Anti-vaxxers

pjohnson · 04-09-2017 8:42am

Anti vaxers will kill themselves off through either pseudo science or an inability to understand science. Self solving problem.

tigger123 · 04-09-2017 8:48am

pjohnson wrote: »

Anti vaxers will kill themselves off through either pseudo science or an inability to understand science. Self solving problem.

Its not just them it affects though, that's the problem. Its like saying a drunk driver will only kill themselves, so Iet them off.

One eyed Jack · 04-09-2017 9:23am

pjohnson wrote: »

Anti vaxers will kill themselves off through either pseudo science or an inability to understand science. Self solving problem.

Statistically, how many anti-vaxxers have actually died from choosing not to vaccinate their children? I would suggest that the risk of their children dying is far greater than any risk to themselves. I don't think the problem actually does solve itself by your definition.

The real problem isn't their failure to understand science, it's a failure of people who are pro-vaccination to understand why people would choose not to vaccinate their children.

whoopsadoodles · 04-09-2017 9:29am

pjohnson wrote: »

Anti vaxers will kill themselves off through either pseudo science or an inability to understand science. Self solving problem.

There are children who are so sick, whose immune system is so weakened that they can't receive vaccines. These children spend their lives fighting off infections and being the biggest heroes anyone could hope to meet. Those are the children that will die as a result of other people not vaccinating their children.

Pherekydes · 04-09-2017 9:46am

endacl wrote: »

Unfortunately there's no vaccine for stupid.

Education?

Jawgap · 04-09-2017 10:10am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Statistically, how many anti-vaxxers have actually died from choosing not to vaccinate their children? I would suggest that the risk of their children dying is far greater than any risk to themselves. I don't think the problem actually does solve itself by your definition.

The real problem isn't their failure to understand science, it's a failure of people who are pro-vaccination to understand why people would choose not to vaccinate their children.

Unfortunately, the anti-vax arguments, as I see them, are all irrational and emotive, whereas the the pro-vaccination arguments are rooted in science.

People can relate to the story of the child who was vaccinated and fell ill in a way they'll never relate to stats......that's why the anti-vaxxers get traction.

If it was me, I'd counter their irrational, emotional rooted anecdotes with similar anecdotes told by people who were blinded by measles, lost kids to meningitis or survived cervical cancer. Maybe then they'd see some sense.

endacl · 04-09-2017 10:16am

pjohnson wrote: »

Anti vaxers will kill themselves off through either pseudo science or an inability to understand science. Self solving problem.

No they won't. They're adults who have, by and large, benefitted from having been vaccinated. Their children are the ones in danger. And more poignantly, any other immuno-compromised children, whose parents would vaccinate, but can't.

Anti vaccination is an ignorant position to take. In every sense of that word.

endacl · 04-09-2017 10:17am

Pherekydes wrote: »

Education?

Doesn't appear to be completely effective...

Richard Hillman · 04-09-2017 10:19am

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

VinLieger · 04-09-2017 10:22am

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

Not the same at all, but keep continuing to try to justify people so ignorantly selfish they will put other peoples vulnerable children at risk

knipex · 04-09-2017 10:33am

pjohnson wrote: »

Anti vaxers will kill themselves off through either pseudo science or an inability to understand science. Self solving problem.

No they wont.

They will cause death, sickness and suffering to their kids, and other children who for various reasons cannot be immunized and will cause these diseases to exist for decades longer than necessary.

They themselves were probably vaccinated as kids..

tigger123 · 04-09-2017 10:39am

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

Do you trust the medical community when they tell you not to smoke? Or are you suspicious of that too?

knipex · 04-09-2017 10:41am

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

Yes it is. Science is all about rational debate, evidence, data and statistical analysis.

Anti vaccination activists are all about emotions, pseudo science and soundbites. They don't want rational debate, they avoid it and spout soundbites.. Just look at this thread.

Anything is up for debate. But I for one don't have enough knowledge to debate or question in any meaningful way a epidemiologist with an MD a PhD and 25 years experience, or a drug researcher with 3 PhD's and 15 years experience. I can ask questions sure, I can get answers and attempt to understand those answers and even get those answered dumb ed down to the point where I understand them. BUT at the end of the day I dont have the education or knowledge to make a truly informed decision no matter how much information i am given, it comes down to trust..

Do i trust 99.99999% of the medical community who vaccinate themselves and their kids or some person with no qualifications who rad an article on aluminum or mercury they found of google ??

Crea · 04-09-2017 10:56am

A friend of mine has a daughter in school in California. The HPV vaccine was being administered to the kids in the school. Anyone who wanted to opt out was told that their child could not attend the school if not vaccinated.
It was a state run middle school. All vaccines had to be up to date.

ancapailldorcha · 04-09-2017 10:59am

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

Scientists don't tell people not to question science. That would be as unscientific as one could be.

ohnonotgmail · 04-09-2017 11:02am

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

what scientists have told you this?

um7y1h83ge06nx · 04-09-2017 11:06am

Without questioning things there would be no innovation in science and engineering.

So questioning things is good as long as you have data to support your position. Anadoctal examples and emotion wouldn't be sufficient so maybe that is where the issue lies for you.

mariaalice · 04-09-2017 11:13am

Addressing concerns is a good thing, discussing it with parents however if the concern is based on feelings or something from a wellness guru or they are mediating some mental health issues its if very difficult to reassure the person because their actions and reactions are not based on anything rational.

Concerns based on empirical evidence based science is a different issue

Orion · 04-09-2017 11:55am

gar32 wrote: »

I am not anti vax

Oh really? Then why do you keep pushing the antivax line on multiple forums?

Richard Hillman · 04-09-2017 12:32pm

tigger123 wrote: »

Do you trust the medical community when they tell you not to smoke? Or are you suspicious of that too?

I think the medical community have completely lost their way over the last couple of decades. They seem more concerned about controlling people and taking away personal freedoms than their primary role of advising people.

If my doctor told me not to smoke, I would take it as advice, rather than a demand for me not to smoke.

In terms of the vaccine. Doctors should be advising people to take the vaccine as research (done by other people) suggests it would be good. What I am seeing is the medical community demanding that people take this vaccine. Demanding based on research done by people they don't know.

I can see the medical community and profession go down the pan in terms respect, just like journalism. It seems like the most shrill medical people are getting headlines and feeding their egos.

mrkiscool2 · 04-09-2017 12:45pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

No real scientist would ever say this. Hell, research is basically questioning pre-existing notions or why we haven't discovered more about x yet. And the thing about Science is that it is fallible, it's why we have the scientific method, to make it less fallible. Not infallible, as some people tend to believe, but less fallible then it would be otherwise.

If a peer reviewed paper came out tomorrow about how vaccines are causing massive health issues to people in a reputable journal tomorrow, I'd have to reevaluate my opinion on vaccines. Until that point, I won't. And trust me, from my knowledge of chemistry, how medical ligands are formed and worked and the contents of what's in HPV and MMR vaccines, I highly doubt there will ever be such a paper. But, again, I'm not dead-set on that. I could be wrong. Any scientist that doesn't say they could be wrong is a bad scientist (unless you are talking to them about things that we definitely know)

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I think the medical community have completely lost their way over the last couple of decades. They seem more concerned about controlling people and taking away personal freedoms than their primary role of advising people.

If my doctor told me not to smoke, I would take it as advice, rather than a demand for me not to smoke.

In terms of the vaccine. Doctors should be advising people to take the vaccine as research (done by other people) suggests it would be good. What I am seeing is the medical community demanding that people take this vaccine. Demanding based on research done by people they don't know.

I can see the medical community and profession go down the pan in terms respect, just like journalism. It seems like the most shrill medical people are getting headlines and feeding their egos.

This is a new angle. "The medical profession say I should definitely get my kids vaccinated, what assh0les they are, trying to look out for people's health! Ugh!"

No, in some things the medical profession has an absolute right to demand what should be done in relation to health. Just because they demand doesn't mean they get what they want. If the medical profession had their way, smoking and drinking would be banned, because of the ill-effects. They aren't.

Medical professions don't really care what you do to your body. Sure, they advise you on how to best take care of yourself and will treat you, no matter what you have done to yourself. But, when your actions put others at risk, the can't stand by that. By not vaccinating your kids, you reduce herd immunity. Sorry, Rubella and Whooping Cough are fcuking awful and I don't want to see them come back, ever. Trying to ensure that women have the best protection against one of the most lethal and hard to detect forms of cancer is also good, and by not letting your children get it, you are putting them at risk.

Jawgap · 04-09-2017 1:00pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I think the medical community have completely lost their way over the last couple of decades. They seem more concerned about controlling people and taking away personal freedoms than their primary role of advising people.

If my doctor told me not to smoke, I would take it as advice, rather than a demand for me not to smoke.

In terms of the vaccine. Doctors should be advising people to take the vaccine as research (done by other people) suggests it would be good. What I am seeing is the medical community demanding that people take this vaccine. Demanding based on research done by people they don't know.

I can see the medical community and profession go down the pan in terms respect, just like journalism. It seems like the most shrill medical people are getting headlines and feeding their egos.

No, if they are demanding people do certain things it has more to do with them seeing or having to deal with the consequences of people not doing those things......

.....

Richard Hillman · 04-09-2017 1:23pm

Jawgap wrote: »

No, if they are demanding people do certain things it has more to do with them seeing or having to deal with the consequences of people not doing those things......

.....

Your body, your life. And if it goes wrong you pay Mr or Mrs Doctor a lot of money to sort it out.

I find this case really bizarre. It's not like it is for a viral disease. Why are people being excluded from schools for not taking this? Very strange.

darkdubh · 04-09-2017 1:28pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I always get suspicious when scientists tell you not to question science. Questioning stuff is what science is all about.

Could you tell us what scientists have said this? I have never heard of any scientist come out with a statement like that.

pjohnson · 04-09-2017 1:30pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Your body, your life. And if it goes wrong you pay Mr or Mrs Doctor a lot of money to sort it out.

Mr or Mrs Doctor shouldnt have to treat people too stupid to treat themselves. If a doctor tells someone to stop smoking and said person ignores the advice only to give themselves cancer fcuk them. Doctor can spend the time on a patient that deserves care.

Richard Hillman · 04-09-2017 1:32pm

darkdubh wrote: »

Could you tell us what scientists have said this? I have never heard of any scientist come out with a statement like that.

You often hear climate change people lose their **** if anybody questions it. Anybody who questions it is deemed "dangerous" or a looper

MrPudding · 04-09-2017 1:34pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Your body, your life. And if it goes wrong you pay Mr or Mrs Doctor a lot of money to sort it out.

I find this case really bizarre. It's not like it is for a viral disease. Why are people being excluded from schools for not taking this? Very strange.

I think, then, it is fairly safe to assume you have not bothered reading the thread... The answers to your questions are in previous posts. Will give you a clue, herd immunity.

MrP

knipex · 04-09-2017 1:48pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I think the medical community have completely lost their way over the last couple of decades. They seem more concerned about controlling people and taking away personal freedoms than their primary role of advising people.

If my doctor told me not to smoke, I would take it as advice, rather than a demand for me not to smoke.

In terms of the vaccine. Doctors should be advising people to take the vaccine as research (done by other people) suggests it would be good. What I am seeing is the medical community demanding that people take this vaccine. Demanding based on research done by people they don't know.

I can see the medical community and profession go down the pan in terms respect, just like journalism. It seems like the most shrill medical people are getting headlines and feeding their egos.

You smoking impacts you.. Its a stupid decision but your choice.. (And I speak as an ex smoker)

Your not vaccinating your kids impacts society as a whole..

Think of it more like telling you, you cannot smoke in the work place, as in that situation your decision to smoke impacted on others.

Your decision not to vaccinate your kids affects others..

How would you feel if your daughter develops cervical cancer in here 30's knowing that there is a 70% chance that your decision caused her to have cancer ?

How would you feel if your neighbors child died from whooping cough because she couldn't be vaccinated and couldn't depend on herd immunity because the take up of the vaccine was too low.

Of if your son was sterile because he caught mumps and passed it onto that sickly kid in school who is now also sterile ?

Your decisions.. Impact society..

Jawgap · 04-09-2017 2:03pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Your body, your life. And if it goes wrong you pay Mr or Mrs Doctor a lot of money to sort it out.

I find this case really bizarre. It's not like it is for a viral disease. Why are people being excluded from schools for not taking this? Very strange.

Because you don't pay even close to the actual cost of treating an illness if you or a dependent is hospitalised for any period of time.

And by not vaccinating you just don't put the child at risk, you put everyone else at risk who comes into contact with that child/teenager/adult.

Subcomandante Marcos · 04-09-2017 2:05pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Because you don't pay even close to the actual cost of treating an illness if you or a dependent is hospitalised for any period of time.

And by not vaccinating you just don't put the child at risk, you put everyone else at risk who comes into contact with that child/teenager/adult.

Yeah but muh liburties being all stepped on by the big bag gubberment nanny state... Rabble rabble..

ancapailldorcha · 04-09-2017 2:08pm

It's amazing how the anti-vaxxers seem to be all about choice but then complain when schools try to protect pupils from the risks posed by non-vaccinated children.

mountai · 04-09-2017 2:27pm

Well I always thought that science was an evolutionary process . The more that we question the process , the more knowledge we gain . Remember when Doctors told us that smoking could relieve stress , "Pall Mall , the Doctors cigarette ". We were told Thalidomide was safe , then other scientists discovered the opposite . I have raised the following points on this forum before and not one person bothered to address same , so I ask again ,
Is it fair to label parents who have already allowed their children to be vaccinated with HPV as "Anti Vaxxers" ?
We are assured that HPV has no lasting side effects , so , why is it deemed necessary to establish a fund for vaccination damage ?
Why is ok for the chief executive of the health board to brand parents as "Terrorists"?
Why is the uptake for the flu vaccine so low amongst the medical profession.
Perhaps some of the more technically minded amongst you might address these points???

jh79 · 04-09-2017 2:32pm

mountai wrote: »

Well I always thought that science was an evolutionary process . The more that we question the process , the more knowledge we gain . Remember when Doctors told us that smoking could relieve stress , "Pall Mall , the Doctors cigarette ". We were told Thalidomide was safe , then other scientists discovered the opposite . I have raised the following points on this forum before and not one person bothered to address same , so I ask again ,
Is it fair to label parents who have already allowed their children to be vaccinated with HPV as "Anti Vaxxers" ?
We are assured that HPV has no lasting side effects , so , why is it deemed necessary to establish a fund for vaccination damage ?
Why is ok for the chief executive of the health board to brand parents as "Terrorists"?
Why is the uptake for the flu vaccine so low amongst the medical profession.
Perhaps some of the more technically minded amongst you might address these points???

Could you answer a question please? Why do you ignore the evidence that shows this vaccine to be safe?

mountai · 04-09-2017 2:37pm

jh79 wrote: »

Could you answer a question please? Why do you ignore the evidence that shows this vaccine to be safe?

Typical Farmers answer , answer a question with another question !!

pjohnson · 04-09-2017 2:40pm

mountai wrote: »

Typical Farmers answer , answer a question with another question !!

So you dont like Farmers now? You're gettin into dodgy waters now boi.

knipex · 04-09-2017 2:46pm

mountai wrote: »

Is it fair to label parents who have already allowed their children to be vaccinated with HPV as "Anti Vaxxers" ?

If they are encouraging others to avoid vaccination or avoid vaccinating their kids then yes..

mountai wrote: »

We are assured that HPV has no lasting side effects , so , why is it deemed necessary to establish a fund for vaccination damage ?

Honest answer... Its a political response to antivax hysteria.

No one is claiming any medication, including vaccines is 100% safe. All drugs carry the risk of potential side affects.

However 99.9999999% of the adverse reaction to vaccines are very very minor,. a rash or mild flu like symptoms for a day or so.

There are that 0.00000001% who may have a more serious side affect.

However the benefits of vaccination far far outweigh the risks.. This has been proven again and again and again over the decades..

mountai wrote: »

Why is ok for the chief executive of the health board to brand parents as "Terrorists"?

Because its an accurate description of the anti vax brigade...

They are putting children's lives at risk.
They are causing pain and suffering..
They are causing the death of innocent people.
They are causing long term physical injuries to people.

Forget the emotion, forget the hyperbole, its that simple. No one can argue that vaccinations do not save lives and prevent disease and illness.

In a just an fair society the anti vaccination brigade would be held responsible for every death they cause, every person that suffers as a result of their ignorance and every injury they cause.

But these deaths may not occur for 50 years in some cases.. Long after many of these protestors have dies of old age people will still be suffering as a result of their stupidity..

mountai wrote: »

Why is the uptake for the flu vaccine so low amongst the medical profession.

because people are lazy.

mountai wrote: »

Perhaps some of the more technically minded amongst you might address these points???

Whats "technically minded" got to do with your question ??

They are an attempt to distract, divert and twist.. Does not take a genius to figure that out..

branie2 · 04-09-2017 3:17pm

mountai wrote: »

Typical Farmers answer , answer a question with another question !!

Also an Irish answer

hatrickpatrick · 04-09-2017 3:53pm

mountai wrote: »

Why is ok for the chief executive of the health board to brand parents as "Terrorists"?

Let's be clear, there are two categories of campaigners against the HPV vaccine. One is actual parents of actual children who they believe to have suffered side effects as a result of the vaccine - these are not the "terrorists" being referred to. The "terrorists" being referred to are the social conservative lobby which is fuelling paranoia about the vaccine for an extremely nefarious alterior motive of sexual authoritarianism. They're active in the United States as well. That is separate and distinct from parents concerned about direct medical side effects.

mariaalice · 04-09-2017 3:58pm

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

Richard Hillman · 04-09-2017 4:01pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's amazing how the anti-vaxxers seem to be all about choice but then complain when schools try to protect pupils from the risks posed by non-vaccinated children.

How does not having the HPV Vaccine pose a risk to people who have had it?

um7y1h83ge06nx · 04-09-2017 4:07pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

How does not having the HPV Vaccine pose a risk to people who have had it?

Not everyone is able to have vaccines even if they want to. It's those that would be at risk.

knipex · 04-09-2017 4:09pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

How does not having the HPV Vaccine pose a risk to people who have had it?

Some people cannot have vaccines, some people just do not develop immunity,. These people depend on herd immunity which requires very high take up of the vaccination..

Dravokivich · 04-09-2017 4:19pm

Karla Future Whirlwind wrote: »

Not everyone is able to have vaccines even if they want to. It's those that would be at risk.

I think the lead on from there is, what's the difference between someone who abstains and someone who can't be vaccinated. The concept of herd vaccination should be acceptable for someone who abstains.

ancapailldorcha · 04-09-2017 4:21pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think the lead on from there is, what's the difference between someone who abstains and someone who can't be vaccinated. The concept of herd vaccination should be acceptable for someone who abstains.

You need about 95% coverage to achieve herd immunity whereupon the disease can no longer spread and goes into decline.

Dravokivich · 04-09-2017 4:24pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You need about 95% coverage to achieve herd immunity whereupon the disease can no longer spread and goes into decline.

Fair enough. I'm not denying the effectiveness of vaccines. I'm just proposing that as a defense for those who abstain. The don't see the distinction in why some don't vaccinate, just that they don't.

Subcomandante Marcos · 04-09-2017 4:25pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm not denying the effectiveness of vaccines. I'm just proposing that as a defense for those who abstain. The don't see the distinction in why some don't vaccinate, just that they don't.

You just don't understand herd immunity. Simples.

Dravokivich · 04-09-2017 4:28pm

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

You just don't understand herd immunity. Simples.

What are you on about? I was indicating Anti-Vaxxers potential arrogance. Go back to compare the meerkat.

ancapailldorcha · 04-09-2017 4:33pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm not denying the effectiveness of vaccines. I'm just proposing that as a defense for those who abstain. The don't see the distinction in why some don't vaccinate, just that they don't.

Thing is, if too many abstain then vaccine uptake dips below 95% increasing the chance for pathogens, especially RNA-based viruses like Measle to mutates so that the protection resulting from vaccination becomes worthless. A portion of the population can't be vaccinated for various reasons which is where the 95% figure comes from.

knipex · 04-09-2017 5:12pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think the lead on from there is, what's the difference between someone who abstains and someone who can't be vaccinated. The concept of herd vaccination should be acceptable for someone who abstains.

herd immunity depends on a very high uptake of the vaccine. (mid to high 90% depending on pathogen). There is a small but significant group who cannot be vaccinated or who will not develop immunity despite vaccination. This is outside their control.

However if people start to decide "well I will be covered by herd immunity" then you do not achieve a high enough take up and you never develop herd immunity.

If you develop herd immunity then after a while there is no longer a need to immunize anyone as the disease is wiped out (Smallpox)

The frustrating part is we were so close to wiping out a number of diseases until this anti vax bull became an issue.

Jawgap · 04-09-2017 5:22pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thing is, if too many abstain then vaccine uptake dips below 95% increasing the chance for pathogens, especially RNA-based viruses like Measle to mutates so that the protection resulting from vaccination becomes worthless. A portion of the population can't be vaccinated for various reasons which is where the 95% figure comes from.

You only have to look at the measles outbreak that occurred last year......40 cases, 19 hospitalisations......and 20% of those who suffered were infants to young to be immunised.....that's why we need herd immunity, to protect those who are vulnerable rather than those who choose to freeload.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments