming this means vaccination is risky is like looking at all the people who've won the national lottery, ignoring the millions who didn't and deciding that buying a couple of lottery tickets is a solid investment strategy.

    I dunno.

    >1 anecdote + Facebook = data?


  • Options
    #1050
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    jh79 wrote: »
    In Ireland most anti vaxxers would be left leaning politcally, the type that would be vegan/ veggie and shop at the happy pear. Buy into the whole "Organic" charade.

    Stereotypically, but while there are pure right-wing conspiracy theorists, and pure left-wing ones, there are plenty of centrist -- or maybe, the gap in the horseshoe -- ones. They're perfectly willing to believe that Big Pharma is concealing that pot cures cancer and grows braincells, and whatever nonsense Alex Jones is peddling this week.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1051
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Graces7 wrote: »
    The two are unrelated. Had screening been effective, no deaths. Blaming one on the other is more than mind boggling and discredits many of your arguments.

    As well as the whole matter of prognosis, as was pointed out earlier, you're also completely ignoring the difference between "effective" and "utterly infallible".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement