Anti-vaxxers

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

So let's say there is a flu going around with the potential to cause a lot of deaths bird flu/swine flu etc. The strain is known so compulsory vaccination would be beneficial! As for the seasonal flu, you can't deny that public health in general wouldn't improve if everyone got it every year. Some years it may not be very effective but other years it might be. Id imagine there is a huge cost to the economy whenever there is a flu outbreak. FWIW I have all my children vaccinated from head to toe and you say I have a COMPLETE lack of knowledge about vaccines. Does that mean my judgement was wrong when I decided to have them vaccinated??? That is going to wreck your head! Kinda like if a tree falls in the woods

What a bizarre stream of consciousness that has zero relevance to my previous post.

Also FYI its completely possible to can get your kids vaccinated and still know nothing about vaccines and how the are made or work. One does not follow the other as you seem to think.

Also stop moving the goalposts, the seasonal flu vaccine was being discussed not a bird or swine flu one.

If you can prove to me the cost to the economy on a yearly basis related to flu outbreaks would be more than the cost of administering yearly mandatory flu vaccines i will agree with you, otherwise you are talking out of your arse

seamus wrote: »

Because vitamin A is not required unless you have a vitamin A deficiency. And in fact, vitamin A supplements should not be taken by people who do not have a deficiency, and doing so can lead to health complications.

Whereas everyone should get the MMR unless they have a physical reason they can't.

From World Health Organisation

The beneficial impact of 2 doses of vitamin A during treatment
of measles is well established.7
WHO’s current policy8 advocates administering vitamin A to all acute cases. A high dose
of vitamin A is given immediately on diagnosis and repeated
the next day. The recommended age-specific daily doses are
50 000 IU for infants aged <6 months, 100 000 IU for infants
aged 6–11 months, and 200 000 IU for children aged ≥12
months. If the child has clinical signs of vitamin A deficiency
(such as Bitot’s spots), a third dose should be given 4–6 weeks
later. Even in countries where measles is not usually severe, vitamin A should be given to all cases of severe measles.

skepticalme wrote: »

Most people who contract measles don't go to hospital. The doses aren't mega doses, easily done at home. Measles depletes vit A in everyone.

Here's probably why the HSE don't promote it;

Implications for practice
We support the WHO recommendation that two doses of vitamin A (200,000 IU) be given to all cases of measles, especially to children under the age of two with severe measles, in addition to the standard treatment. The evidence from these studies can only be generalized in relation to low‐income countries. There is limited information to permit a generalization in relation to high‐income countries. The only study carried out in a high‐income country (Japan) used one‐fourth of the recommended dose (100,000 IU), showed a reduced morbidity and did not report any toxicity.


https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001479.pub3/fullhighlightAbstract=a&highlightAbstract=measles&highlightAbstract=measl&highlightAbstract=vitamin

VinLieger wrote: »

Still ignoring the cost of making it mandatory and no comparison if that cost would be offset by the benefit to the econony

That information is hard to come by. Look I suggested compulsory vaccination to save lives. I don't know if it would be cost effective. You ruled out compulsory vaccination because you said it would be pointless and very expensive. I know it would save lives. I provided a link to back that up. What did you Base your "pointless and very expensive" on? I attempted to back up what I said. Where are your links to back up your conclusion?

The link is to a pdf on vaccination cost effectiveness. It is safe.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/lee.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwij5Kbg7aTdAhWrDsAKHeQUBp4QFjAJegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jx_MyiKpoeDO6gQzULUVR

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

That information is hard to come by. Look I suggested compulsory vaccination to save lives. I don't know if it would be cost effective. You ruled out compulsory vaccination because you said it would be pointless and very expensive. I know it would save lives. I provided a link to back that up. What did you Base your "pointless and very expensive" on? I attempted to back up what I said. Where are your links to back up your conclusion?

The link is to a pdf on vaccination cost effectiveness. It is safe.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/lee.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwij5Kbg7aTdAhWrDsAKHeQUBp4QFjAJegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jx_MyiKpoeDO6gQzULUVR

If you are going to make it mandatory will people be expected to pay for it every year out of their own pocket or will the government be picking up the tab, either way at the current cost that would amount to 100 million+ per year ie "very expensive" not to mention the overhead cost of administering it to everyone.

In my opinion the yearly cost of that for a vaccine that is only estimated to be 36-40% effective is not economical. Also you say it would save lives however iIn vast majority of cases people die from the flu for 2 reasons, old age so a weak immune system to begin with OR having the flu and another illness at the same time which again brings into question the pointlessness in vaccinating the entire population instead of just focusing on the groups that are usually worst affected.

Most of the studies you link to in fact indicate that focusing on high risk groups is probably the best strategy as well

kunst nugget wrote: »

Aye, it's called Hypervitaminosis A. You can get it from eating the livers of bearded seals, moose, walruses and polar bears. It's why I don't bother going hunting in the Arctic.

Stranded Arctic explorers got it from eating the livers of their sled dogs too. Eating the livers of carnivores is a bad idea.

But, sure, telling people that Vitamin A cures measles is totally not going to lead to people giving stupidly large doses to children because of the aforementioned 'if some is good then more is better' mindset that some people have. [/sarcasm]

skepticalme wrote: »

Yet parents are advised to give babies vit D and manage not to overdose them by thinking more must be better.

What's the point you're trying to make here? This has spiraled into arguments about vitamin doses. Is your position, you can cure measles with vitamins so don't vaccinate?

skepticalme wrote: »

My point was vitamin A helps in cases of measles which it does, never said cure. Think it was Blanch152 sarcastically used the word cure.
Seems others think parents are not trustworthy with vitamins.

Do you mean help as in "your child has died of measles, here is some vitamin A to help you?"

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Cancer
People who eat a lot of foods containing beta-carotene might have a lower risk of certain kinds of cancer, such as lung cancer or prostate cancer. But studies to date have not shown that vitamin A or beta-carotene supplements can help prevent cancer or lower the chances of dying from this disease. In fact, studies show that smokers who take high doses of beta-carotene supplements have an increased risk of lung cancer.

Can vitamin A be harmful?
Yes, high intakes of some forms of vitamin A can be harmful.

Getting too much preformed vitamin A (usually from supplements or certain medicines) can cause dizziness, nausea, headaches, coma, and even death. High intakes of preformed vitamin A in pregnant women can also cause birth defects in their babies. Women who might be pregnant should not take high doses of vitamin A supplements.

Source: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminA-Consumer/
Emphasis mine.

Why **** the bed about measles vaccines, and crow about Vitamin A, when it can be harmful too?

Because.........something, something.......big pharma......something, something.......vaccines bad, unregulated supplements good....

VicMackey1 wrote: »

I think that parents that have to resort to giving their unvaccinated children a dose of vitamins cannot be trusted to give them a safe dose. If they have decided against vaccination, they have proved that they cannot be trusted.

That's some generalisation.

VicMackey1 wrote: »

If someone comes to the conclusion that the risks outweigh the benefits of the MMR vaccine, then no, they cannot be trusted with any health decisions for their children.

So in your opinion parents who give their child 29 out of the 32 immunisations
babies get in their first year makes them untrustworthy. In your opinion as untrustworthy as parents who give less or none. The majority of parents are doing what they believe is the right thing for their children.