Anti-vaxxers

ohnonotgmail · 07-09-2018 10:04am

skepticalme wrote: »

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.

I'm sure they do think it is the right thing to do. But they are wrong.

skepticalme · 07-09-2018 10:10am

kunst nugget wrote: »

Are the 3 immunisations that they are not giving their child the MMR?

That is the only one with 3 antigens so yes.

Queen Cleopatra · 07-09-2018 11:06am

skepticalme wrote: »

That is the only one with 3 antigens so yes.

What reason could there possibly be to deny a healthy child the mmr?

alaimacerc · 07-09-2018 11:39am

Igotadose wrote: »

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?

As far as I can discern, they're attempting some sort of '5+2' responsible parenting argument. "I made some minimally sensible decisions in the past, I should therefore get a pass on ignoring good medical practice for a person I'm responsible for, and wider public health considerations for everyone, on an a la carte basis."

alaimacerc · 07-09-2018 11:42am

skepticalme wrote: »

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.

That would appear to be your straw man, not their opinion. If you want to haggle about precisely how untrustworthy, that's rather different from disputing the actual basic point.

The majority of parents are doing what they believe is the right thing for their children.

And a minority have a belief that's informed by obvious nonsense.

kylith · 08-09-2018 1:00am

skepticalme wrote: »

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

Unlike Vitamin A, Vitamin D is not bioaccumulative.

skepticalme · 08-09-2018 1:56am

kylith wrote: »

Unlike Vitamin A, Vitamin D is not bioaccumulative.

Vitamin D is bioaccumulative.

skepticalme · 08-09-2018 1:57am

alaimacerc wrote: »

As far as I can discern, they're attempting some sort of '5+2' responsible parenting argument. "I made some minimally sensible decisions in the past, I should therefore get a pass on ignoring good medical practice for a person I'm responsible for, and wider public health considerations for everyone, on an a la carte basis."

Somehow I don't think you are a parent.

kylith · 08-09-2018 10:56am

skepticalme wrote: »

Vitamin D is bioaccumulative.

https://vitamindwiki.com/Overview+Toxicity+of+vitamin+D wrote:

In most cases a doctor will just let the body remove any toxic amount of vitamin D by itself
Vitamin D DOES NOT accumulate in the body
No medical procedure is needed. The body deals with the excess naturally

If vitamin D were bioaccumulative then going outside in the summer would set us up with enough Vitamin D for the winter, and people in equatorial countries would be at permanent risk of hypervitaminosis.

ETA: further reading shows that stored Vitamin D has a half-life of 15 days.

skepticalme · 08-09-2018 4:38pm

kylith wrote: »

If vitamin D were bioaccumulative then going outside in the summer would set us up with enough Vitamin D for the winter, and people in equatorial countries would be at permanent risk of hypervitaminosis.

ETA: further reading shows that stored Vitamin D has a half-life of 15 days.

Vitamin D is made by humans in the Summer and stored in fat and the liver so that we have enough vitamin D in the Winter. We don't get enough sun and when we do we use sunblock so we don't make enough.
People in equatorial countries have darker skin which is slower at making vitamin D, also clothes, sunblock and the body doesn't keep storing more than it needs.
Hypervitaminosis D occurs from supplementation.

That article you posted is the only one I can find stating that it doesn't bioaccumulate. On that website there are others contradicting it.

https://vitamindwiki.com/Sign+and+symptoms+of+vitamin+D+overdose+-+from+Buzzle+2010

Vitamin D overdose is not the result of a single large dose, but is the result of a high vitamin D dosage over a period of time. This is because, the body does not excrete the excess levels of vitamin D from the body, like it does with the other essential nutrients. The excess Vitamin D is stored in the fat cells of the body, where they accumulate and reach the toxic levels over a period of time. Vitamin D overdose can be treated with steroids given by a medical professional.

Queen Cleopatra · 08-09-2018 5:11pm

skepticalme wrote: »

That is the only one with 3 antigens so yes.

What problems do you believe exist with the mmr vaccine? Do you think it causes autism or some other conditions? If so do you have a theory as to why the vaccine causes these problems?

Queen Cleopatra · 10-09-2018 11:37pm

skepticalme wrote: »

That is the only one with 3 antigens so yes.

If you shared your concerns about the mmr vaccine then maybe someone here, maybe myself even, could direct you to a study to show you that your fears are unfounded. Do you believe in science? I think you will avoid direct questions eg. what problem exactly the mmr causes, why it causes it and how this problem makes the risk outweigh the benefits because you will not be able to produce one shred of credible evidence to support your claim.

PS I think you may have been a bit confused when you picked your user name!!

alaimacerc · 11-09-2018 3:13pm

skepticalme wrote: »

Somehow I don't think you are a parent.

Somehow, I don't think you have any interest in rational debate based on empirical evidence.

waxmoth · 12-09-2018 1:02am

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

..... eg. what problem exactly the mmr causes.....

In the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program recognised MMR injuries include encephalopathy/encephalitis, chronic arthritis and thrombocytopenic purpura.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
An MMR injury case published yesterday where causation was accepted... https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012vv0763-120-0

ancapailldorcha · 12-09-2018 7:55am

waxmoth wrote: »

In the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program recognised MMR injuries include encephalopathy/encephalitis, chronic arthritis and thrombocytopenic purpura.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
An MMR injury case published yesterday where causation was accepted... https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012vv0763-120-0

What's the probability of contracting one of these conditions from the vaccine?

sullivlo · 12-09-2018 9:14am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's the probability of contracting one of these conditions from the vaccine?

Ssssh. Don’t let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

kunst nugget · 12-09-2018 9:38am

waxmoth wrote: »

In the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program recognised MMR injuries include encephalopathy/encephalitis, chronic arthritis and thrombocytopenic purpura.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
An MMR injury case published yesterday where causation was accepted... https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012vv0763-120-0

The child seems to have been extraordinarily sick before they ever got the mmr vaccine. Surely that would have pointed towards a compromised immune system and possibly shouldn't have been given the vaccine - am I reading that wrong?

kylith · 12-09-2018 12:28pm

Unvaccinated baby catches chicken pox from unvaccinated siblings, has stroke.

http://contemporaryclinic.pharmacytimes.com/preventive-care/stroke-in-infant-would-have-likely-been-prevented-with-vaccination

branie2 · 12-09-2018 6:34pm

This was the theme of today's episode of Doctors on BBC1

blanch152 · 12-09-2018 9:15pm

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.

This poster said that there is no connection between the cervical cancer screening and the HPV vaccines, in effect implying that the vaccine doesn't prevent cervical cancer.

The Scally Report was published today:

https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Scoping-Inquiry-into-CervicalCheck-Final_Report.pdf

I have only got as far as the foreword when I read this:

" The CervicalCheck programme must take full advantage of the new testing process by working more effectively to reach out to the 20% of Irish women who do not yet take advantage of cervical screening. This, plus the welcome extension of the ever developing HPV vaccine to boys, creates a realistic prospect of the virtual elimination of cervical cancer in Ireland in the coming decades."

It is disgusting that anti-vaxxers still refuse to see the link between HPV and cervical cancer and peddle lies like this post I have quoted.

waxmoth · 12-09-2018 11:38pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's the probability of contracting one of these conditions from the vaccine?

The highest risk of association with aseptic meningitis was observed within the third week after immunisation with Urabe-containing MMR (risk ratio (RR) 14.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 7.93 to 25.71) and within the third (RR 22.5; 95% CI 11.8 to 42.9) or fifth (RR 15.6; 95% CI 10.3 to 24.2) weeks after immunisation with the vaccine prepared with the Leningrad-Zagreb strain. A significant risk of association with febrile seizures and MMR exposure during the two previous weeks (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) was assessed in one large person-time cohort study involving 537,171 children aged between three months and five year of age. Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine. An increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR immunisation in children aged 12 to 23 months was assessed in one case-control study (RR 6.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 30.1) and in one small self controlled case series (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5.38; 95% CI 2.72 to 10.62). Increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR exposure was also assessed in one other case-control study involving 2311 children and adolescents between one month and 18 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

kunst nugget wrote: »

The child seems to have been extraordinarily sick before they ever got the mmr vaccine. Surely that would have pointed towards a compromised immune system and possibly shouldn't have been given the vaccine - am I reading that wrong?

You would seem to be right but the current vaccination system does not attempt to screen for susceptibility or tailor treatments, probably because it would be expensive and an admission that a universal medical intervention in healthy subjects can cause serious disease.

ancapailldorcha · 13-09-2018 7:51am

What's the actual numbers? I don't know how that ratio is calculated so it doesn't mean anything.

Martina1991 · 13-09-2018 9:53am

waxmoth wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

The conclusions from that article were:

The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

knipex · 14-09-2018 8:50am

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.

After all the hype, all the talking heads, all the indepth media attention, all the talk of false positives and false negatives you are still under the impression that screening will prevent or identify all cases of cervical cancer ???

i weep for this country..

banie01 · 14-09-2018 9:08am

I currently have a batch of "Mums" on my Facebook feed giving out about the HPV vaccine.
The main gist is that they have daughters entering 1st year and they are 100% not getting this "dangerous and unproven" vaccine.
The evidence against?
Well her friend Mary has a friend who's daughter had it, and she suffered awfully with tummy ache after it, along with plenty of "I heard" and "I saw a post" and other "evidence" of that ilk.

It's a sobering thought that whole swathes of the population assume that Mary down the road can produce epidemiological reports that disprove the efficacy of vaccination based on a sore tummy.

Igotadose · 14-09-2018 9:16am

Martina1991 wrote: »

The conclusions from that article were:

The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

Let's be careful when quoting. The author's conclusions were about other studies, not the data themselves. What's important is their main findings, here's a few of them (widely quoted elsewhere btw)

Conclusions:
Based on the available evidence, one MMR vaccine dose is at least 95% effective in preventing clinical measles and 92% effective in preventing secondary cases among household contacts.Effectiveness of at least one dose of MMR in preventing clinical mumps in children is estimated to be between 69% and 81% for the vaccine prepared with Jeryl Lynn mumps strain and between 70% and 75% for the vaccine containing the Urabe strain
...
Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated
with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait
disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral
infections.

--
So, they're saying 'our study was huge and got good data, and vaccines work.'

ProfessorPlum · 14-09-2018 9:37am

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.

You clearly don’t understand what screening does, and more importantly, what it doesn’t do.

Even the best screening program will not pick up all cases, never mind prevent all deaths.

Graces7 · 14-09-2018 9:56am

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You clearly don’t understand what screening does, and more importantly, what it doesn’t do.

Even the best screening program will not pick up all cases, never mind prevent all deaths.

:rolleyes:

The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.

banie01 · 14-09-2018 10:07am

Graces7 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.

I have never in all my time on Boards wanted to attack a poster more!
Your intransigence and myopic understanding of what screening is intended to be, could quite easily earn me my 1st ban.

I would respectfully suggest that you research and then try and actually understand what the goals and limitations of any medical screening program are. There is a reason screening programs are continuous and it is to ensure that where possible a false positve/negative on screen is picked up on the following screen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230552/

Start there, even a limited screening program saves a health service an order of magnitude more in costs than it would spend in treating late stage diagnosis.
Let alone the lives saved by the early identification and ablation of cancerous or pre-cancerous cells in just cervical cancer cases.

ProfessorPlum · 14-09-2018 10:11am

Graces7 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.

Really?? Is that what you think I’m saying?

Jesus wept.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments