Anti-vaxxers

kunst nugget · 14-09-2018 10:12am

Graces7 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.

After all the press coverage that has been about the Cervical Check and all the information that has been put out there in relation to screening, how can you be this clueless?

Call me Al · 14-09-2018 10:15am

Graces7 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.

How on earth have you gone from plum's saying that it doesn't pick up all cases to saying that's he or she is implying that it's a useless and costly exercise? Which it isn't.
And I'm quite sure the 1000s of women in this country who have had abnormal smears, many if not most as a direct result of HPV, through the Cervical Check process would say it may very well have saved their lives.
The trick is trying to get that other proportion of women who don't participate in the screening to be more proactive about their health.
And where possible to get the HPV vaccine before its too late.

alaimacerc · 14-09-2018 10:26am

Graces7 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic!

There might be a reason you're seeing what you purport to take as this "tactic" so much.

Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.

Graces7 is a handy distillation of why we can't have nice things. Especially in the health service. If it's not perfect, scream the house down and wreck it. Losing the demonstrable good that it did do.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-09-2018 2:23pm

banie01 wrote: »

I have never in all my time on Boards wanted to attack a poster more!
Your intransigence and myopic understanding of what screening is intended to be, could quite easily earn me my 1st ban.

I would respectfully suggest that you research and then try and actually understand what the goals and limitations of any medical screening program are. There is a reason screening programs are continuous and it is to ensure that where possible a false positve/negative on screen is picked up on the following screen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230552/

Start there, even a limited screening program saves a health service an order of magnitude more in costs than it would spend in treating late stage diagnosis.
Let alone the lives saved by the early identification and ablation of cancerous or pre-cancerous cells in just cervical cancer cases.

Not worth the annoyance.

Unfortunately there are people who will trawl the Internet for the one piece of bad science that agrees with their viewpoint. They'll make blanket statements but won't engage in an actual discussion based on facts.
Thank goodness we have screening. Thank goodness we have vaccinations. What we now need is more of both. It's a clear fact that thousands of lives have been saved by vaccines. Screening saved two lives in my own family.

Igotadose · 14-09-2018 3:46pm

Maci Whining Pianist wrote: »

Not worth the annoyance.

Unfortunately there are people who will trawl the Internet for the one piece of bad science that agrees with their viewpoint. They'll make blanket statements but won't engage in an actual discussion based on facts.
Thank goodness we have screening. Thank goodness we have vaccinations. What we now need is more of both. It's a clear fact that thousands of lives have been saved by vaccines. Screening saved two lives in my own family.

Vaccines do more than save lives. They save you from living with horrible disabilities. They save children from going through the hell of childhood diseases.

Graces7 · 14-09-2018 4:07pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

There might be a reason you're seeing what you purport to take as "tactic" so much.

Graces7 is a handy distillation of why we can't have nice things. Especially in the health service. If it's not perfect, scream the house down and wreck it. Losing the demonstrable good that it did do.

I have reported this post as a personal attack. I challenge yes and the way you respond? as a seriously vaccine damaged person of course I challenge.

Attacking like this? Cuts too near the bone?

Graces7 · 14-09-2018 4:10pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Vaccines do more than save lives. They save you from living with horrible disabilities. They save children from going through the hell of childhood diseases.

and sometimes they do serious damage. You need to face THAT reality please.

Over and out as you are clearly refusing to have any civilised discussion. I have never made personal insults against you so why take this tack?

Over and out...more challenging vaccines than ever.

VinLieger · 14-09-2018 4:12pm

Graces7 wrote: »

and sometimes they do serious damage.

No they don't.

kunst nugget · 14-09-2018 4:13pm

Graces7 wrote: »

I have reported this post as a personal attack. I challenge yes and the way you respond? as a seriously vaccine damaged person of course I challenge.

Attacking like this? Cuts too near the bone?

How did vaccines seriously damage you?

ancapailldorcha · 14-09-2018 4:22pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

How did vaccines seriously damage you?

I wouldn't bother asking to be honest. Graces7 has a tendency to make wildly fanciful claims and then leave.

kunst nugget · 14-09-2018 4:34pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wouldn't bother asking to be honest. Graces7 has a tendency to make wildly fanciful claims and then leave.

I was just curious... I don't know if she mentioned it on this thread before and with nearly 1,500 posts on it, I'm not arsed going through it.

Igotadose · 14-09-2018 4:42pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

I was just curious... I don't know if she mentioned it on this thread before and with nearly 1,500 posts on it, I'm not arsed going through it.

No she hasn't, have been on this thread awhile.
Plus she did say 'over and out' so hopefully she won't be back.

ancapailldorcha · 14-09-2018 4:57pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

I was just curious... I don't know if she mentioned it on this thread before and with nearly 1,500 posts on it, I'm not arsed going through it.

Don't. You won't learn anything. I've tried asking to no avail.

Ipso · 14-09-2018 7:11pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

How did vaccines seriously damage you?

Not "natural" enough, big "insert bogey man of choice" or something.

sullivlo · 14-09-2018 8:41pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

I was just curious... I don't know if she mentioned it on this thread before and with nearly 1,500 posts on it, I'm not arsed going through it.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Don't. You won't learn anything. I've tried asking to no avail.

Don’t bother kunst. You’d be better off trying to attach some string to the moon. You’d have a better chance of getting that to work than to get a response to Grace. She is quite possibly the most infuriating poster on this thread.

I reckon I could say anything about her and she wouldn’t report it. She doesn’t read my posts. She has repeatedly ignored any of the questions that I have asked her and I have given her too much headspace which she is entirely not worth.

Queen Cleopatra · 14-09-2018 8:51pm

sullivlo wrote: »

Don’t bother kunst. You’d be better off trying to attach some string to the moon. You’d have a better chance of getting that to work than to get a response to Grace. She is quite possibly the most infuriating poster on this thread.

I reckon I could say anything about her and she wouldn’t report it. She doesn’t read my posts. She has repeatedly ignored any of the questions that I have asked her and I have given her too much headspace which she is entirely not worth.

I gave up reading posts from Grace. Keeps the blood pressure down. She wrecks my head

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-09-2018 8:52pm

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I gave up reading posts from Grace. Keeps the blood pressure down. She wrecks my head

Hence my use of the Ignore option. It's not worth the frustration.

alaimacerc · 14-09-2018 8:53pm

Graces7 wrote: »

I have reported this post as a personal attack.

Is there a button I can use to nominate it as an entirely accurate description of your antics on this thread? Asking for a friend, of course.

This is pretty simple, really. If a screening programme catches just one person's disease at an earlier, more treatable stage, then demonstrably it's not "useless". And insisting that it "useless", apparently because you have various other vax and/or HPV axes to grind, is positively irresponsible. If anyone were to pay any attention, it would tend to further reduce the good that it might do. As imperfect as it already clearly is.

Queen Cleopatra · 14-09-2018 9:00pm

Maci Whining Pianist wrote: »

Hence my use of the Ignore option. It's not worth the frustration.

I don't see an ignore option. Maybe its not on mobile? Can I see who is ignoring me? I suspect Vicky Mackey might have me on his list. Maybe one or two more even. Some men can't handle a strong woman.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-09-2018 9:02pm

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I don't see an ignore option. Maybe its not on mobile? Can I see who is ignoring me? I suspect Vicky Mackey might have me on his list. Maybe one or two more even. Some men can't handle a strong woman.

Possibly to do with the mobile app. I just tapped on her name and selected 'add to ignore list' and the user was added to the existing list of zero. I don't think you can see who has you on ignore.

Sorry for the drift off topic.

alaimacerc · 14-09-2018 9:05pm

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I don't see an ignore option. Maybe its not on mobile?

Dunno about the mobile version, but webbily, it's on the pop-up menu from the poster's name on the left of the post. Profile/message/post/contacts/... ignore!

VicMackey1 · 14-09-2018 9:48pm

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I don't see an ignore option. Maybe its not on mobile? Can I see who is ignoring me? I suspect Vicky Mackey might have me on his list. Maybe one or two more even. Some men can't handle a strong woman.

No, you're not on my list. I suspect you are on some list though!

Capt'n Midnight · 14-09-2018 10:03pm

Graces7 wrote: »

and sometimes they do serious damage. You need to face THAT reality please.

Over and out as you are clearly refusing to have any civilised discussion. I have never made personal insults against you so why take this tack?

Over and out...more challenging vaccines than ever.

The reality of the situation is that sunshine causes serious damage.

Ultraviolet B causes DNA damage.
The incidence of melanoma in the United States has increased dramatically from 1 per 100,000 people per year in 1935 to 23 per 100,000 per year in 2012.

Potassium is slightly radioactive, and if a solution of it was injected into your bloodstream you'd almost certainly die of a heart attack but it is absolutely essential for life so you can't avoid the stuff.

Good luck trying to reduce how much oxygen you use.

Life is dangerous. You can't avoid all risks.

The only reason we use vaccines is alternative is far, far worse.

In theory you could freeload by not taking the risk of a using a vaccine.

This is only works if enough other people take the vaccine that the risk of not taking it is low. Thanks to anti-vaxxers reducing the herd immunity that protects those who have poor immune systems the risk of not taking a vaccine are now too high.

If just one generation of you selfish ****s allowed them selves to be vaccinated then we could eradicate some diseases forever.

Given the choice of a preventable disease propagating through infinite generations or the Machiavelli option of the "end justifying the means", pray to whatever god you believe in that the rest of us continue to tolerate you parasitises.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-09-2018 10:08pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Vaccines do more than save lives. They save you from living with horrible disabilities. They save children from going through the hell of childhood diseases.

As a child I had preventable illnesses I would not wish on anyone, except an anti-vaxxer held captive in an isolation ward and then billed for the privelage.

Not just children. I know two people who have total loss of hearing in one ear, and another who is blind because of the side effects of diseases.

alaimacerc · 14-09-2018 10:31pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Potassium is slightly radioactive, and if a solution of it was injected into your bloodstream you'd almost certainly die of a heart attack but it is absolutely essential for life so you can't avoid the stuff.

<Paracelsus boilerplate quote go here, about toxicity being the dose>

Just to be clear, in the case of potassium, the toxicity has nothing to do with the rather tiny radioactivity of the K-40 isotope (it does have entirely stable isotopes too, of course). It's that a very large dose will shove the potassium/sodium pump in nerve cells out of whack. Key parts of their nerve cells not working tends to be very bad for higher animals.

waxmoth · 15-09-2018 12:09am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's the actual numbers? I don't know how that ratio is calculated so it doesn't mean anything.

Risk ratio is a measure of the incidence of a studied condition/effect in an exposed population compared to a control with 1 being no difference. https://www.cdc.gov/ophss/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section5.html

Martina1991 wrote: »

The conclusions from that article were:

The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

Seems a reasonable conclusion.

jh79 · 15-09-2018 9:17am

waxmoth wrote: »

Risk ratio is a measure of the incidence of a studied condition/effect in an exposed population compared to a control with 1 being no difference. https://www.cdc.gov/ophss/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section5.html

Seems a reasonable conclusion.

But the risk ratio doesn't tell us how many doses would be needed to see 1 extra incidence of that particular adverse event.

Even if the risk ratio was large , a small incidence rate could mean a huge number of doses may be required to see a single extra adverse event.

waxmoth · 15-09-2018 11:37pm

jh79 wrote: »

But the risk ratio doesn't tell us how many doses would be needed to see 1 extra incidence of that particular adverse event.

Even if the risk ratio was large , a small incidence rate could mean a huge number of doses may be required to see a single extra adverse event.

I suppose it depends on the severity of the adverse event and the potential benefit of the intervention. With any medical procedure for pre-existing illness it is expected that full information of likely outcomes and hazards are communicated to patients/guardians so that a decision can be made. With vaccination of healthy individuals minimal information is given, screening for suitability is cursory and injuries are commonly dismissed and an adversarial approach taken.

alaimacerc · 16-09-2018 10:12am

waxmoth wrote: »

With vaccination of healthy individuals minimal information is given, screening for suitability is cursory and injuries are commonly dismissed and an adversarial approach taken.

If there's no demonstrated harm, much less any indication of which groups are supposedly more likely to experience alleged same, exactly what sort of screening do you suppose should happen?

waxmoth · 18-09-2018 12:45am

alaimacerc wrote: »

If there's no demonstrated harm, much less any indication of which groups are supposedly more likely to experience alleged same, exactly what sort of screening do you suppose should happen?

There are numerous studied associations. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13167-017-0101-y If there was no demonstrated harm there would be no vaccine injury tables, vaccine court etc.

The science is reasonably advanced on susceptible cohorts particularly in genetic associations with HLA gene types.Typing seems to be common in clinical trial design so it should be possible as a screening tool.https://kashilab.com/hla-testing-2/

Correlating the immune response of the subjects with their HLA type is a critical step in success of carrying out clinical trials for vaccine and vaccine development efforts.

Vitamin D blood test should probably be standard because of the link with immune system regulation.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments