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…158159161163164…199

Comments

  • Options
    #4802
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,070 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Vaxtard because they question authority ?
    They question science and mathematics with bluster as evidence


  • Options
    #4803
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,070 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    It no secret that there is a revolving door between pharma companies and the FDA.


    The FDA doesn't even think US citizens should be allowed to import drugs from Canada because of "safety".
    Waffle aside, have you an actual source for that quote or not?


  • Options
    #4804
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you know there are other drug regulators apart from the FDA? are the all in cahoots with Big Pharma?




    The FDA is the most important one.


    Here and in other countries the regulators get funding from pharma companies.


  • Options
    #4805
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Waffle aside, have you an actual source for that quote or not?




    Yes Merck CEO Ken Frazier.





  • Options
    #4806
    rawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Apart from a meme on the interweb, are there any actual sources for this quote so we have some context?

    Context here

    https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/14/archives/demoralized-fda-struggles-to-cope-some-top-jobs-remain-unfilled-at.html

    I fail to see why a quote from 1969 has any relevence to vaccinies today?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4807
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Vaxtard because they question authority ?


    I think each Vaccine should be taking on a case by case basis and the benefits and risks carefully weighed up.

    They are. The research shows the benefits outweigh the risks. That's how it's already done.

    But you seem to believe that we should automatically take whatever vaccine the "experts" tell us too because they are right 100% of the time:rolleyes:

    You understand the system of peer review? I do, that's what I trust. Not what some expert says.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #4808
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,078 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Vaxtard because they question authority ?
    No, because they lie, like your Herbert Ley image. He only said part of that quote.

    I think each Vaccine should be taking on a case by case basis and the benefits and risks carefully weighed up.
    This has been explained to you at length. This happens - perhaps not the way YOU want it to happen, but that doesn't really matter

    But you seem to believe that we should automatically take whatever vaccine the "experts" tell us too because they are right 100% of the time:rolleyes:

    No, I think YOU are a vaxtard, just randomly dumping links from anti-vax sites.


  • Options
    #4809
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    rawn wrote: »
    Context here

    https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/14/archives/demoralized-fda-struggles-to-cope-some-top-jobs-remain-unfilled-at.html

    I fail to see why a quote from 1969 has any relevence to vaccinies today?




    Its not about Vaccines per say but the regulators.


    If you think the FDAs only concern is to look out for the consumer you are sadly mistaken.


  • Options
    #4810
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    Brian? wrote: »
    They are. The research shows the benefits outweigh the risks. That's how it's already done.



    You can't make a blanket statement like that each vaccine has it own pros and cons.



    You understand the system of peer review? I do, that's what I trust. Not what some expert says.


    Yeah and its never wrong just look at Vioxx.


    Also I would only take a peer review author seriously if they have no competing interests.


  • Options
    #4811
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,690 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Its not about Vaccines per say but the regulators.

    If you think the FDAs only concern is to look out for the consumer you are sadly mistaken.

    Em... This is an Irish forum.
    Big Gerry wrote: »
    You can't make a blanket statement like that each vaccine has it own pros and cons.

    Why not actually provide an argument instead of insipid antivaxxer aphorisms such as the above.
    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Yeah and its never wrong just look at Vioxx.

    Do you know what happened with Vioxx or are you just putting in the absolute minimum of effort here?
    Big Gerry wrote: »
    YAlso I would only take a peer review author seriously if they have no competing interests.

    And yet millionaire antivaxxers are to be treated as infallible.

    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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4812
    paul71
    Registered Users Posts: 3,160 ✭✭✭paul71


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    By "anti vaxxer" do you mean people who question vaccine safety ?


    Yes the idiots who decide unproven safety issues are more important than the proven fact that vaccines save hundreds of millions of lives.


  • Options
    #4813
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Em... This is an Irish forum.



    Why not actually provide an argument instead of insipid antivaxxer aphorisms such as the above.



    Do you know what happened with Vioxx or are you just putting in the absolute minimum of effort here?



    And yet millionaire antivaxxers are to be treated as infallible.




    Who said I oppose vaccines.


    All I see is "antivaxxer" this and "antivaxxer" that.


    Its like calling someone a "racist" in order to shut down any legitimate concerns.


    When you have to call people names you have no real argument.


  • Options
    #4814
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Em... This is an Irish forum.




    Most Vaccines etc first have to be "FDA approved" before they make it on to world market.


    Also regulatory authorities around the world take their lead from the FDA.


  • Options
    #4815
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,690 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Most Vaccines etc first have to be "FDA approved" before they make it on to world market.


    Also regulatory authorities around the world take their lead from the FDA.

    Do you have sources for both of these claims?

    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
    #4816
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Most Vaccines etc first have to be "FDA approved" before they make it on to world market.


    Also regulatory authorities around the world take their lead from the FDA.

    Vaccines or any medicine for that matter do not have to be approved first in the US. You only need approval in the country you intend to sell in.

    Some countries automatically give approval if FDA approval is in place (Canada i think). There isn't harmonisation of regulatory requirements for drug approval across the world yet but it is an aim of the industry and hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.


  • Options
    #4817
    paul71
    Registered Users Posts: 3,160 ✭✭✭paul71


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Most Vaccines etc first have to be "FDA approved" before they make it on to world market.


    Also regulatory authorities around the world take their lead from the FDA.

    No they don't. the European Medicine's Agency, the Chinese, and Russian are entirely independant of the FDA and conduct their own reviews by their own staff with NO input from the FDA.


  • Options
    #4818
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    jh79 wrote: »
    Vaccines or any medicine for that matter do not have to be approved first in the US. You only need approval in the country you intend to sell in.

    Some countries automatically give approval if FDA approval is in place (Canada i think). There isn't harmonisation of regulatory requirements for drug approval across the world yet but it is an aim of the industry and hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.




    I never said they did just that FDA is the most important regulatory agency in the world.


    And that most medical products success rests on "FDA approval".


  • Options
    #4819
    mountai
    Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭mountai


    Big Jerry , when you get the " Medical Stormtroopers " on these pages supporting comments such as this ,


    "Just posting in this thread again to say fucck anti-vaxxers "

    Then you know the mentality that you are dealing with .


  • Options
    #4820
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mountai wrote: »
    Big Jerry , when you get the " Medical Stormtroopers " on these pages supporting comments such as this ,


    "Just posting in this thread again to say fucck anti-vaxxers "

    Then you know the mentality that you are dealing with .

    Jerry arrived in and started posting out of context quotes that weren't even accurate...


  • Options
    #4821
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,545 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Vaxtard because they question authority ?
    There is questioning and then there is taking an anti approach and refusing to budge even when facts are presented.
    I think each Vaccine should be taking on a case by case basis and the benefits and risks carefully weighed up.
    You will be glad to hear that they are.
    But you seem to believe that we should automatically take whatever vaccine the "experts" tell us too because they are right 100% of the time:rolleyes:
    Who should we believe then, the peer reviewed papers, the hundreds if not thousands of scientists involved in their producrion, the studies that are open to review (one case I know of where data was covered over and this was found out in after market surveillance, (not Vioxx by the way)because even when someone circumvents the system, it still works thanks to checks and balances). Your saying every one of these people is in on it and Mary form Dublin 4 who recently had a revelation after youtube brought her to a carefully edited youtube videos
    Big Gerry wrote: »
    You can't make a blanket statement like that each vaccine has it own pros and cons.
    Yes you can, it is factual although misleading as to get to market, the pros must outweight the cons significantly.
    Yeah and its never wrong just look at Vioxx.
    Notihng is "never wrong", Vioxx was a confounding effort to f*ck up, again and again. It took longer than it should but the system worked, even if it was delayed.
    Also I would only take a peer review author seriously if they have no competing interests.
    A peer reviewer author would be unlikely ot have their paper published if they do, most journals will refuse, others will take the potential bias into account.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4822
    TheRepentent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭TheRepentent


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Jerry arrived in and started posting out of context quotes that weren't even accurate...
    You'll get the same crap of Mountai .

    They're called vaxtards for a reason.

    Wanna support genocide?Cheer on the murder of women and children?The Ruzzians aren't rapey enough for you? Morally bankrupt cockroaches and islamaphobes , Israel needs your help NOW!!

    http://tinyurl.com/2ksb4ejk


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes

    https://www.btselem.org/



  • Options
    #4823
    paul71
    Registered Users Posts: 3,160 ✭✭✭paul71


    mountai wrote: »
    Big Jerry , when you get the " Medical Stormtroopers " on these pages supporting comments such as this ,


    "Just posting in this thread again to say fucck anti-vaxxers "

    Then you know the mentality that you are dealing with .

    The committed anti-vaxer is back spouting rubbish again. As I stated before a medical storm-trooper is someone with an education beyond the book of genesis. The simple fact is YOU are alive today because at least one of your ancestors had their life saved by a vaccine as with everyone who has posted on this thread.


  • Options
    #4824
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    "regulators" lol as if they are not compromised or have competing interests.

    I didn't expect anything but a lazy generalisation and appeal to motive


  • Options
    #4825
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    CramCycle wrote: »
    There is questioning and then there is taking an anti approach and refusing to budge even when facts are presented.

    You will be glad to hear that they are.

    Who should we believe then, the peer reviewed papers, the hundreds if not thousands of scientists involved in their producrion, the studies that are open to review (one case I know of where data was covered over and this was found out in after market surveillance, (not Vioxx by the way)because even when someone circumvents the system, it still works thanks to checks and balances). Your saying every one of these people is in on it and Mary form Dublin 4 who recently had a revelation after youtube brought her to a carefully edited youtube videos

    Yes you can, it is factual although misleading as to get to market, the pros must outweight the cons significantly.

    Notihng is "never wrong", Vioxx was a confounding effort to f*ck up, again and again. It took longer than it should but the system worked, even if it was delayed.

    A peer reviewer author would be unlikely ot have their paper published if they do, most journals will refuse, others will take the potential bias into account.


    Sorry but that's complete nonsense its very hard to find a peer review paper in the US were the Doctors don't have a financial relationship with at least one pharmaceutical companies.


    Vioxx was not a "f**k up" it was corporate manslaughter on a massive scale.


    Merck should no longer even exist after that horrific scandal.


    I would question the integrity of Doctors who have any connection with that company.


  • Options
    #4826
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    I never said they did just that FDA is the most important regulatory agency in the world.


    And that most medical products success rests on "FDA approval".

    The most important is whichever has the best market for your product.


  • Options
    #4827
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,690 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Big Gerry wrote: »
    Sorry but that's complete nonsense its very hard to find a peer review paper in the US were the Doctors don't have a financial relationship with at least one pharmaceutical companies.

    No, it isn't.
    Big Gerry wrote: »
    I would question the integrity of Doctors who had any connection with that company.

    Not all Doctors are connected to Merck.

    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
    #4828
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    They'll be first in line when a Covid-19 vaccine comes out. There isn't going to be much patience for their denial and woo after this.


  • Options
    #4829
    Big Gerry
    Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    No, it isn't.



    Not all Doctors are connected to Merck.




    I happen to have read a few papers in my time and I was blinded by the amount of connections Doctors had to the drug companies.


    One Doctor who over saw a study had got 50k dollars just from one pharmaceutical company.


    But I'm sure hes 100% impartial:rolleyes:


    I never said all Doctors were connected to Merck.


    But I see Merck's name come up a lot when I look at "declared payments" to some US Doctors who were in charge of certain studies.


  • Options
    #4830
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    Thousands of doctors and medical scientists are involved a vast global conspiracy to conceal the dangers of vaccines and not one whistle-blower yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4831
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    The "vaxtards" work on a variation of the premise the IRA used to put forward.

    "Vaccines need to be 100% safe and successful every time, we only need one that isn't to look like we're right"


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement