Anti-vaxxers

kylith · 13-03-2019 7:52am

OVer a thousand people, mostly children have now died in the Madigascan measles epidemic. Many families are too poor to afford both doses of the vaccine.

If you have been anti-vax and you don’t feel shame and sorrow at this then you are a dickhead. This is not ‘big pharma’. This is people’s, children’s, lives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-madagascar-measles-idUSKCN1QP0MK?fbclid=IwAR2_SdMirsMcKgI_lxH6S6azsNUgztQA0wy885cyRDOVLehwm1Z5klnTx7s

BeerWolf · 13-03-2019 8:12am

Italy is banning unvaccinated children from schools;

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47536981

Igotadose · 13-03-2019 10:00am

kylith wrote: »

OVer a thousand people, mostly children have now died in the Madigascan measles epidemic. Many families are too poor to afford both doses of the vaccine.

If you have been anti-vax and you don’t feel shame and sorrow at this then you are a dickhead. This is not ‘big pharma’. This is people’s, children’s, lives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-madagascar-measles-idUSKCN1QP0MK?fbclid=IwAR2_SdMirsMcKgI_lxH6S6azsNUgztQA0wy885cyRDOVLehwm1Z5klnTx7s

Better idea. Send your kids on vacation to Madagascar. This way, they can become immune to measles. All good, right?

sullivlo · 13-03-2019 6:46pm

I just realised my new deodorant has aluminium in it. Does that make me autistic?

mzungu · 13-03-2019 9:33pm

sullivlo wrote: »

I just realised my new deodorant has aluminium in it. Does that make me autistic?

Aluminium? Then I can tell you for certain that it's unethical deodorant. :pac:

banie01 · 13-03-2019 9:37pm

sullivlo wrote: »

I just realised my new deodorant has aluminium in it. Does that make me autistic?

No! but it does mean that you are now involved in the 9/11 conspiracy

batgoat · 13-03-2019 9:42pm

banie01 wrote: »

No! but it does mean that you are now involved in the 9/11 conspiracy

Armpits can't sweat at that temperature.

banie01 · 14-03-2019 5:04pm

batgoat wrote: »

Armpits can't sweat at that temperature.

But the elemental aluminium residue would be indicative of thermite :P

ohnonotgmail · 14-03-2019 5:07pm

banie01 wrote: »

But the elemental aluminium residue would be indicative of thermite :P

Do you suffer a lot from rust under your arms?

Orion · 15-03-2019 9:55am

sullivlo wrote: »

I just realised my new deodorant has aluminium in it. Does that make me autistic?

Nah. It's the chemtrails that are making you autistic.

Igotadose · 15-03-2019 10:03am

Measles diagnoses for 77 people now in Washington state; https://www.oregonlive.com/clark-county/2019/03/measles-outbreak-vancouver-area-epidemic-grows-to-77-confirmed-cases.html

At least 228 US-wide this year (it's only March) in the US. 12 states affected: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/12/health/228-measles-cases-nationwide-cdc/index.html

Make sure your kids are up to date if you travel to the US. It's an airborne virus and can live on airplanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1477893912001202

85 last year in Ireland: https://www.thejournal.ie/measles-ireland-4350055-Dec2018/. Can't find current data, there was an outbreak in Donegal reported in February.

Mike Oxlong · 15-03-2019 7:34pm

https://www.unilad.co.uk/health/anti-vax-parents-sue-to-keep-unvaccinated-kids-in-school-during-measles-outbreak/

I don't always trust unilad.. but this checks out

banie01 · 15-03-2019 7:48pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do you suffer a lot from rust under your arms?

No but...

Gingers do

iamwhoiam · 15-03-2019 9:02pm

Mike Oxlong wrote: »

https://www.unilad.co.uk/health/anti-vax-parents-sue-to-keep-unvaccinated-kids-in-school-during-measles-outbreak/

I don't always trust unilad.. but this checks out

My god one quoted as saying

"Preventing my child from being with his class, his teacher, his classroom has had a significant social and psychological impact."

Has she any idea of the real impact measles could have on her son ? These people make me furious

Paddy Cow · 15-03-2019 11:54pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

My god one quoted as saying

"Preventing my child from being with his class, his teacher, his classroom has had a significant social and psychological impact."

Has she any idea of the real impact measles could have on her son ? These people make me furious

It's not everyone else preventing her son from going to school, it's a direct result of her choice. She can't have it both ways. If she doesn't want to vaccinate her child, then she can home school him. Other people and their kids shouldn't be put at risk because of her misguided beliefs. The only acceptable reason for not vaccinating a child is if there is a medical reason.

waxmoth · 17-03-2019 12:24pm

mzungu wrote: »

Aluminum adjuvanted vaccines are subunit so they would be ineffective without the adjuvant.

That is my point. If the adjuvant has an effect and is a component of the tested drug then only an inert placebo will (in sufficiently powered trials) show the true risk.

mzungu wrote: »

The studies show that in cases where it is ethical and logistical to use saline placebos in trials, they have been used.

There is no logistical difference between injecting a saline solution and an adjuvant component. In practice using adjuvant components as placebo masks adjuvant specific side effects .

mzungu wrote: »

If you are looking for studies with more participants that used a placebo then the clinical trials for Gardasil would be what you are looking for. Most of the study participants received the aluminium adjuvant except one (protocol 18) that was conducted on girls and boys aged 9-15 years old. The placebo used was a saline solution. 1184 were randomised to receive the vaccine and 596 randomised to receive the saline solution placebo.

In that trial there were 5 serious adverse events in the vaccine arm shortly after 1st or 2nd dose (max 11 days) and none in the saline arm.

Overall, 5 serious adverse experiences were reported through month 18, all of which occurred among the quadrivalent HPV vaccine recipients.

jh79 · 17-03-2019 1:17pm

waxmoth wrote: »

That is my point. If the adjuvant has an effect and is a component of the tested drug then only an inert placebo will (in sufficiently powered trials) show the true risk.

There is no logistical difference between injecting a saline solution and an adjuvant component. In practice using adjuvant components as placebo masks adjuvant specific side effects .

In that trial there were 5 serious adverse events in the vaccine arm shortly after 1st or 2nd dose (max 11 days) and none in the saline arm.

I take it the adjuvant makes the vaccine more effective, so were these adverse effects serious enough to warrant the use of a less effective non-adjuvant containing vaccine?

Studies have shown no long term difference in adverse effecrs between adjuvant and non adjuvant containing vaccines.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272

sullivlo · 17-03-2019 6:23pm

jh79 wrote: »

I take it the adjuvant makes the vaccine more effective, so were these adverse effects serious enough to warrant the use of a less effective non-adjuvant containing vaccine?

Studies have shown no long term difference in adverse effecrs between adjuvant and non adjuvant containing vaccines.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272

What can change is efficacy of the vaccine. Some vaccines need adjuvants to initiate the initial immune response. New vaccine research is focusing on self-adjuvanting vaccines.

mzungu · 17-03-2019 7:20pm

waxmoth wrote: »

That is my point. If the adjuvant has an effect and is a component of the tested drug then only an inert placebo will (in sufficiently powered trials) show the true risk.

There is no logistical difference between injecting a saline solution and an adjuvant component. In practice using adjuvant components as placebo masks adjuvant specific side effects .

It has been outlined previously why trials use adjuvants and why it is ethical and above board. In fact it would be unethical not to administer them to participants during trials.

Bearing in mind that nothing is 100% safe, what risk are you referring to and why hasn't anything major reared its head over the past seven decades?

waxmoth wrote: »

In that trial there were 5 serious adverse events in the vaccine arm shortly after 1st or 2nd dose (max 11 days) and none in the saline arm.

The serious events were bronchospasm, gastroenteritis, headache, vaginal haemorrhage and severe site reaction. These events occurred in 0.1% (1/1000) of participants. A minuscule amount.

Incidentally, two serious events were also recorded among participants in the placebo group.

Some might have possibly been caused by the vaccine, others probably and others definitely. A very small figure either way. Nothing is 100% safe and some peoples systems will not react well to it. It is a small risk to take for non-life-threatening events that might occur. The fallout from HPV puts all those recorded side effects into perspective. The events in Ireland over the past 12 months should attest to that.

Gardasil was approved for use and it passed the rigorous testing procedures.

jh79 wrote: »

so were these adverse effects serious enough to warrant the use of a less effective non-adjuvant containing vaccine?

See above.

waxmoth · 18-03-2019 3:53pm

jh79 wrote: »

I take it the adjuvant makes the vaccine more effective, so were these adverse effects serious enough to warrant the use of a less effective non-adjuvant containing vaccine?

It does, but it also can very effectively adjuvant a self antigen in a subset of people which seems to be what causes the majority of debilitating autoimmune side effects. So vaccines should be then used more sparingly where there is no alternative, and the risk profile and safety measures independently ascertained.

As it is vaccines are being produced by commercial entities with questionable safety regulation who then lobby for their introduction into state health systems. The recent introduction of the HPV vaccine for boys here is an example of this – Gardasil 9 with double the amount of aluminium adjuvant compared to the current quadrivalent version and what looks very like a dose response increase in serious adverse events in a trial comparing 9 valent to 4 valent (3.3% vs 2.6% in a selected population)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1405044

jh79 wrote: »

Studies have shown no long term difference in adverse effecrs between adjuvant and non adjuvant containing vaccines.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309904009272

They acknowledge in the paper that evidence is insufficient and then go on to suggest no further study is necessary - sounds unscientific?.

Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.
...
Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low. Few reports gave details of the randomisation process, allocation concealment, reasons for withdrawals, or strategies to deal with them in analysis. Inconsistencies in reporting, lack of clarity on numerators and denominators, variability of outcome definitions, and lack of outcome definitions led to much loss of data

.

mzungu wrote: »

The serious events were bronchospasm, gastroenteritis, headache, vaginal haemorrhage and severe site reaction. These events occurred in 0.1% (1/1000) of participants. A minuscule amount.

From the paper describing the five SAE’s in the vaccine arm.

Two of these serious adverse experiences occurred 6 days and 2 days, respectively, after the first injection: acute renal failure (subject recovered and discontinued from study); and insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Three occurred 2 days, 11 days and 3 days, respectively, after the second injection: localized infection; anemia and dysfunctional uterine bleeding; and appendicitis.

mzungu wrote: »

Some might have possibly been caused by the vaccine, others probably and others definitely. A very small figure either way. Nothing is 100% safe and some peoples systems will not react well to it. It is a small risk to take for non-life-threatening events that might occur.

Risk is fine as long as those taking the risk are aware and take that risk without coercion. The current situation is health providers are not advising of risk, not making a thorough effort to screen potential susceptibles and, generally, efforts are being made to stigmatise/penalise those who do not want to take the risk.

batgoat · 18-03-2019 4:01pm

Love it with antivaxxers fake being scientific.

jh79 · 18-03-2019 6:01pm

waxmoth wrote: »

They acknowledge in the paper that evidence is insufficient and then go on to suggest no further study is necessary - sounds unscientific.

We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.

Not sure where you got insufficient from.

Unscientific would be to continue to research a theory that has no evidence to support it. The quality of the evidence would only be signifcant if there were adverse events and a figure with a good degree of confidence was needed. "Good" is not meant in the normal way it's a grading term for trials.

By the way how can you support medical marijuana with its poor quality research and modest benefits yet be against well researched vaccines that have literally saved millions upon millions of lives?

mzungu · 18-03-2019 6:21pm

waxmoth wrote: »

mzungu wrote:

The serious events were bronchospasm, gastroenteritis, headache, vaginal haemorrhage and severe site reaction. These events occurred in 0.1% (1/1000) of participants. A minuscule amount.

From the paper describing the five SAE’s in the vaccine arm.

Two of these serious adverse experiences occurred 6 days and 2 days, respectively, after the first injection: acute renal failure (subject recovered and discontinued from study); and insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Three occurred 2 days, 11 days and 3 days, respectively, after the second injection: localized infection; anemia and dysfunctional uterine bleeding; and appendicitis.

Those are not related to the vaccine. So just for clarification, this is also from that same study that you quoted above....

Overall, 5 serious adverse experiences were reported through month 18, all of which occurred among the quadrivalent HPV vaccine recipients. None of these serious adverse experiences was judged by the investigator to be vaccine related.

I have bolded the appropriate line. Those adverse experiences were not vaccine related. So there is nothing to worry about there.

waxmoth wrote: »

Risk is fine as long as those taking the risk are aware and take that risk without coercion. The current situation is health providers are not advising of risk, not making a thorough effort to screen potential susceptibles and, generally...

Who is being coerced, though? Health care providers do advise of any potential risks, minuscule as they are. Efforts have always been made to identify where there might be a risk, and the oodles of clinical trials and studies that have been carried out attest to that. The one thing you will always hear, when the question arises, is that vaccines, like everything else, are not 100% safe. Everybody knows this. Everybody accepts this. On websites for vaccinations they also mention the possible side effects, so it is not a case of it being brushed under the carpet. It's out there in the open.

waxmoth wrote: »

.... efforts are being made to stigmatise/penalise those who do not want to take the risk.

These people that wish to avoid the risk, if they want to be consistent, should also never drive, cross the road, go for a swim or play any kind of sport etc as there is probably more chance of coming to harm via those everyday activities.

I also do not believe that those same people are being stigmatised or penalised. They are, however, being asked to view their decision through a more objective lens. The media has now copped on and stopped giving equal airtime to the anti-vaxx campaigners, ditto social media. This is only fair because the weight of evidence is against them.

Furthermore, when you have the likes of measles outbreaks, it can pose a health risk to both young and old that have weakened immune systems arising from other illnesses. People don't like seeing the vulnerable being put in harms way for no good reason. It's a natural human reaction to be annoyed at selfishness that endangers others. People that don't vaccinate their children made that choice. They might feel like they are being stigmatised, but its more a case of nobody wanting to appease bunk anti-vaxx ideology anymore. The consequences of indulging it are far too serious. People that decide not to vaccinate are not the victims here.

If anything, I believe anti-vaxxers are, by and large, treated with the kid gloves.

Beta Ray Bill · 19-03-2019 1:47pm

More cases of mumps so far in 2019 than all of last year

There have been more cases of mumps in the first 11 weeks of 2019, than all of last year.
The latest weekly report from the HSE has found there's been 593 cases of mumps so far.

Breakdown:

East Region - 204
Midlands - 21
Mid-Western - 47
North Eastern - 117
North Western - 66
South Eastern - 26
Southern - 16
Western - 96

My understanding is that the Mumps is very contagious.

Anti Vaxxers are putting people in danger at this stage.

banie01 · 19-03-2019 6:10pm

The latest tactic from virulent(ironically) AntiVaxxers!
To harass and attack bereaved parents and treat them as if they are "crisis actors"!
This is the same type of BS that conspiracy theorists tried to peddle about Sandy Hook and other mass shootings!
The angle now is that the bereaved are lying to support the Big Pharma and Government vaccine conspiracies!

Absolute and utter fúcking scumbags!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/health/anti-vax-harassment-eprise/index.html

mulbot · 19-03-2019 6:33pm

grahambo wrote: »

More cases of mumps so far in 2019 than all of last year

There have been more cases of mumps in the first 11 weeks of 2019, than all of last year.
The latest weekly report from the HSE has found there's been 593 cases of mumps so far.

Breakdown:

My understanding is that the Mumps is very contagious.

Anti Vaxxers are putting people in danger at this stage.

Why such a high number of cases in the 15-24 Yr old?

mzungu · 19-03-2019 6:41pm

mulbot wrote: »

Why such a high number of cases in the 15-24 Yr old?

That age group coincides with the fraud Andrew Wakefields bogus findings of a link between vaccines and autism. At the time it caused a big scare, parents stopped getting vaccines and now we are seeing the results of that.

banie01 · 19-03-2019 6:43pm

mulbot wrote: »

Why such a high number of cases in the 15-24 Yr old?

Would tie in quite well with the 1st wave of vaccine refusals post the publication of Wakefield's fraudulent study in '98.
The panic induced in a lot of parents at the time led to a lot of skipped MMR jabs.

sullivlo · 19-03-2019 7:01pm

mulbot wrote: »

Why such a high number of cases in the 15-24 Yr old?

Spread through kissing.

Martina1991 · 19-03-2019 7:14pm

mulbot wrote:

Why such a high number of cases in the 15-24 Yr old?

Mumps is nicknamed the kissing disease.

It'd spread like wildfire at a teenage disco.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments