Anti-vaxxers

Guy:Incognito · 09-10-2018 11:58pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are having a laugh right

Maybe his house has no mirrors?

fineso.mom · 10-10-2018 12:00am

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Ah, well; there y'go.
A direct result of the sowing of the seeds of doubt and uncertainty by a charlatan.

Istr that mumps can have some fairly nasty side effects in adults, not that it's any picnic for kids, either.
Dr Google to the rescue...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumps

Yeah, a neighbour of mine had mumps as a child and it left him unable to have children .

Dr Brown · 10-10-2018 12:04am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are having a laugh right

anti-vaxxer; a person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child.

I don't think anyone here is opposed to Vaccines as long as they proven to be safe.

You can't say HPV Vaccine is "safe" when there is a mass worldwide movement against the Vaccine because of safety concerns.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-10-2018 12:12am

fineso.mom wrote: »

Yeah, a neighbour of mine had mumps as a child and it left him unable to have children .

And I know someone who is completely deaf in one ear and only has partial hearing in the other from it.

It's easy to be an anti-vaxxer when you don't have to live with the consequences.

It's got to the stage where maybe we should consider getting people without vaccinations to split the cost of treatment and life long support for those preventable illnesses. Perhaps getting VHI & co to cost this ?

At present they are trying to freeload on the herd immunity. Because in theory they could avoid the risk of the vaccine and the disease if everyone else vaccinated. In reality the vaccination rates have dropped enough that real people are dying of real diseases like measles that are completely preventable and should have been eradicated here ages ago.

ancapailldorcha · 10-10-2018 12:44am

Dr Brown wrote: »

Its important because a real placebo wasn't used.[/YOUTUBE]

In all studies?

Dr Brown wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is opposed to Vaccines as long as they proven to be safe.

You can't say HPV Vaccine is "safe" when there is a mass worldwide movement against the Vaccine because of safety concerns.

There have been worldwide movements for all sorts of nonsense.

rawn · 10-10-2018 1:03am

Dr Brown wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why?

Its important because a real placebo wasn't used.

One of the girls on the original trial became seriously ill from the trial and has still not fully recovered her health years later.

What's her name? Anything I've been reading online has shown no lasting issues. There were 131 deemed serious but all have since recovered.

skepticalme · 10-10-2018 1:16am

rawn wrote: »

What's her name? Anything I've been reading online has shown no lasting issues. There were 131 deemed serious but all have since recovered.

Kesia Lyng

rawn · 10-10-2018 1:19am

I can't find a single mention of that name, any links?

skepticalme · 10-10-2018 1:21am

rawn wrote: »

I can't find a single mention of that name, any links?

This article is about her.

https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-clinical-trials-for-gardasil-made-it-harder-to-properly-assess-safety.html

sullivlo · 10-10-2018 1:25am

skepticalme wrote: »

This article is about her.

https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-clinical-trials-for-gardasil-made-it-harder-to-properly-assess-safety.html

Ah yes. The esteemed, peer reviewed publication of the slate dot com.

There are not enough rolleyes sometimes.

rawn · 10-10-2018 1:40am

sullivlo wrote: »

skepticalme wrote: »

This article is about her.

https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-clinical-trials-for-gardasil-made-it-harder-to-properly-assess-safety.html

Ah yes. The esteemed, peer reviewed publication of the slate dot com.

There are not enough rolleyes sometimes.

Just skimmed it there, it's certainly long winded for what turns out to be simply anecdotal evidence but it's piqued my interest, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow!

M5 · 10-10-2018 3:22am

c montgomery wrote: »

My GF is one, bugs the hell out of me. Source of many arguments and ridicule on both sides.

HPV vaccine has tin foil and animal dna in it is her latest line.

Jesus, the arguments if you have kids....

Graces7 · 10-10-2018 8:37am

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Medical cards have been provided for those affected. The HSE is also covering expenses for travel and related medical costs. No damages have been paid out yet and if they ever will be paid, it will be through the courts.

That solves/absolves nothing.

Graces7 · 10-10-2018 8:43am

batgoat wrote: »

Paracetamol has unintended effects with a miniscule amount of people, is that not good enough? The net benefit far outweighs any risk.

as long as you are not one of the "miniscule amount" affected fine. No drug/vaccine is 100% safe. Also please explain "miniscule"?

It is the blanket assumptions that ALL IS OK that rightly leads to queries and decisions not to take vaccines. We must always query , always question and reach personal and family decisions in the light of that.

Scorning those decisions? Polarises.

All is not OK re the flu vaccine or others. There are adverse reactions. And they can be bad, worse than flu.

ancapailldorcha · 10-10-2018 8:45am

If we were to ban every medicine that wasn't 100% safe, there would be no such thing. I'm not sure why you seem to hate things which ease and prevent suffering so much. I really can't fathom it.

Igotadose · 10-10-2018 8:49am

Dr Brown wrote: »

Nobel Prize winner Dr. Luc Montagnier has said that the HPV Vaccine is "a crime against children".

Is he another "conspiracy theorist" who doesn't have a clue what hes talking about ?

Pretty much, yes. Plenty of Nobel Laureates go off the deep end. It happens as you age. William Shockley comes to mind. Linus Pauling's vitamin C junk is another.

Oh, as always when the anti-vaxxers show up with something, it's been debunked.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/11/28/the-nobel-disease-strikes-again-luc-montagnier-goes-full-antivax-with-a-little-help-from-henri-joyeux/

I'd say it was disappointing as Montagnier has done a lot to help people, but it is what it is. Anti-vaxxing is buttering his bread now, so be it.

Robert Gallo has come out against Montagnier's appointment to lead an HIV research center in Cameroon (only one of its kind in Africa) because of Montagnier's nutter views (not just about vaccines.) So have *35* other Nobel laureates.
https://www.nature.com/news/nobel-fight-over-african-hiv-centre-1.10847

A few quotes from the nature article: "Montagnier has suggested, for example, that water can retain a ‘memory’ of pathogens that are no longer present; that the DNA sequences of pathogens emit electromagnetic waves that could be used to diagnose disease, 3; and that stimulating the immune system with antioxidants and nutritional supplements may help people to fight off AIDS."

If you look into Nobel prizes and the age when the work was done (rather than the prize awarded, which can take a very long time), it seems like for the science-based Nobels, the work is done when they're younger. The arts-based nobels, older. So, Montagnier was probably a great researcher (remember that this AIDS research was done in the 1980s when Montagnier would have been in his late 40's/early 50's. His anti-vax blather is late in life (the DNA junk was in 2009 when he was in his late 70's)

VinLieger · 10-10-2018 8:52am

Graces7 wrote: »

All is not OK re the flu vaccine or others. There are adverse reactions. And they can be bad, worse than flu.

There are only adverse reactions to the flu shot for people who are allergic to it. However its still possible to get it if you inform whoever is giving it to you about your allergy so they are prepared to manage any potential reaction.

How do you know if your allergic to the flu shot you ask? If your allergic to eggs your gonna be allergic to the flu shot as its created using eggs.

sullivlo · 10-10-2018 9:13am

Igotadose wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Plenty of Nobel Laureates go off the deep end. It happens as you age. William Shockley comes to mind. Linus Pauling's vitamin C junk is another.

Oh, as always when the anti-vaxxers show up with something, it's been debunked.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/11/28/the-nobel-disease-strikes-again-luc-montagnier-goes-full-antivax-with-a-little-help-from-henri-joyeux/

I'd say it was disappointing as Montagnier has done a lot to help people, but it is what it is. Anti-vaxxing is buttering his bread now, so be it.

Robert Gallo has come out against Montagnier's appointment to lead an HIV research center in Cameroon (only one of its kind in Africa) because of Montagnier's nutter views (not just about vaccines.) So have *35* other Nobel laureates.
https://www.nature.com/news/nobel-fight-over-african-hiv-centre-1.10847

A few quotes from the nature article: "Montagnier has suggested, for example, that water can retain a ‘memory’ of pathogens that are no longer present; that the DNA sequences of pathogens emit electromagnetic waves that could be used to diagnose disease, 3; and that stimulating the immune system with antioxidants and nutritional supplements may help people to fight off AIDS."

If you look into Nobel prizes and the age when the work was done (rather than the prize awarded, which can take a very long time), it seems like for the science-based Nobels, the work is done when they're younger. The arts-based nobels, older. So, Montagnier was probably a great researcher (remember that this AIDS research was done in the 1980s when Montagnier would have been in his late 40's/early 50's. His anti-vax blather is late in life (the DNA junk was in 2009 when he was in his late 70's)

Watson went off the rails too. Just because someone was once a respected scientist, doesn’t mean they’ll stay respected for ever.

VicMackey1 · 10-10-2018 9:23am

Graces7 wrote: »

That solves/absolves nothing.

I never claimed it did! However, it does slightly ease the financial burden. Consultant visits 3 or 4 times per year does not come cheap!

ancapailldorcha · 10-10-2018 10:19am

On a more humorous note:

Igotadose · 10-10-2018 10:26am

Graces7 wrote: »

It is the blanket assumptions that ALL IS OK that rightly leads to queries and decisions not to take vaccines. We must always query , always question and reach personal and family decisions in the light of that.

Scorning those decisions? Polarises.

All is not OK re the flu vaccine or others. There are adverse reactions. And they can be bad, worse than flu.

Scorn is good sometimes. Family decisions that are *impactful of the rest of the population*, like the *decision* not to vaccinate, should be scorned. It's the epitome of selfishness to do otherwise.

And there's skepticism (scientific analysis applied to claims), and 'facebook hun' skepticism (the lad down the pub knew a bloke whose first cousin.....) or, "Someone with seemingly legitimate credentials that actually is completely unqualified to say this, said blah which I really really want to believe"

As for adverse reactions, you can get adverse reactions to bee stings. Is this a reason to exterminate any bees living nearby, cut down and pave any habitat they might have, and spray widely with neocontinoids. I'd actually like you to answer this question, Grace, as I know it hits close to home with you. Keeping and helping bees is good, but what about adverse reactions to bee stings?

Dohnjoe · 10-10-2018 12:36pm

Graces7 wrote: »

as long as you are not one of the "miniscule amount" affected fine. No drug/vaccine is 100% safe. Also please explain "miniscule"?

It is the blanket assumptions that ALL IS OK that rightly leads to queries and decisions not to take vaccines. We must always query , always question and reach personal and family decisions in the light of that.

Scorning those decisions? Polarises.

All is not OK re the flu vaccine or others. There are adverse reactions. And they can be bad, worse than flu.

The researchers, scientists and professionals who create and produce the vaccines, the government, the regulators and the public all objectively question vaccine safety, because that safety affects all of them and all of us. Likewise that safety versus the risk of dangerous diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent

Playing the "I'm just asking questions" role whilst repeatedly referring to quack science and dubious facts is a bit like Alex Jones just "asking questions" about the latest shooting. It's often less about objective analysis of vaccine safety, and more about a thinly veiled agenda.. or a deep personal lack of understanding

c montgomery · 10-10-2018 12:40pm

M5 wrote: »

Jesus, the arguments if you have kids....

We do

Cupatae · 10-10-2018 12:52pm

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Following on from the flat earthers thread, I was wondering what people thought of, in my opinion, an even more dangerous group, anti vaxxers. Vaccine preventable diseases are on the rise, in the US there were 3 times as many cases of measles then there were in the previous year. Andrew Wakefield, who was discredited as much as any doctor could possibly be, still appears to have huge influence on people. The uptake rate of the HPV vaccine is reportedly down to 50%. Anti-vaxxer views appear to be very popular on social media where statements like "big pharma conspiracy" are common. With all the scientific evidence available, there are still a growing number of anti vaxxers. Be interested in peoples views on this.

To be fair i think there can be a case made for being anti some vaccines , but being blanket against vaccines even 100% proven ones is just dangerously stupid.

Call me Al · 10-10-2018 12:53pm

Graces7 wrote: »

as long as you are not one of the "miniscule amount" affected fine. No drug/vaccine is 100% safe. Also please explain "miniscule"?

It is the blanket assumptions that ALL IS OK that rightly leads to queries and decisions not to take vaccines. We must always query , always question and reach personal and family decisions in the light of that.

Scorning those decisions? Polarises.

All is not OK re the flu vaccine or others. There are adverse reactions. And they can be bad, worse than flu.

Maybe you should also use those standards and question the validity, qualifications and partiality of those who are so quick to dismiss vaccines.
Yes we should all question, but giving significant credence to opinions based solely on "feelings" or mother's intuition" is flawed. Even worse is putting these two things on a par with scientifically based fact and research.

Igotadose · 10-10-2018 1:24pm

Cupatae wrote: »

To be fair i think there can be a case made for being anti some vaccines , but being blanket against vaccines even 100% proven ones is just dangerously stupid.

Which ones can you make a case for?

Cupatae · 10-10-2018 1:41pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Which ones can you make a case for?

I was speaking generally, that i think its ok for people to take issue with a vaccine if they have a legitimate reason, but to be anti every vaccine is stupid.

astrofool · 10-10-2018 1:50pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Which ones can you make a case for?

Playing devil's advocate, vaccines produced on a shortened timescale in reaction to an outbreak.

At the time, people were panicking due to Swine flu and thought the world was going to end, so when the vaccine was available, it should have been made clear that the level of testing was less than other vaccines (I knew this and still got it), but because it wasn't made clear (and I mean shout it, yellow warning labels etc.) people use it as a stick to beat the entire industry.

On average we're kind of stupid, look at housing, 10 years ago we had built too much and had decades of supply and the world economy was dead and gone forever, zombie apocalypse was at the top of people's minds, tax policy actively discouraged building, made it impossible for landlords and was being egged on by the majority now in opposition. Today those same are asking for heads to roll as a consequence of decisions they actively campaigned for at the time.

Simpons bear patrol best summed it up:
Quimby: Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?
Aide: Dumber, Sir.

Call me Al · 10-10-2018 1:53pm

Cupatae wrote: »

I was speaking generally, that i think its ok for people to take issue with a vaccine if they have a legitimate reason, but to be anti every vaccine is stupid.

The key word there is legitimate.

But as we all know so many people give credence to simplistic and or misleading articles often of questionable provenance they may have read, written by Mr/Dr?.unknown, but which intrinsically appeals to a bias the person may already have (consciously or otherwise).

And that in their eyes becomes legitimate.

ancapailldorcha · 10-10-2018 2:03pm

astrofool wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate, vaccines produced on a shortened timescale in reaction to an outbreak.

At the time, people were panicking due to Swine flu and thought the world was going to end, so when the vaccine was available, it should have been made clear that the level of testing was less than other vaccines (I knew this and still got it), but because it wasn't made clear (and I mean shout it, yellow warning labels etc.) people use it as a stick to beat the entire industry.

On average we're kind of stupid, look at housing, 10 years ago we had built too much and had decades of supply and the world economy was dead and gone forever, zombie apocalypse was at the top of people's minds, tax policy actively discouraged building, made it impossible for landlords and was being egged on by the majority now in opposition. Today those same are asking for heads to roll as a consequence of decisions they actively campaigned for at the time.

Simpons bear patrol best summed it up:
Quimby: Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?
Aide: Dumber, Sir.

The Influenza virus mutates but the vaccine is produced in the same manner annually. This is why it was able to be made so quickly.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments