MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 01:10PM

javaboy wrote: »

*sometimes it's subconscious or accidental though so I wouldn't necessarily say there was any malicious intent on his part.

That happens, but not that often. I'm hoping its true though, because a wanton disregard for the health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of children is nothing short of sociopathic.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 01:40PM

seamus wrote: »

If there were actual questions about the safety of the MMR jab in relation to autism, then I would support the idea that "right-thinking" parents would avoid getting it to be on the safe side. But there are no doubts, no links, no risks. None whatsoever.

As a parent, I don't agree with you and I'll play it safe by getting single vaccinations for my kids, which I've already done. I distrust the government, the HSE, the scientists involved and the drug companies behind them all.
I know I'm wrong but I will not put the life of my kids in the hands of complete and utter morons in the HSE and the government and I will play it safe as I have done and gone for the alternative vaccination programme, at a high financial cost to me personally but at least my mind is at ease in that regards. My choice and nice that the choice was there. If the HSE/Government had their way, we wouldn't even have the choice of getting our kids privately vaccinated and would've had to travel to the UK for it (which we were more than prepared to do at the time).

The_Minister · 10-02-2009 01:45PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Sure thing but in the interests of national health, it would be better at this stage to introduce single vaccinations as an option/alternative, maybe for a modest fee. So those parents who probably always will have doubts, can at least vaccinate their children.

At a huge and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer.

The Real B-man · 10-02-2009 01:46PM

Anyone who thinks MMR Vaccine leads to Autism is retarded you are born with it you cant get it although it may take time for the signs of it to be noticeable there’s kids going around with MMR and everything cause there parents didn’t get them vaccinated!

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 01:47PM

astrofool wrote: »

If someone is stupid enough to believe that the MMR shot causes autism despite no evidence at all to support it, then I firmly believe that removing money from that person is a good thing, the more money the better.

You can do a lot of good things for a childs life with €700, let alone finding a worthy charity for it, where you could save multiple lives.

Well, if ever in the future you can muster up the sperm count to have children of your own, come back and let us know how you got them the MMR and how you were not worried one single bit about them getting Autism afterwards.
God forbid they actually did get Autism, as the burden of their infliction would forever be on your shoulders as you as a parent had a choice of spending the money to get them single vaccinations but instead gave the money to the cats and dogs home and saved a few puppies instead.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 01:48PM

The Real B-man wrote: »

Anyone who thinks MMR Vaccine leads to Autism is retarded you are born with it you cant get it although it may take time for the signs of it to be noticeable there’s kids going around with MMR and everything cause there parents didn’t get them vaccinated!

You have the nerve to call other people "retarded" ?

:rolleyes:

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 01:49PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

As a parent, I don't agree with you and I'll play it safe by getting single vaccinations for my kids, which I've already done. I distrust the government, the HSE, the scientists involved and the drug companies behind them all.
I know I'm wrong but I will not put the life of my kids in the hands of complete and utter morons in the HSE and the government and I will play it safe as I have done and gone for the alternative vaccination programme, at a high financial cost to me personally but at least my mind is at ease in that regards. My choice and nice that the choice was there. If the HSE/Government had their way, we wouldn't even have the choice of getting our kids privately vaccinated and would've had to travel to the UK for it (which we were more than prepared to do at the time).

I think this shows the real harm Wakefield has caused, people who insist on not using the triple vaccine, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of its safety and efficacy. Its irrational.

The single vaccines are too expensive for the taxpayer to cough up for, because some parents refuse to be reassured.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 01:51PM

The_Minister wrote: »

At a huge and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer.

That sounds like what Harney said about the Cervical cancer vaccination programme for children when she denied it funding...

So we have a choice, force the MMR vaccination on to parents because we aren't prepared to fund single vaccinations (or even part fund them as a choice) or suffer the way we are with a huge amount of children completely unvaccinated in any way whatsoever.

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 01:52PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

That sounds like what Harney said about the Cervical cancer vaccination programme for children when she denied it funding...

So we have a choice, force the MMR vaccination on to parents because we aren't prepared to fund single vaccinations (or even part fund them as a choice) or suffer the way we are with a huge amount of children completely unvaccinated in any way whatsoever.

There is absolutely no benefit in single vaccines. There is immeasureable benefit in cervical cancer vaccines.

Big difference, no comparison, irrational argument.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 01:53PM

allabouteve wrote: »

The single vaccines are too expensive for the taxpayer to cough up for, because some parents refuse to be reassured.

They are not expensive, the only reason we had to pay what we did for them is because they doctors had to travel over from the UK every few weeks for their clinic in a central Dublin location, along with getting approved here plus all the legal costs and insurance costs they had with all of that.
The vaccinations themselves costed under 10 Euro each.

Padraig Mor · 10-02-2009 01:55PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

complete and utter morons in the HSE ).

Kind of ironic thing for someone who ignores all the MMR evidence to accuse other people of......

BTW the HSE doesn't want to use single jabs because people are far more likely not to complete the full course due to number of jabs involved - people will forget etc.

astrofool · 10-02-2009 01:58PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Well, if ever in the future you can muster up the sperm count to have children of your own, come back and let us know how you got them the MMR and how you were not worried one single bit about them getting Autism afterwards.
God forbid they actually did get Autism, as the burden of their infliction would forever be on your shoulders as you as a parent had a choice of spending the money to get them single vaccinations but instead gave the money to the cats and dogs home and saved a few puppies instead.

Had the MMR, not one bit worried.

Your fear is completely irrational, one can only hope that your children don't inherit that.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 01:58PM

allabouteve wrote: »

There is absolutely no benefit in single vaccines. There is immeasureable benefit in cervical cancer vaccines.

There is absolutely no beneift to combined vaccines over single vaccines other than cost benefits for the respective health boards, drug companies and I suppose other vested interests.

Big difference, no comparison, irrational argument.

I'm not arguing though...so go tell it to Harney, she might listen to you...

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 02:00PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

They are not expensive, the only reason we had to pay what we did for them is because they doctors had to travel over from the UK every few weeks for their clinic in a central Dublin location, along with getting approved here plus all the legal costs and insurance costs they had with all of that.
The vaccinations themselves costed under 10 Euro each.

I believe the triple vaccine costs about half that, but I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. It adds up, and to expect others to fund reluctant parents paranoia is nothing short of selfish. The evidence is there that its effective and safe , and if I ever squeeze out a humanoid, they'll be getting one jab, not three.

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 02:06PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

There is absolutely no beneift to combined vaccines over single vaccines other than cost benefits for the respective health boards, drug companies and I suppose other vested interests.

I'm not arguing though...so go tell it to Harney, she might listen to you...

You're the one who tried to make comparisons between MMR and CC vaccine programmes, not me.

The health board is not a ''vested interest'' the taxpayer is. No evidence exists that shows the more expensive, time consuming, less sucessful single vaccines are in any way a better option than the triple.

They are less sucessful, because as already said, its more likely that the course will not be completed.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 02:08PM

Well, all you non parents out there are having a field day with this one but not one of you have addressed the fact that *regardless* of how crap Wakefields report was, a lot of parents will STILL NOT TAKE THE RISK of getting the MMR jab.

So, come back to what I've said, we have a choice, either ignore them and let children continue being unvaccinated OR we introduce single vaccinations.

But no, it again comes down to cost. So your arguments go out the window as meaning nothing because you refuse to look at the alternatives as they are deemed "too expensive" in which case it's nothing about saving children and vaccinating them against Measles, Mumps and Rubella but more about saving costs and/or pushing vested interests in the drug companies selling the MMR.

1) Spend billions on PR exercises telling everyone how the MMR doesn't cause autism and how you "think" it might be casued by genetical defects or whatever... Cost = 7.9 billion or some other stupid figure.

2) Ignore it all and rabble rabble rabble for days on end about it, blah blah blah... Cost probably 3 million keybaord worn out by keyboard warriors.

3) Initiate single vaccination programme, part funded by the government in the absolute interests of ensuring more children are actually vaccinated, thusly solving the problem. Cost probably 100 million.

Option 3 is the easiest, cheapest and best serving solution that is immediately possible.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 02:10PM

astrofool wrote: »

Had the MMR, not one bit worried.

Your fear is completely irrational, one can only hope that your children don't inherit that.

I had the MMR too, not the point...

"Well, if ever in the future you can muster up the sperm count to have children of your own, come back and let us know how you got them the MMR and how you were not worried one single bit about them getting Autism afterwards.
God forbid they actually did get Autism, as the burden of their infliction would forever be on your shoulders as you as a parent had a choice of spending the money to get them single vaccinations but instead gave the money to the cats and dogs home and saved a few puppies instead."

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 02:13PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Well, all you non parents out there are having a field day with this one but not one of you have addressed the fact that *regardless* of how crap Wakefields report was, a lot of parents will STILL NOT TAKE THE RISK of getting the MMR jab.

So, come back to what I've said, we have a choice, either ignore them and let children continue being unvaccinated OR we introduce single vaccinations.

But no, it again comes down to cost. So your arguments go out the window as meaning nothing because you refuse to look at the alternatives as they are deemed "too expensive" in which case it's nothing about saving children and vaccinating them against Measles, Mumps and Rubella but more about saving costs and/or pushing vested interests in the drug companies selling the MMR.

1) Spend billions on PR exercises telling everyone how the MMR doesn't cause autism and how you "think" it might be casued by genetical defects or whatever... Cost = 7.9 billion or some other stupid figure.

2) Ignore it all and rabble rabble rabble for days on end about it, blah blah blah... Cost probably 3 million keybaord worn out by keyboard warriors.

3) Initiate single vaccination programme, part funded by the government in the absolute interests of ensuring more children are actually vaccinated, thusly solving the problem. Cost probably 100 million.

Option 3 is the easiest, cheapest and best serving solution that is immediately possible.

1. There is no risk with the MMR jab.
2. Sure if you're paranoid enough, and refuse to consider the huge evidence in favour of the jab, go ahead, exercise your options and get the single jabs seperately. At your own expense.
3. Yes, the alternatives are too expensive considering they are no better and are certainly no worse than the Triple Vaccine. See 1.
4. Paranoia does not save children from Autism.
5. Single vaccine programmes are expensive, unneeded, and less likely to provide protection to the children they aim to serve.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 02:16PM

allabouteve wrote: »

You're the one who tried to make comparisons between MMR and CC vaccine programmes, not me.

Eh..no I didn't !?? Stop making stuff up so you can "argue".
I made a comparison between a response and that said by Harney in her refusal to fund the cervical cancer vaccination programme.

The health board is not a ''vested interest'' the taxpayer is. No evidence exists that shows the more expensive, time consuming, less sucessful single vaccines are in any way a better option than the triple.
They are less sucessful, because as already said, its more likely that the course will not be completed.

The Health board in this country is an absolute joke, I cannot believe a single person in this country with no vested interests would ever even try to defend them :rolleyes:
The argument put forward, as always is the case, of "the single vaccine course not being completed" has no evidence to back it up and is purely hearsay and conjecture, a weak argument to justify the typical "can't be arsed doing some actual work" mentality of those few within the medical profession who usually come out so (worryingly) strongly against single vaccinations. Again, vested interests by drugs companies comes to mind...

seamus · 10-02-2009 02:18PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

"God forbid they actually did get Autism, as the burden of their infliction would forever be on your shoulders as you as a parent had a choice of spending the money to get them single vaccinations but instead gave the money to the cats and dogs home and saved a few puppies instead."

You see, this is the point. It would never be on your shoulders, ever. If the child is to develop autism it will develop autism whether or not you vaccinate them and regardless of what type of vaccination you get.

thebigcheese22 · 10-02-2009 02:18PM

It sickens me that people in the public eye like Kathy Sinnott are so irresponsible and reckless that they advise parents not to give these vaccinations. They are the equivlent of ****ing murderers if kids die because of it :mad:

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 02:22PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Eh..no I didn't !?? Stop making stuff up so you can "argue".
I made a comparison between a response and that said by Harney in her refusal to fund the cervical cancer vaccination programme.

The Health board in this country is an absolute joke, I cannot believe a single person in this country with no vested interests would ever even try to defend them :rolleyes:
The argument put forward, as always is the case, of "the single vaccine course not being completed" has no evidence to back it up and is purely heresay and conjecture, a weak argument to justify the typical "can't be arsed doing some actual work" mentality of those few within the medical profession who usually come out so (worryingly) strongly against single vaccinations. Again, vested interests by drugs companies comes to mind...

You opinion is your opinion.

But there is no evidence to back up your position of superior safety of single vaccines, that the health boards are too lazy to care about the health of those they are charged with serving, that the drug companies are trying to push a single triple jab instead of what would surely be a more lucrative three, that there is a huge conspiracy to overlook the ''risks'' to thousands of children, and that everybody just wants to save money in spite of ''knowing'' a better way.

The reason those within the medical profession came out against the single jab option is not because they have some sinister agenda to endanger children, its because its the lesser option. But if you want to take it, go ahead.

Have your single jabs by all means, but pay for it yourself if you can't bring yourself to trust the evidence.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 02:26PM

allabouteve wrote: »

1. There is no risk with the MMR jab.
2. Sure if you're paranoid enough, and refuse to consider the huge evidence in favour of the jab, go ahead, exercise your options and get the single jabs seperately. At your own expense.
3. Yes, the alternatives are too expensive considering they are no better and are certainly no worse than the Triple Vaccine. See 1.
4. Paranoia does not save children from Autism.
5. Single vaccine programmes are expensive, unneeded, and less likely to provide protection to the children they aim to serve.

10 Euro per vaccine x 3 Vaccines x possible two boosters each = 90 euro per child to possibly save their lives. Not a lot to ask for. Even if it wasn't funded but the single vaccines were actually ALLOWED to be administered in Ireland by Irish doctors - at the very very least that would go some way to help vaccinate children whose parents do not trust the government, do not trust the scientists (after all it was the scientists in the first plece who backed wakefields report) and do not nor probably ever will, ever ever ever, trust the totally incompetant and overpaid HSE.

allabouteve · 10-02-2009 02:33PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

10 Even if it wasn't funded but the single vaccines were actually ALLOWED to be administered in Ireland by Irish doctors - at the very very least that would go some way to help vaccinate children whose parents do not trust the government, do not trust the scientists (after all it was the scientists in the first plece who backed wakefields report) and do not nor probably ever will, ever ever ever, trust the totally incompetant and overpaid HSE.

1. Its not a government conspiracy.

2. The medical establishment always voiced doubts about Wakefields findings. Not backed them. The media ran with the supposed findings and created a ''no smoke without fire'' situation that some, you included, still subscribe to.

3. Try living in a country with no free health services, the only reason the Irish (and the health services of many other countries) HSE is struggling is lack of funding. To assume all the workers are both incompetant, and overpaid, is as ridiculous as it is insulting to the thousands of doctors, nurses, administrators and support workers who do their very best in difficult conditions, every single day.

4. I'm off to bed. Its late where I am.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 02:35PM

allabouteve wrote: »

Have your single jabs by all means, but pay for it yourself if you can't bring yourself to trust the evidence.

Now you're getting it. This is my point, I had the choice to give single vaccinations for my children and I did so, at considerable cost.
However, the cost was only so high because the HSE/Government here do not allow single Measeles, Mumps and Rubella vaccinations to be given to children administered by Irish doctors and thusly private doctors must travel over to Ireland to do this for parents.
If Irish doctors were allowed to administer single vaccinations and the HSE supported this, even if the parents had to pay for the vaccines, the costs to do this for parents would be very low compared to what we have to pay privately and everyone's a winner.
I would hardly expect parents out of work, especially in a recession, to have to pay considerable high cost for a private clinic to get their children single vaccinations just because the HSE/government are refusing to budge on the issue and insisting that it's the MMR or tough/shove it up your arse - but then on the other hand complain, rabble rabble rabble that parents aren't getting their children vaccinated.

astrofool · 10-02-2009 02:37PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

I had the MMR too, not the point...

My children had the MMR, don't assume that people can't read your posts correctly, they may be full of stupid statements, but they're easy to read and easy to point out their idiocies.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 02:40PM

allabouteve wrote: »

1. Its not a government conspiracy.

Hmmm... who do you work for ?

2. The medical establishment always voiced doubts about Wakefields findings. Not backed them. The media ran with the supposed findings and created a ''no smoke without fire'' situation that some, you included, still subscribe to.

Not strongly enough at the time and doubts are just that, exactly what I and other parents have now.

3. Try living in a country with no free health services, the only reason the Irish (and the health services of many other countries) HSE is struggling is lack of funding. To assume all the workers are both incompetant, and overpaid, is as ridiculous as it is insulting to the thousands of doctors, nurses, administrators and support workers who do their very best in difficult conditions, every single day.

No, in particular I singled out overpaid lazy consultants and even more to the point, management and leadership of the HSE, who are an absolute disgrace !

4. I'm off to bed. Its late where I am.

Night night

tallaght01 · 10-02-2009 02:41PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

10 Euro per vaccine x 3 Vaccines x possible two boosters each = 90 euro per child to possibly save their lives. Not a lot to ask for. Even if it wasn't funded but the single vaccines were actually ALLOWED to be administered in Ireland by Irish doctors - at the very very least that would go some way to help vaccinate children whose parents do not trust the government, do not trust the scientists (after all it was the scientists in the first plece who backed wakefields report) and do not nor probably ever will, ever ever ever, trust the totally incompetant and overpaid HSE.

The "HSE" is "overpaid"???

Oh jesus.

Doctors don't want to stick 3 massive needles in one baby, when one will do, because people choose to believe one crackpot over a world of opinion.

It's more expensive to administer single vaccines. We could say "well, we may as well give them to the small amont of parents who are afraid of autism". But then everyone would just go "ah, sure, we may as well get the single vaccines" and the costs would spiral. Anyway, the "research" never said anyhting about single vaccines being safer. If the stuff causes autism, then it causes autism, no matter how many times you jab your kid to get it inside them.

Nehaxak · 10-02-2009 02:46PM

astrofool wrote: »

My children had the MMR, don't assume that people can't read your posts correctly, they may be full of stupid statements, but they're easy to read and easy to point out their idiocies.

Good for you, I didn't want to take the risk with my childrens lives so went with the single vaccinations instead. What's the problem ?

I only assumed because you didn't actually complete your sentence in reply, you said you "had the MMR", you never mentioned your children. Though honestly I don't believe you either way. I'll ignore your other heated falmebait words and put it down to just NRS. Have a nice day...

mike65 · 10-02-2009 02:50PM

Slightly shocked that this is being discussed in AH (not a bad thing btw), what struck me at the time was that the well read middle class got suckered by this fella and the immunisation rate of children in the urban middle class fell furthest while the Sun-reading "prolls" still did what they were told to by the NHS.

An education can make you quite stupid sometimes

MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

Comments