Anti-vaxxers

banie01 · 13-05-2019 12:42pm

I see the tag team tactics are still in full flow

CelticRambler · 13-05-2019 12:46pm

specky4eyes wrote: »

And another thing that doesn't make sense is how un-vaccinated people are a threat to vaccinated people, surely if one gets vaccinated they are immune to anything the un-vaccinated person can pass onto them.

You're confusing the term "vaccinated people" with "a vaccinated population". Read this report on a rubella epidemic to understand how people who deliberately avoid vaccination can mess things up for those who are inadvertently left unvaccinated.

ancapailldorcha · 13-05-2019 12:52pm

Amantine wrote: »

You substantiate anything you say for a change!

Your claim is based on the idea that vaccines can cause both autism and heavy metal poisoning. I do not accept this idea and have requested proof which you don't have, else you would have provided said proof.

Amantine wrote: »

Sure: how about the Head of health at the council of Europe:
“Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, has accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of hyping up the virus and influencing the World Health Organisation's decision to declare a pandemic.

Calling for an EU inquiry, he described the H1N1 outbreak as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century. We have had a mild flu — and a false pandemic.”

Swine flu so far has taken the lives of 251 people in Britain. Yes, each death is sad but this is not what we were lead to believe would happen. Millions (billions?) have been wasted.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/gail-walker/swine-flu-caused-madness-28511377.html

An accusation is not proof. It's why we ask for evidence in trials.

Dohnjoe · 13-05-2019 1:27pm

specky4eyes wrote: »

I've always wondered why the percentage of healthcare workers who get vaccinated is so low.

They're all likely vaccinated, or do you mean the flu jab?

On a related note, I have to ask, are all you people part of some anti-vaccine group? a lot of new users and low-post old accounts have started entering this thread, it's not exactly subtle. I think we'd all prefer some straight up honesty here instead of all this underhand devious stuff.

Quandary · 13-05-2019 6:58pm

It's like a whack a mole game with them on constant rhetorical repeat.

bt25 · 13-05-2019 8:45pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No no

You said

Now you're saying they "hyped it up".

I believe the post said that the companies hyped it up but WHO "manufactured" (as in created from little to nothing) the panic as in they literally called it a pandemic when the data didn't back up that decision. The Head of Health at the Council of Europe was the one saying this in public and though I'm not suggesting that it prooves it legally, to suggest that something doesn't exist unless it has been in court is a little naive. I think it is unlikely that a trial would ever take place for something like that much like many other things in history but at least they admit some of it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/who-admits-to-faults-in-handling-of-swine-flu-pandemic-1.651377

"Critics have said the WHO created panic about the swine flu virus, which turned out to be moderate in its effect, and caused governments to stockpile vaccines, which went unused. Some questioned its links to the pharmaceutical industry after companies such as GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis made big profits from producing H1N1 vaccines." (not proof but good luck getting anyone to bring it to court, unfortunately it is the political world we live in)

CelticRambler · 13-05-2019 9:10pm

For those looking for "comparative studies", the good people of Kurzgesagt (no big pharma involved) have produced this video:

The vaccine vs. illness numbers (for those who choose to believe them) start at around 4m20s

Orion · 14-05-2019 3:09pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

are all you people part of some anti-vaccine group?

Yes is the answer. And more than likely not as many people as accounts.

evolving_doors · 14-05-2019 3:22pm

specky4eyes wrote: »

I've always wondered why the percentage of healthcare workers who get vaccinated is so low.

And another thing that doesn't make sense is how un-vaccinated people are a threat to vaccinated people, surely if one gets vaccinated they are immune to anything the un-vaccinated person can pass onto them.

Just one third of hospital nurses have had the flu jab despite raffles and free coffee incentives.

UPTAKE OF THE flu vaccination among hospital workers has increased in recent months following a campaign launched by the HSE, but the rate for nurses remains low at just over 32%.

Back in October, Minister for Health Simon Harris had expressed concern at slow uptake - just 31% of all hospital workers were immunised in 2016. The number for nursing staff in 2016 was even lower at 26.4%.

thejournal.ie/nurses-flu-jab-3786843-Jan2018/

Motivators and barriers to vaccination of health professionals against seasonal influenza in primary healthcare

Only 12% of included health professionals were vaccinated in the 2014/15 season.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234642/

That's like saying you need more people to do the lotto to increase your chances of winning.

Plus, the flu is a lot less serious for the individual than measles or HPV.

Igotadose · 14-05-2019 4:04pm

evolving_doors wrote: »

Plus, the flu is a lot less serious for the individual than measles or HPV.

Don't underestimate the flu, though. Plenty of people, young and old alike, die from it each year. If you or a someone you live with has respiratory issues (e.g., asthma), get a flu vaccine annually.

Fortunately, there's tamiflu. Can't recommend it enough, when you suspect you have the flu, visit the GP ASAP and ask for it, the earlier the better, like, within the first 24 hours is ideal.

moonage · 14-05-2019 8:39pm

banie01 wrote: »

I see the tag team tactics are still in full flow

Is this a conspiracy theory of yours?

TheRepentent · 14-05-2019 10:06pm

moonage wrote: »

Is this a conspiracy theory of yours?

Go back to goosestepping around your bedroom:rolleyes:

waxmoth · 14-05-2019 11:34pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Fortunately, there's tamiflu. Can't recommend it enough, when you suspect you have the flu, visit the GP ASAP and ask for it, the earlier the better, like, within the first 24 hours is ideal.

Tamiflu/oseltamivir is a very good example of regulatory failure and how an ineffective drug can gain widespread acceptance (including WHO approval). When the full clinical data was eventually procured the producers claims were found not to be upheld. The reduction in duration of symptoms in adults is ~16hrs (from 7 to 6.3 days) and there are significant side effects.

Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced,because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/media/CDSR/CD008965/CD008965.pdf

Billy86 · 15-05-2019 12:09am

stefanovich wrote: »

When I was born there were no vaccines.

You're aware that makes you more than 200 years old?

jh79 · 15-05-2019 9:32am

waxmoth wrote: »

Tamiflu/oseltamivir is a very good example of regulatory failure and how an ineffective drug can gain widespread acceptance (including WHO approval). When the full clinical data was eventually procured the producers claims were found not to be upheld. The reduction in duration of symptoms in adults is ~16hrs (from 7 to 6.3 days) and there are significant side effects.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/media/CDSR/CD008965/CD008965.pdf

More powerfull regulatory bodies is definitely the way to go.

In terms of vaccines, those on the market already have shown their effectiveness and risk ratio through post approval studies.

I believe vaccines have a more stringent approval processs than small molecule drugs.

I'm a bit confused on your stance regarding the regulatory control of medicine, don't you want to by-pass the approval process completely for so called medical marijuana?

ToBeFrank123 · 15-05-2019 2:32pm

I'm guessing this is linked to the surge in measles cases as if MMR vaccination rates decline, Measles and Mumps both make a comeback.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/surge-in-mumps-victims-as-1000-recent-cases-reported-with-men-more-infected-38113379.html

CramCycle · 15-05-2019 2:36pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

For those looking for "comparative studies", the good people of Kurzgesagt (no big pharma involved) have produced this video:

The vaccine vs. illness numbers (for those who choose to believe them) start at around 4m20s

A brilliant video for those claiming that negative side effects are being hidden from people. The numbers really put it into perspective.

Seth Brundle · 15-05-2019 3:17pm

CramCycle wrote: »

A brilliant video for those claiming that negative side effects are being hidden from people. The numbers really put it into perspective.

Yes but...but...but it says how children get sick and possibly die from the vaccines. Better off not taking them so!

And it's just propaganda proably paid for by the greedy pharma companies whose only reason to exist is to kill all their customers.

waxmoth · 16-05-2019 12:14am

jh79 wrote: »

More powerfull regulatory bodies is definitely the way to go.

In terms of vaccines, those on the market already have shown their effectiveness and risk ratio through post approval studies.

I believe vaccines have a more stringent approval processs than small molecule drugs.

I'm a bit confused on your stance regarding the regulatory control of medicine, don't you want to by-pass the approval process completely for so called medical marijuana?

Less powerful but more effective regulatory bodies would be better – ideally in the context of a system in which trials are independently conducted. The current system has a well-documented revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies whose products are under consideration.

Effectiveness and risk should not have to be determined whilst drugs are in use for obvious reasons. A recent example is Dengvaxia where, despite warnings from the scientific community, the vaccine was used in hundreds of thousands of people and subsequently withdrawn when deaths were attributed to the phenomenon described. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/dengue-vaccine-fiasco-leads-criminal-charges-researcher-philippines

On medical cannabis my only comment was to point out that a publication you quoted concluded against your point. On unregulated cannabidiol I have said that it should be used with caution/under supervision because there may be some conversion to THC in stomach acid in some cases.

jh79 · 16-05-2019 10:17am

waxmoth wrote: »

Less powerful but more effective regulatory bodies would be better – ideally in the context of a system in which trials are independently conducted. The current system has a well-documented revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies whose products are under consideration.

Effectiveness and risk should not have to be determined whilst drugs are in use for obvious reasons. A recent example is Dengvaxia where, despite warnings from the scientific community, the vaccine was used in hundreds of thousands of people and subsequently withdrawn when deaths were attributed to the phenomenon described. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/dengue-vaccine-fiasco-leads-criminal-charges-researcher-philippines

On medical cannabis my only comment was to point out that a publication you quoted concluded against your point. On unregulated cannabidiol I have said that it should be used with caution/under supervision because there may be some conversion to THC in stomach acid in some cases.

The reason for post approval studies is the larger number of doses means rarer events will be caught.

If your doing clinical trials with 100s of thousands well its practically on the market anyways.

For med cannabis, thc/cbd products can not be blinded properly so their effectiveness will never be known and cbd only products have shown limited benefits with numerous side effects. So why allow them even under supervision? It seems to me that you are applying a different standard to cannabis which is strange considering how little medical benefit cbd/thc has.

CelticRambler · 16-05-2019 11:33am

waxmoth wrote: »

Less powerful but more effective regulatory bodies would be better

Define "effective" - because one man's effective is another man's obstruction. The anti-vaxx movement is just one high-profile sign of the general public's demand for products and policies that are frequently contradictory.

There are effective regulatory bodies in many states and political jurisdictions, but what happens when they decide that a particular drug isn't worth the plastic it's packaged in? Suddenly you get a campaign group on facebook slamming the government for not forcing the relevant health service to make that particular drug available for the very small number of patients that might - might - benefit from it, usually followed by a crowd-funding campaign to send some of them off to a jurisdiction where there's very iffy regulation (yeah, looking at you, Uncle Sam :P )

Then we get those same groups complaining that Big Pharma is forcing its unregulated medicines on an innocent population. Regulators can't win, but they can try to lay down reasonable guidelines for medicines and protocols used in their jurisdiction. In that context, we're very well served here in the EU by our regulators.

waxmoth · 16-05-2019 11:53pm

jh79 wrote: »

The reason for post approval studies is the larger number of doses means rarer events will be caught.

If your doing clinical trials with 100s of thousands well its practically on the market anyways.

For med cannabis, thc/cbd products can not be blinded properly so their effectiveness will never be known and cbd only products have shown limited benefits with numerous side effects. So why allow them even under supervision? It seems to me that you are applying a different standard to cannabis which is strange considering how little medical benefit cbd/thc has.

If there was a known safety concern, as there was with Dengue vaccine, then it should have been addressed before approval.

Scott Halstead, who studies dengue at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, argued that dengue vaccines could have the same effect, and warned that Dengvaxia should not be given to children never infected with dengue. But a vaccine panel at the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded in 2016 that Dengvaxia was safe for children aged 9 and older.
Halstead's concerns proved valid. In November 2017, Sanofi Pasteur announced that the vaccine could indeed exacerbate cases of dengue in children never previously infected, and the Philippines halted the campaign immediately. (WHO now recommends the vaccine be used only after a test to be sure children have had at least one brush with dengue.)

CBD has already been approved by the FDA for Dravets syndrome and proprietary forms of THC are also approved for other indications. CBD in particular has very useful properties as an immunomodulator and anti-inflammatory and it is unlikely to become mandatory. Ethanol has widespread approval despite severe (dose-dependent) side effects.

jh79 · 17-05-2019 12:43am

waxmoth wrote: »

If there was a known safety concern, as there was with Dengue vaccine, then it should have been addressed before approval.
CBD has already been approved by the FDA for Dravets syndrome and proprietary forms of THC are also approved for other indications. CBD in particular has very useful properties as an immunomodulator and anti-inflammatory and it is unlikely to become mandatory. Ethanol has widespread approval despite severe (dose-dependent) side effects.

But your claim is that effectiveness and side effects should be determined prior to use.

In the case of Vera Twomey, her daughter is taking thc/cbd which has not been tested for Dravets and has no formal long term toxicity studies available.

Your support of her use of cannabis as medicine contradicts the standards you claim medicine should meet. You're against post approval studies but ok with untested thc/cbd "under supervision". It doesn't add up.

Also while a group of compounds can have similar modes of action they can also have different side effects and levels of effectiveness.

FDA approval for GW pharma specific CBD compound does not mean all CBD based formulations have the same benefits and risks.

Harry Palmr · 05-06-2019 6:15pm

and this is the end result for one family.

https://www.thejournal.ie/13-month-old-admitted-to-intensive-care-after-were-parents-influenced-by-anti-vaccine-material-online-4668594-Jun2019/

PARENTS OF A 13-month-old boy have admitted to being “unduly” influenced by anti-vaccine information on social media after their son ended up in the intensive care unit of University Hospital Galway with a preventable disease.

The boy had not received his childhood vaccinations because his parents were concerned about a potential link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorder after seeing reports on social media.

The parents told UHG staff that they were keen to share their experience to help provide a “more balanced argument on social media, which can often be dominated by anti-vaccine material”.
A report by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) details that the boy presented to the resuscitation area in the emergency department in significant respiratory distress. It also notes that he was a previously well child without significant past medical history, not on any medications.
The boy had been infected with a non-typable Haemophilus influenza strain which can cause serious infection in humans, particularly children.

Igotadose · 08-06-2019 10:50am

Anti-vax gift keeps giving. Over 1000 cases in the US now. Most in the last 25 years, and it's only June

https://gizmodo.com/cdc-says-measles-cases-in-u-s-have-now-reached-over-1-1835288447

Guy:Incognito · 08-06-2019 10:58am

Behind the bastards did a good 3 parter on the anti vaxx movement.

But I'm sure certain people will just say hes a big pharma shill or some other ****.

https://www.behindthebastards.com/podcasts/part-one-the-birth-of-the-anti-vaccine-movement.htm

Igotadose · 13-06-2019 2:00pm

Apparently Jenny McCarthy's old hat, now Jessica Biel (whoever she is) is the new starlet-vaccine-denier, hanging around with loony Kennedy Jr.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/13/entertainment/jessica-biel-vaccines/index.html

Speaking of Kennedy Jr, here's a two-part destruction of Kennedy's nonsense about Gardasil: Part 1 and Part 2

ancapailldorcha · 13-06-2019 2:05pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Apparently Jenny McCarthy's old hat, now Jessica Biel (whoever she is) is the new starlet-vaccine-denier, hanging around with loony Kennedy Jr.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/13/entertainment/jessica-biel-vaccines/index.html

Speaking of Kennedy Jr, here's a two-part destruction of Kennedy's nonsense about Gardasil: Part 1 and Part 2

She was in the worst Blade film and the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre so clearly we should be ignoring the scientists and doctors.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-06-2019 6:41pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She was in the worst Blade film and the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre so clearly we should be ignoring the scientists and doctors.

And she didn't take the opportunity to name her new child Batmo.

batgoat · 14-06-2019 4:13am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She was in the worst Blade film and the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre so clearly we should be ignoring the scientists and doctors.

In fairness, great in The Sinner... But god knows why these people think their opinions on the subject are of any value...

Anti-vaxxers

Comments