Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign

1568101116

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 zenno


    You bunch of spacers, I finished my indulgence of topic a while ago in sincere commentry, but you have to realise that this is after hours and you have been punked for the last 56 minutes. or have you forgot you were in after hours ?.

    My previous comments stand as legit.



  • Site Banned Posts: 4,415 MilanPan!c


    zenno wrote: »
    Not at all my friend. The big pharma saved the life of my mother of which recently had a major heart attack and of which their drugs keep her in check, and also the insulin my father has to take as a type 1 diabetic including the tablets.

    but what I have pointed out above in the previous comment in a slightly comedic form, is that the pharmaceutical companies have infected their own vaccines of which was extremely dangerous, but they tried to hide it but couldn't until a few scientists revealed it to the public.

    These companies are the reason why people have doubts about them, they are corrupt and dangerous in the reality of incompetence as to contaminate their own product ready for human injection, that's my point as to why some folk will be weary of vaccines.

    It doesn't really matter at all why or who is responsible for making people wary... what matters if the overall health of society.

    I agree there's corruption everywhere, but baby... bathwater... etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭ SpaceTime


    I think people really go way too far with this kind of conspiracy theory about vaccines though.

    All a vaccine does is pretty much educate your immune system about a threat so that *your immune system* knows how to deal with it when it encounters the real deal.

    You are exposed to a tiny dose of a dead or completely inert virus. Your immune system gets to analyse and attack it so that it knows how to deal with it in future.

    As medical treatments go, vaccination is actually the least invasive and most natural approach you could possibly imagine.
    You're using your own immune system, not some weird cocktail of chemicals to kill bugs. Not only that it gives you usually life-long protection against those bugs by teaching you how to defend yourself.

    All you're doing is working with your own body's defences and basically giving them a chance to learn about diseases without actually getting infected by the real deal and having to suffer the symptoms and consequences of that infection.

    As medical break throughs go, vaccination is probably more important than anything else we've ever figured out in medicine! Yet, people are creating utter paranoid nonsense about it.

    Autism is also one of those very nebulous conditions that we don't know an awful lot about. Jumping to the conclusion that it's caused by vaccines is about as reasonable as jumping to the conclusion that it's caused by getting the common cold or the flu or eating bananas.

    Just because someone's got a firmly held belief doesn't mean that it's actually correct, accurate or logical.

    I am getting a little fed up with this notion that's developed that just because someone believes something to be true that everyone has to respect their opinion. It's being applied to religious and cultural issues and also to this kind of thing all the time.

    Are we going to morph back into the middle ages or something?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,415 ✭✭✭✭ steddyeddy


    I work as a pharmacist. I don't think it should be mandatory for people to have their children vaccinated. It is a bit totalitarian. There would circumstances where a vaccine is not suitable. Some vaccines are only available with egg in them. If a child is allergic to egg, I don't think it would be fair to make them have the vaccine

    However, I believe that vaccines are very worthwhile. It's people like "the girl against fluoride" and others with their rabble rousing and false information that endanger the public with their propaganda.

    You think immunologists don't know that? You know what endangers these kids more? People who don't get vaccinated. Herd immunity protects these people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,992 ✭✭✭ The_Dazzler


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I think people really go way too far with this kind of conspiracy theory about vaccines though.

    All a vaccine does is pretty much educate your immune system about a threat so that *your immune system* knows how to deal with it when it encounters the real deal.

    You are exposed to a tiny dose of a dead or completely inert virus. Your immune system gets to analyse and attack it so that it knows how to deal with it in future.

    As medical treatments go, vaccination is actually the least invasive and most natural approach you could possibly imagine.
    You're using your own immune system, not some weird cocktail of chemicals to kill bugs. Not only that it gives you usually life-long protection against those bugs by teaching you how to defend yourself.

    All you're doing is working with your own body's defences and basically giving them a chance to learn about diseases without actually getting them.

    As medical break throughs go, vaccination is probably more important than anything else we've ever figured out in medicine! Yet, people are creating utter paranoid nonsense about it.

    Autism is also one of those very nebulous conditions that we don't know an awful lot about. Jumping to the conclusion that it's caused by vaccines is about as reasonable as jumping to the conclusion that it's caused by getting the common cold or the flu or eating bananas.

    Just because someone's got a firmly held belief doesn't mean that it's actually correct, accurate or logical.

    I am getting a little fed up with this notion that's developed that just because someone believes something to be true that everyone has to respect their opinion. It's being applied to religious and cultural issues and also to this kind of thing all the time.

    Are we going to morph back into the middle ages or something?!
    As an aside, just because a virus is attenuated in a vaccine, doesn't mean it is inert. If you have a immunological disorder or unlucky, it can have an effect.

    I recently got my HepC vaccine for working in hospital and I had flu like symptoms for two days after. This is a small price to pay though to know I am not at risk of contracting HepC whilst working.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 884 ✭✭✭ mistress_gi


    I would like to share this point of view:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/01/growing_up_unvaccinated_a_healthy_lifestyle_couldn_t_prevent_many_childhood.html
    From someone who grew up without being vaccinated.
    I agree that vaccination should be mandatory if the child is to be part of the public education system, as insurance is mandatory when you drive. You have o right to endanger other peoples children, after all your freedom stops where someone else's begins.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,992 ✭✭✭ The_Dazzler


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    You think immunologists don't know that? You know what endangers these kids more? People who don't get vaccinated. Herd immunity protects these people.

    You do know I think children should be vaccinated though. Don't you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,415 ✭✭✭✭ steddyeddy


    You do know I think children should be vaccinated though. Don't you?

    No I don't to be honest. You are aware that some people don't vaccinate their kids. These un-vaccinated kids put the kids who can't get vaccinated kids at risk. How do we deal with these parents that put their kid and the kids who can't get vaccinated at risk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭ GaelMise


    Well, if you are going to say that the campaign caused the incresase in cases, you really need to prove the connection.

    Its not good enough to say look, this thing happened, and this other thing happened, therefore the first thing caused the second thing.

    Its possible that the campaign caused the increase, but its also possible that it had no noticible impact at all, and that other factors are responcible, and if there are other factors, they should not be ignored just so a campaign you dont like can be attacked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭ gctest50


    Originally Posted by The_Dazzler viewpost.gif
    I work as a pharmacist. I don't think it should be mandatory for people to have their children vaccinated. It is a bit totalitarian. There would circumstances where a vaccine is not suitable. Some vaccines are only available with egg in them. If a child is allergic to egg, I don't think it would be fair to make them have the vaccine
    ........................
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    You think immunologists don't know that? You know what endangers these kids more? People who don't get vaccinated. Herd immunity protects these people.

    Not staying away from egg

    .


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,577 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Turtwig


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    No I don't to be honest. You are aware that some people don't vaccinate their kids. These un-vaccinated kids put the kids who can't get vaccinated kids at risk. How do we deal with these parents that put their kid and the kids who can't get vaccinated at risk.

    Educating them on why it's the wrong choice and hoping that they come to the realisation that it's the wrong choice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 zenno


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I think people really go way too far with this kind of conspiracy theory about vaccines though.

    All a vaccine does is pretty much educate your immune system about a threat so that *your immune system* knows how to deal with it when it encounters the real deal.

    You are exposed to a tiny dose of a dead or completely inert virus. Your immune system gets to analyse and attack it so that it knows how to deal with it in future.

    As medical treatments go, vaccination is actually the least invasive and most natural approach you could possibly imagine.
    You're using your own immune system, not some weird cocktail of chemicals to kill bugs. Not only that it gives you usually life-long protection against those bugs by teaching you how to defend yourself.

    All you're doing is working with your own body's defences and basically giving them a chance to learn about diseases without actually getting infected by the real deal and having to suffer the symptoms and consequences of that infection.

    As medical break throughs go, vaccination is probably more important than anything else we've ever figured out in medicine! Yet, people are creating utter paranoid nonsense about it.

    Autism is also one of those very nebulous conditions that we don't know an awful lot about. Jumping to the conclusion that it's caused by vaccines is about as reasonable as jumping to the conclusion that it's caused by getting the common cold or the flu or eating bananas.

    Just because someone's got a firmly held belief doesn't mean that it's actually correct, accurate or logical.

    I am getting a little fed up with this notion that's developed that just because someone believes something to be true that everyone has to respect their opinion. It's being applied to religious and cultural issues and also to this kind of thing all the time.

    Are we going to morph back into the middle ages or something?!

    I agree with you, but it can never be mandatory, it will never happen, but if there was more in the way of education as was said already then it will benefit folk more. The internet can be confusing to some people even today as the amount of mixtures of false/fake and reality mixed around on-site can be a problem for the un-inisiated computer learner, full of falsities and hard to get to the truth scully.
    @ Redzer

    Now you've shown your colours. You're a conspiracist.

    Indeed dear watson Indeed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,947 ✭✭✭✭ Annasopra


    zenno wrote: »
    Sorry my friend, I must have saved the following page thread without looking back.

    Indeed that is an interesting scenario. Yes, that could be classed - if embedded in newly changed law as a violation of a child's human right. But the parent is the master and the overseer of the rights of their child according to the laws now.

    I understand the point you are making, but, if the law was changed to take away the rights of a good parent that refuses to vaccinate their child, wouldn't that be a violation of the parents rights...

    Mandatory/Compulsory cannot work in a democracy, well, a real democracy. It just cannot work, and will not be tolerated. As was said, education is the key.
    But in certain cases can't the state intervene if it is the best interests of the child?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,415 ✭✭✭✭ steddyeddy


    Jernal wrote: »
    Educating them on why it's the wrong choice and hoping that they come to the realisation that it's the wrong choice.


    That has been happening for ten years now and these diseases are on the rise in countries with access to vaccines.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,947 ✭✭✭✭ Annasopra


    The government dictators force you to make sure your children get an education to their standards.
    They tell you how you can discipline and treat your children.

    Why? For their safety. Im sure you would much prefer to live in a country with actual dictators like north korea. None of these have stupid laws to protect children, it's my right to have children and raise them how I want. Damn them for telling us we have a responsibility to them too.
    No. Children have rights that supercede yours. Your child is not your property.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 zenno


    But in certain cases can't the state intervene if it is the best interests of the child?

    Of course. But it has to be proven that the parent/parents are not capable of looking after a child, also the conditions of the child's abode, as in everything to satisfy government groups to the state of the abode and the parents mental health.

    If said parents are 100% legit and good then no-one in government or government organisations have the right to interfere where the home and parenting situation is legit and of sound mind regarding the parents imo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,114 ✭✭✭ shruikan2553


    zenno wrote: »
    How is the weather there in north Korea ? I hope it's not too hot for you, 99% humidity I heard, is the heat affecting your judgement ???.

    Twist your words around to the east as much as you like to fit your private non-reality laws. Enjoy the weather kid. :)

    Never said I lived in NK. Glad to see you cherrypick stuff from posts and make up stories for that too not just whats ok to tell a parent how to raise a child.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,415 ✭✭✭✭ steddyeddy


    How about the heel prick test that is performed on every Irish new born (PKU is common in Ireland compared to other countries). PKU results from the inability to metabolise phenylalanine resulting in a build up of metabolites that cause brain damage and mental retardation. This test is performed on every baby. It involves a needle just like vaccines. So do you think people should be consulted on whether they want this test?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭ Czarcasm


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    No, this is talking in regards to health only, where what I am saying is factual. I'm not talking about human rights like gay marriage or any of that stuff. That's irrelevant to this discussion and is only throwing it off topic. I'm just talking about black and white facts about the health of our species in that in no way is giving choice in this situation beneficial to the individuals or the population as a while.

    Both issues can be easily distinguished.


    Isn't that always the problem with trying to create rules for society as a whole? You're always going to leave a minority of people pissed off. Your solution then is as much as "Fcuk what they think, the greater good, etc.", but, only when you agree with the greater good.

    So, I know you mentioned that genetic diseases aren't contagious, but here's the thing - they ARE hereditary, generation after generation, unless the people who carry them forward are eradicated, which is the only way to eradicate the disease. I'm talking purely from a health perspective here now too, and when eddy mentioned the heel prick test, one of the genetic diseases they now test for is also one of the most prevalent genetic diseases in Ireland, and scientists haven't yet come up with an answer as to why this particular genetic disease is statistically so high in Ireland. The disease I'm talking about of course is Cystic Fibrosis.

    Now, we could easily have eliminated this disease in Ireland by eliminating the carriers decades ago, no more Cystic Fibrosis, great. But, at what cost? We would never have learned as much about the disease as we know now, and people with the disease are living longer as treatments have improved, and even medical procedures have developed to a point where we can replace organs.

    None of those advancements in medicine or science would have been made if we had eliminated the carriers of the disease or prohibited them from reproducing.

    My point is that if you pick and choose what Human Rights apply to whom based on a whim of "because they're a danger to society", and over-ride them according to your own personal values, you might as well forget about Human Rights and standards altogether then because they become meaningless. You can reject them whenever you want, depending on your own agenda, based on what you consider reasonable justification. My idea of reasonable and logical clearly isn't going to agree with yours, so who adjudicates to say what's right in this scenario?

    That's what written in black and white Human Rights are for, so that individual freedoms are preserved. We may not agree with people who choose not to vaccinate their children, but that IS their right. You might have an argument if you could guarantee with some degree of certainty that without the vaccination the person will absolutely and categorically develop measles, mumps or rubella.


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,415 MilanPan!c


    Jernal wrote: »
    Educating them on why it's the wrong choice and hoping that they come to the realisation that it's the wrong choice.

    And when that doesn't happen and it puts us all at risk...?

    Should people be allowed to drink and drive following the same logic?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭ SpaceTime


    zenno wrote: »
    I agree with you, but it can never be mandatory, it will never happen, but if there was more in the way of education as was said already then it will benefit folk more. The internet can be confusing to some people even today as the amount of mixtures of false/fake and reality mixed around on-site can be a problem for the un-inisiated computer learner, full of falsities and hard to get to the truth scully.



    Indeed dear watson Indeed.

    I think part of the problem is that the 'education' in the past was that you knew people who'd been really badly damaged by Polio or some of your kids or siblings had died of childhood diseases.

    We have the luxury these days of not encountering these things in what is one of the most developed countries on the planet. (Ireland ranks comfortably within the top 10 in 2013 and has topped the Human Development Index, 20 places ahead of the UK for example and way ahead of France).

    I think what we need is a campaign similar to what they're doing for smoking and road accidents. There are potentially huge consequences to not being immunised and it's not just some kind of minor issue if someone actually were to develop some of those diseases that were quite common in Ireland and the UK and the US right into the 1950s.

    People in developing countries have a lot more understanding of what these things are than this generation of rather privileged and pampered 'westerners' do.

    The other reality is that Ireland is an island but global travel is ever more accessible and Irish people travel *a lot* and Ireland's also a very much more visited place than it was 30+ years ago. So, the likelihood of being exposed to sources of these diseases is quite a lot higher than it might have been in the 1970s and 80s when we were unable to afford to fly to some of these exotic (and even not so exotic) destinations.

    For example, people are holidaying regularly in Turkey, North Africa and various tropical climates that would have been unheard of 20+ years ago really. Or at least a bit rare.

    All those things actually mean that we need to be taking vaccines seriously and not becoming complacent or allowing the agenda to be hijacked by this kind of anti-vaccine paranoia.

    With anything there's a tiny risk. I mean, you could get stung by a bee or a wasp and discover you're highly allergic to it. You could scratch your finger and pick up some nasty pathogen and have a reaction that results in toxic shock but these things are incredibly rare and with vaccines they're incredibly well managed too and analysed and understood too.

    The reality is that the benefits of vaccines VASTLY outweighs any risk.


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,415 MilanPan!c


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Isn't that always the problem with trying to create rules for society as a whole? You're always going to leave a minority of people pissed off. Your solution then is as much as "Fcuk what they think, the greater good, etc.", but, only when you agree with the greater good.

    So, I know you mentioned that genetic diseases aren't contagious, but here's the thing - they ARE hereditary, generation after generation, unless the people who carry them forward are eradicated, which is the only way to eradicate the disease. I'm talking purely from a health perspective here now too, and when eddy mentioned the heel prick test, one of the genetic diseases they now test for is also one of the most prevalent genetic diseases in Ireland, and scientists haven't yet come up with an answer as to why this particular genetic disease is statistically so high in Ireland. The disease I'm talking about of course is Cystic Fibrosis.

    Now, we could easily have eliminated this disease in Ireland by eliminating the carriers decades ago, no more Cystic Fibrosis, great. But, at what cost? We would never have learned as much about the disease as we know now, and people with the disease are living longer as treatments have improved, and even medical procedures have developed to a point where we can replace organs.

    None of those advancements in medicine or science would have been made if we had eliminated the carriers of the disease or prohibited them from reproducing.

    My point is that if you pick and choose what Human Rights apply to whom based on a whim of "because they're a danger to society", and over-ride them according to your own personal values, you might as well forget about Human Rights and standards altogether then because they become meaningless. You can reject them whenever you want, depending on your own agenda, based on what you consider reasonable justification. My idea of reasonable and logical clearly isn't going to agree with yours, so who adjudicates to say what's right in this scenario?

    That's what written in black and white Human Rights are for, so that individual freedoms are preserved. We may not agree with people who choose not to vaccinate their children, but that IS their right. You might have an argument if you could guarantee with some degree of certainty that without the vaccination the person will absolutely and categorically develop measles, mumps or rubella.

    Lots of silliness here.

    Society adjudicates, just like with anything else. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

    As for your last sentence, where you again try and ignore the fact that vaccinations aren't just for the vaccinated, but for society as a whole:

    Most of the rules we have in place aren't to protect lawbreakers, but to protect those affected by the lawbreakers.

    This is the point you're wilfully ignoring.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,577 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Turtwig


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    That has been happening for ten years now and these diseases are on the rise in countries with access to vaccines.

    You agree that it's terrible? Are kids even taught in primary or second level how vaccinations works? It's not really addressed in third level either. Yet, so little antidotes. Has any public health body actually followed up on studies that investigated people's reasons for gullibility.

    There's three basic strands:
    Natural = Good.
    Big Pharma & Big Gov.
    Poor understanding of diseases.

    In no vaccination campaigns have I seen any of these issues really addressed. It's just "Get vaccinated; avoid flu.". Some people don't get vaccinated because they don't understand nature and automatically assume anything "unnatural" is bad for them. Cancer causing or whatever other rubbish. Then there's the fact that Govs and Big Corps don't have unblemished history. People tend to be reluctant if they feel are they being coerced.

    Why is that some people on this thread think Swine Flu Jab was unsafe, it's produced the same as every other seasonal flu vaccine. Yet, people thought it was rushed. So the mass public isn't aware of how vaccines are produced.

    Why do people think Measles is nothing? Or that it's good to get to sick. Or that they can risk the flu because, you know, the flu 'nothing. Why is there so little understanding of herd immunity? Why are people who are blatantly sick and infected bringing themselves into work and as result making more colleagues sick. Endangering their health and the productivity of their workplace?

    Underlying attitudes can only be changed if you tackle the roots of them. Campaigning for flu jabs like you would 60 years ago isn't how you do it. Anti-vaxers use social media highly effectively, it's time the health bodies actually catch up. Or, maybe attempt? A mass education campaign on health and nutrition would probably go a long way for a lot of society's ills.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 zenno


    Never said I lived in NK. Glad to see you cherrypick stuff from posts and make up stories for that too not just whats ok to tell a parent how to raise a child.

    Don't take it too serious, I come in peace, I'm not trying to wind you up, just try and have a sense of humour as well, there is nothing malicious being forwarded.

    Am I the only person here that realises that this is after hours ? My previous comments non-stop for the last 9 hours I think are realistic and were typed in good faith as I felt to do so on a topic like this, but there is of course a narrow path of joking as well because it is after hours.

    It doesn't wash away the real feelings and serious conversation regarding this important issue, but again, leave some space for heightened awareness of refreshment and not to be too serious either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,415 ✭✭✭✭ steddyeddy


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I think part of the problem is that the 'education' in the past was that you knew people who'd been really badly damaged by Polio or some of your kids or siblings had died of childhood diseases.

    We have the luxury these days of not encountering these things in what is one of the most developed countries on the planet. (Ireland ranks comfortably within the top 10 in 2013 and has topped the Human Development Index, 20 places ahead of the UK for example and way ahead of France).

    I think what we need is a campaign similar to what they're doing for smoking and road accidents. There are potentially huge consequences to not being immunised and it's not just some kind of minor issue if someone actually were to develop some of those diseases that were quite common in Ireland and the UK and the US right into the 1950s.

    People in developing countries have a lot more understanding of what these things are then this generation of rather privileged and pampered 'westerners' do.


    This plus 1000! I traveled to some of these developing countries and they would love a mandatory vaccination programme. A lot of the things that westerners seem to be against are born out of ignorance. We generally don't lack nutrients in our diet or lack vaccines that can prevent our children getting horrible diseases.


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,415 MilanPan!c


    Jernal wrote: »
    You agree that it's terrible? Are kids even taught in primary or second level how vaccinations works? It's not really addressed in third level either. Yet, so little antidotes. Has any public health body actually followed up on studies that investigated people's reasons for gullibility.

    There's three basic strands:
    Natural = Good.
    Big Pharma & Big Gov.
    Poor understanding of diseases.

    In no vaccination campaigns have I seen any of these issues really addressed. It's just "Get vaccinated; avoid flu.". Some people don't get vaccinated because they don't understand nature and automatically assume anything "unnatural" is bad for them. Cancer causing or whatever other rubbish. Then there's the fact that Govs and Big Corps don't have unblemished history.

    Why is that some people on this thread think Swine Flu Jab was unsafe, it's produced the same as every other seasonal flu vaccine. Yet, people thought it was rushed. So the mass public isn't aware of how vaccines are produced.

    Why do people think Measles is nothing? Or that it's good to get to sick. Or that they can risk the flu because, you know, the flu 'nothing. Why is there so little understanding of herd immunity? Why are people who are blatantly sick and infected bringing themselves into work and as result making more colleagues sick. Endangering their health and the productivity of their workplace?

    Underlying attitudes can only be changed if you tackle the roots of them. Campaigning for flu jabs like you would 60 years ago isn't how you do it. Anti-vaxers use social media highly effectively, it's time the health bodies actually catch up. Or, maybe attempt?

    People pushing these hoaxes are intrinsically targeting people who are sceptical of government. They often see anything that comes from any official channel as propaganda.

    People like that are basically mentally ill and can't be expected to make good decisions for society.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,992 ✭✭✭ The_Dazzler


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    No I don't to be honest. You are aware that some people don't vaccinate their kids. These un-vaccinated kids put the kids who can't get vaccinated kids at risk. How do we deal with these parents that put their kid and the kids who can't get vaccinated at risk.

    Education, open debate. They may come a time when a vaccine is not suitable. Everybody thought Thalodomide was a wonder drug when it first came out.

    At this moment in time, I would recommend that parents get their children vaccinated. However, things can change in the future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 759 twowheelsgood


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Now, we could easily have eliminated this disease in Ireland by eliminating the carriers decades ago, no more Cystic Fibrosis, great. But, at what cost? We would never have learned as much about the disease as we know now, and people with the disease are living longer as treatments have improved, and even medical procedures have developed to a point where we can replace organs.
    Am I understanding you correctly. There was a disease that could have been eliminated but it was wise of us not to do so because this allowed us to learn more about the disease and as a result we have better prognosis for those who currently have the condition … (but would not have it all if we actually did eliminate it!!!) ?
    I suspect I am missing something in your argument! :)


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,415 MilanPan!c


    zenno wrote: »
    Don't take it too serious, I come in peace, I'm not trying to wind you up, just try and have a sense of humour as well, there is nothing malicious being forwarded.

    Am I the only person here that realises that this is after hours ? My previous comments non-stop for the last 9 hours I think are realistic and were typed in good faith as I felt to do so on a topic like this, but there is of course a narrow path of joking as well because it is after hours.

    It doesn't wash away the real feelings and serious conversation regarding this important issue, but again, leave some space for heightened awareness of refreshment and not to be too serious either.

    Many of us don't find this issue hilarious.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,791 ✭✭✭✭ hatrickpatrick


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    By no vaccinating your child you're negatively impacting on the health of other children.

    And by vaccinating your child you might be putting them at risk.
    Your argument is essentially "I don't believe there are any risks whatsoever associated with vaccines, therefore anyone who thinks otherwise is a stupid person."


Advertisement