Anti-vaxxers

hcf500 · 13-12-2019 11:18pm

paul71 wrote: »

refusal to answer direct questions asking for links to credible science sources

Where did I do that?

hcf500 · 14-12-2019 12:08am

Strange that so many accusations are made against me but when asked to point out specifics, the accusers disappear!

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2019 2:22am

hcf500 wrote: »

This conversation has gone off the rails. There are posters wanting to lock people up for posting online and more wanting to kick doors down to forcibly vaccinate children!

No need to play the victim while stirring the pot, your stance is very transparent.

People are just pissed off with anti-vaxxers and their nonsense, it's literally costing lives.

Holocaust denial is just straight up banned or quarantined on many history forums now, I wouldn't be surprised in future to see anti-vax "debates" going the same way.

hcf500 · 14-12-2019 7:50am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No need to play the victim while stirring the pot, your stance is very transparent.

Still nothing specific! I could say you are being very transparent. How could you defend yourself against that claim when you don't have any specifics?

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2019 12:16pm

hcf500 wrote: »

Still nothing specific! I could say you are being very transparent. How could you defend yourself against that claim when you don't have any specifics?

It's the constant contrarian view. "I know vaccines are generally safe but .. [insert demand for explanation on X situation]". It gets a bit tiring after awhile.

If you have some specific issue with one specific vaccine - and are so burning for explanations or details, just go to any medical or medical science forum, I'm sure you'll find your answers there

moonage · 14-12-2019 12:46pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Holocaust denial is just straight up banned or quarantined on many history forums now, I wouldn't be surprised in future to see anti-vax "debates" going the same way.

It's telling when discussion of a topic is stifled and books on it are banned.

Could it be that there is valuable information that the censors of free speech would like to suppress?

CosmicFool · 14-12-2019 12:58pm

moonage wrote: »

It's telling when discussion of a topic is stifled and books on it are banned.

Could it be that there is valuable information that the censors of free speech would like to suppress?

No. It's just pure bull**** and damaging so they have no choice but to Ban them because of idiots

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2019 1:02pm

moonage wrote: »

It's telling when discussion of a topic is stifled and books on it are banned.

Could it be that there is valuable information that the censors of free speech would like to suppress?

If I recall correctly you are a holocaust denier/revisionist who has been carded here

Certain subjects (911, holocaust revisionism) just get outright banned on respective forums because mods get sick of dealing with them. The arguments for them as based on fantasy and a complete lack of logic, therefore users promoting them don't adhere to logical arguments or debate and the whole thing often turns into a cesspit pretty quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if anti-vax currently receives similar treatment or will in the future

DublinWriter · 14-12-2019 6:33pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

People are just pissed off with anti-vaxxers and their nonsense, it's literally costing lives.

I could say the same about poor vaccination products and practise.

But no, the debate is toxic because people assume absolute positions on both sides. This is not a black and white issue.

I've no problem with the science of vaccination, but I've a HUGE problem with quality control and use of neuro-toxic preservatives in the production of modern vaccines and the increasing introduction of new products onto the baby/infant schedule from the early 1970's as if the immune system in the young is an indefatigable resource to have more and more and more products heaped upon.

BOTH sides of the argument need to look at the schedule as it was in the 1970's vs where it is now. Really. Do the homework before you virtue signal as there's SCANT research into effects of the modern schedule in-toto.

What I have observed is that for most on both sides, this is just a keyboard warrior zero-sum game to be played out on social media. Well kudos to you. I'm sure you sleep better at night knowing that you took a superior debating position on the Internet.

Some of us have real skin in the game and can't afford to play games on social media as we have actual, real and damaged children to care for.

Your efforts on the net only decrease the signal to noise ratio and prevent a respectful, mature and learned debate from ever taking place.

Igotadose · 14-12-2019 6:53pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I could say the same about poor vaccination products and practise.

But no, the debate is toxic because people assume absolute positions on both sides. This is not a black and white issue.

So... do present your evidence. Thanks.

I've no problem with the science of vaccination, but I've a HUGE problem with quality control and use of neuro-toxic preservatives in the production of modern vaccines and the increasing introduction of new products onto the baby/infant schedule from the early 1970's as if the immune system in the young is an indefatigable resource to have more and more and more products heaped upon.

Which of the preservatives are 'neuro-toxic?' And, your feelings don't matter, don't really care what you have problems with. Data not anecdotes. Reliable links, too (no anti-vax sites).

BOTH sides of the argument need to look at the schedule as it was in the 1970's vs where it is now. Really. Do the homework before you virtue signal as there's SCANT research into effects of the modern schedule in-toto.

What I have observed is that for most on both sides, this is just a keyboard warrior zero-sum game to be played out on social media. Well kudos to you. I'm sure you sleep better at night knowing that you took a superior debating position on the Internet.

. So, again, lets have your facts and we can discuss.

Some of us have real skin in the game and can't afford to play games on social media as we have actual, real and damaged children to care for.

That hardly matters as well, if you want to discuss facts, bring them on.

Your efforts on the net only decrease the signal to noise ratio and prevent a respectful, mature and learned debate from ever taking place.

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2019 7:00pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I've a HUGE problem with quality control and use of neuro-toxic preservatives in the production of modern vaccines and the increasing introduction of new products onto the baby/infant schedule from the early 1970's as if the immune system in the young is an indefatigable resource to have more and more and more products heaped upon.

Not a general issue, and it's your perceived view

You are correct, it isn't a purely black and white issue, but it's a 99.999% black and 0.001% white issue, that's important to note

ancapailldorcha · 14-12-2019 7:00pm

Ah, the old "both sides" canard.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-12-2019 7:06pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I could say the same about poor vaccination products and practise.

But no, the debate is toxic because people assume absolute positions on both sides. This is not a black and white issue.

I've no problem with the science of vaccination, but I've a HUGE problem with quality control and use of neuro-toxic preservatives in the production of modern vaccines and the increasing introduction of new products onto the baby/infant schedule from the early 1970's as if the immune system in the young is an indefatigable resource to have more and more and more products heaped upon.

BOTH sides of the argument need to look at the schedule as it was in the 1970's vs where it is now. Really. Do the homework before you virtue signal as there's SCANT research into effects of the modern schedule in-toto.

What I have observed is that for most on both sides, this is just a keyboard warrior zero-sum game to be played out on social media. Well kudos to you. I'm sure you sleep better at night knowing that you took a superior debating position on the Internet.

Some of us have real skin in the game and can't afford to play games on social media as we have actual, real and damaged children to care for.

Your efforts on the net only decrease the signal to noise ratio and prevent a respectful, mature and learned debate from ever taking place.

DublinWriter, some of us are coming at this topic with more than a dilettante-level of knowledge on the topic. Relevant scientific qualifications - not that rare.

Harry Palmr · 17-01-2020 7:22pm

Mumps are the new example of a high incident rate among that cohort that would have been at the vaccination age when Andrew Wakefield was spreading his compost.

fryup · 17-01-2020 11:51pm

does mumps make you sterile? or is that measles?

17-01-2020 11:55pm

fryup wrote: »

does mumps make you sterile? or is that measles?

Both can but it's rare as far as I know.

mountai · 22-01-2020 12:56pm

Data released by Cancer Research UK during cervical cancer prevention week found headway on tackling the deadly disease has been “stalling and stagnating” and the dearth of progress has been going on for a decade.

Among 25- to 29-year-olds, there has been a 54 per cent rise in cervical cancer rates.

Whttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cervical-cancer-screening-hpv-vaccination-young-women-a9295291.html?fbclid=IwAR3UMucEM7N3Yb9e-o-wQV6OYieXymxBe8MXQrv-dOkXXqTtnabER981f7 Well now , doesnt THAT bate Bannagher ..

jh79 · 22-01-2020 1:08pm

Looks like there has been a fall off in screening rates but cervical cancer rates should reduce once the benefits of the vaccine program are realized.

Here's a link to the original press release.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2020-01-22-cervical-cancer-progress-falters-as-screening-uptake-hits-record-lows

mountai · 22-01-2020 4:13pm

esearchers at Newcastle University and Queen Mary University of London discovered the trials were not designed to identify cervical cancer, which takes decades to develop.

Dr Claire Rees, lead researcher, said: “Trials may have overestimated efficacy by combining high-grade cervical disease with low-grade cervical changes that occur more frequently but often resolve spontaneously without progressing. We found insufficient data to clearly conclude that HPV vaccine prevents the higher-grade abnormal cell changes that can eventually develop into cervical cancer.

“Abnormal cell changes are likely to have been over diagnosed in the trials because cervical cytology was conducted at six to 12 months rather than at the normal screening interval of 36 months. This, too, means that the trials may have overestimated the efficacy of the vaccine, again because some of the lesions would have regressed spontaneously.”

The last sentence should be especially noted . I suppose these researchers will be vilified , as they dont CONFORM .

Igotadose · 22-01-2020 5:32pm

mountai wrote: »

Researchers at Newcastle University and Queen Mary University of London discovered the trials were not designed to identify cervical cancer, which takes decades to develop.

Cherry picking it seems. Here's more of a quote from an article mentioning this study - which was a literature review, after all, and not any kind of actual study:

"Responding to the JRSM study, PHE senior scientist Marta Checchi said: 'Data from the UK suggests that there has been a decline in five high-risk HPV types that cause around 90% of cervical cancer cases. This means that the vaccine programme is on target to dramatically reduce the number of women being diagnosed with high-grade cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer in the future.'"

https://www.gponline.com/hpv-infections-drop-sharply-experts-warn-vaccination-may-not-stop-cervical-cancer/cancer/article/1671501

ancapailldorcha · 22-01-2020 5:37pm

mountai wrote: »

The last sentence should be especially noted . I suppose these researchers will be vilified , as they dont CONFORM .

It's daft comments like this which indicate that you clearly couldn't care less about kids health to be honest. Just in case you're wondering why so many people believe that anti-vaxxers are so insincere.

mountai · 22-01-2020 8:33pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's daft comments like this which indicate that you clearly couldn't care less about kids health to be honest. Just in case you're wondering why so many people believe that anti-vaxxers are so insincere.

So you assume Im an antivaxxer . You might wish to know I support all vaccinations EXCEPT HPV . All my children received their vaccinations but having witnessed my Grandaughters chronic adverse reaction to the HPV , I have come to that conclusion . What is worse however , is the abuse and total denial that is directed at Parents that KNOW their children have suffered . The truth will out , eventually , it always does .

ancapailldorcha · 22-01-2020 8:35pm

mountai wrote: »

So you assume Im an antivaxxer . You might wish to know I support all vaccinations EXCEPT HPV . All my children received their vaccinations but having witnessed my Grandaughters chronic adverse reaction to the HPV , I have come to that conclusion . What is worse however , is the abuse and total denial that is directed at Parents that KNOW their children have suffered . The truth will out , eventually , it always does .

I'm not buying it, I'm afraid. The pretence at moderation has been done to death and is belied by lines like "The truth will out". The weird use of BLOCK CAPITALS and odd spacing don't help either.

mountai · 22-01-2020 8:50pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not buying it, I'm afraid. The pretence at moderation has been done to death and is belied by lines like "The truth will out". The weird use of BLOCK CAPITALS and odd spacing don't help either.

And I could give a toss whether you buy it or not??

ancapailldorcha · 22-01-2020 8:58pm

mountai wrote: »

And I could give a toss whether you buy it or not??

Why else are you responding to my posts?

mountai · 22-01-2020 9:20pm

The legions of the Right Brigade have been summoned I see , time to go now before they convulse on their own Bile .

CramCycle · 22-01-2020 9:34pm

mountai wrote: »

So you assume Im an antivaxxer . You might wish to know I support all vaccinations EXCEPT HPV . All my children received their vaccinations but having witnessed my Grandaughters chronic adverse reaction to the HPV , I have come to that conclusion . What is worse however , is the abuse and total denial that is directed at Parents that KNOW their children have suffered . The truth will out , eventually , it always does .

What was the he reaction?

Dohnjoe · 22-01-2020 9:56pm

mountai wrote: »

The legions of the Right Brigade have been summoned I see , time to go now before they convulse on their own Bile .

What?

mountai · 22-01-2020 10:19pm

CramCycle wrote: »

What was the he reaction?

Im assuming you have a genuine interest so ,

Immediate and severe convulsions ( ambulance called by school) . Ongoing severe joint pain , chronic fatigue , convulsions , cluster of "Possible Side Effects" , as listed on the product PIL , which was deliberately witheld by the HSE . A recent hospitalisation during which she spent two days in Intensive Care ( at Doctors direction) was sent home and her Mother was requested to " Please inform us when you find out what her problem is " . You couldnt make this S**t up .

paul71 · 22-01-2020 10:33pm

mountai wrote: »

The legions of the Right Brigade have been summoned I see , time to go now before they convulse on their own Bile .

Challenged, debunked disappears. Bye bye.

Orion · 23-01-2020 5:56pm

mountai wrote: »

Im assuming you have a genuine interest so ,

Immediate and severe convulsions ( ambulance called by school) . Ongoing severe joint pain , chronic fatigue , convulsions , cluster of "Possible Side Effects" , as listed on the product PIL , which was deliberately witheld by the HSE . A recent hospitalisation during which she spent two days in Intensive Care ( at Doctors direction) was sent home and her Mother was requested to " Please inform us when you find out what her problem is " . You couldnt make this S**t up .

Everyone of those "reactions" has been debunked many many times. CFS is a common ailment especially in girls and occurs in equal measure in vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren.

The PIL was not withheld - that's just a patent lie. It's on the HSE website for starters - and you can ask for it when getting the vaccine too.

You're right about not being able to make this s**t up alright - except you do.

Graces7 · 23-01-2020 6:00pm

Orion wrote: »

Everyone of those "reactions" has been debunked many many times. CFS is a common ailment especially in girls and occurs in equal measure in vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren.

The PIL was not withheld - that's just a patent lie. It's on the HSE website for starters - and you can ask for it when getting the vaccine too.

You're right about not being able to make this s**t up alright - except you do.

Please prove this ? It gets bandied around with no actual verification.

TheRepentent · 23-01-2020 6:01pm

Orion wrote: »

You're right about not being able to make this s**t up alright - except you do.

A dishonest vaxtard? Who would of thought...........

jh79 · 23-01-2020 6:11pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Please prove this ? It gets bandied around with no actual verification.

Here is one study from Norway. Link to research at end of article.

https://www.meassociation.org.uk/2017/06/no-increased-risk-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-after-hpv-vaccination-24-june-2017/

Igotadose · 23-01-2020 6:13pm

FWIW, there's been some reaction in the medical literature against the paper that made the claim that HPV vaccine might not work due to study methodology problems:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/924113#vp_1

"Margaret Stanley, emeritus professor of epithelial biology, University of Cambridge, took issue with the critical appraisal. She highlighted that the analysis of clinical trials from many years ago had been superseded by real-world evidence of HPV vaccination effectiveness.

Findings from other countries concurred with those from England, she said, for example Australia, Demmark, Sweden, and Scotland, where more than 70% vaccination coverage had been achieved, together with the implementation of good screening programs."

So, the summary is: get the vaccine. And don't forget to get the screening. "Seems" obvious to me, cervical cancer incidents are way down since the vaccine came into wide use.

jackboy · 23-01-2020 6:22pm

Igotadose wrote: »

"Seems" obvious to me, cervical cancer incidents are way down since the vaccine came into wide use.

Is this true? By how much? Is this definitely due to vaccination? or could screening be a significant factor.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 23-01-2020 7:00pm

jh79 wrote: »

Here is one study from Norway. Link to research at end of article.

https://www.meassociation.org.uk/2017/06/no-increased-risk-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-after-hpv-vaccination-24-june-2017/

A few more reputable sources

1. Institute of Medicine, in Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality, K. Stratton, et al., Editors. 2012, National Academies Press (US): Washington (DC).

2. Donegan, K., et al., Bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine and the risk of fatigue syndromes in girls in the UK. Vaccine, 2013. 31(43): p. 4961–7.

3. Magnus, P., et al., Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is associated with pandemic influenza infection, but not with an adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine. Vaccine, 2015. 33(46): p. 6173–7.

4. Feiring, B., et al., HPV vaccination and risk of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: A nationwide register-based study from Norway. Vaccine, 2017. 35(33): p. 4203–12.

5. Bazzichi, L., et al., Fibromyalgia: a critical digest of the recent literature. Clin Exp Rheumatol, 2011. 29(6 Suppl 69): p. S1–11.

6. Moss-Morris, R., V. Deary, and B. Castell, Chronic fatigue syndrome. Handb Clin Neurol, 2013. 110: p. 303–14.

7. Committee on the Diagnostic Criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue, S., P. Board on the Health of Select, and M. Institute of, The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health, in Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness. 2015, National Academies Press (US).

8. Romano, G.F., et al., Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue: the underlying biology and related theoretical issues. Adv Psychosom Med, 2015. 34: p. 61–77.

9. Martinez-Martinez, L.A., et al., Sympathetic nervous system dysfunction in fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and interstitial cystitis: a review of case-control studies. J Clin Rheumatol, 2014. 20(3): p. 146–50.

10. Buskila, D., F. Atzeni, and P. Sarzi-Puttini, Etiology of fibromyalgia: the possible role of infection and vaccination. Autoimmun Rev, 2008. 8(1): p. 41–3.

Enough said!!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 23-01-2020 7:03pm

jackboy wrote: »

Is this true? By how much? Is this definitely due to vaccination? or could screening be a significant factor.

77% reduction to date and attributable to the vaccine.

jackboy · 23-01-2020 7:14pm

Maci Whining Pianist wrote: »

77% reduction to date and attributable to the vaccine.

That’s a stunning success. Why is that not being widely reported? In fairness the ad campaigns are very weak with a stench of propaganda. Those success figures would blow the anti vaxxers out of the water.

ancapailldorcha · 23-01-2020 9:42pm

jackboy wrote: »

That’s a stunning success. Why is that not being widely reported? In fairness the ad campaigns are very weak with a stench of propaganda. Those success figures would blow the anti vaxxers out of the water.

Good news doesn't sell unfortunately. The media thrives on misery.

Graces7 · 24-01-2020 6:37am

Ah . Not infallible, and basically erroneous, but you know that, and the parents of vaccine damaged children know truth.

The link between M.E and vaccines that damage the immune system is well known. I am vaccine damaged and have severe M.E and have researched, and been advised not to take any vaccine\. I trust my GP on this more than here.

Ask Holland and Japan and Ireland also.

M.E s a devastating, incurable . life wrecking illness. Not to be glibly dismissed.

Anyways as others have said, your technique is to "discredit" wholesale any opposition which is why we shoot and take cover! As I am doing now! And check please as there are huge discrepancies between your words and the objective truth

Bye!

jh79 wrote: »

Here is one study from Norway. Link to research at end of article.

https://www.meassociation.org.uk/2017/06/no-increased-risk-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-after-hpv-vaccination-24-june-2017/

Igotadose · 24-01-2020 9:00am

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah . Not infallible, and basically erroneous, but you know that, and the parents of vaccine damaged children know truth.

Grace, it seems you're in 'words mean different things to me than everyone else' stage again. What is 'erroneous' about

"Girls receiving one or more doses of HPV vaccine have no greater risk of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) than unvaccinated girls. This is shown in a new major study from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health."

that the one paper quoted mentioned.

The link between M.E and vaccines that damage the immune system is well known unproven. I am vaccine damaged and have severe M.E and have researched, and been advised not to take any vaccine\. I trust my GP on this more than here.

FYP.
I do agree, you should not get your medical advice from a message board. Certainly not an anonymous public-facing one like boards.

Ask Holland and Japan and Ireland also.

M.E s a devastating, incurable . life wrecking illness. Not to be glibly dismissed.

So are blindness from measles, paralysis from polio, death from other childhood diseases. Which percentage would you rather have? An unproven link to a condition that manifests in adults, or well-known killers easily prevented via vaccine?

Anyways as others have said, your technique is to "discredit" wholesale any opposition which is why we shoot and take cover! As I am doing now! And check please as there are huge discrepancies between your words and the objective truth

Bye!

Actually, the only 'other' was a seagull who has run away from discussion. As soon as you post some objective truth, rather than an anecdote, we can discuss.

ancapailldorcha · 24-01-2020 9:15am

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah . Not infallible, and basically erroneous, but you know that, and the parents of vaccine damaged children know truth.

The link between M.E and vaccines that damage the immune system is well known. I am vaccine damaged and have severe M.E and have researched, and been advised not to take any vaccine\. I trust my GP on this more than here.

Ask Holland and Japan and Ireland also.

M.E s a devastating, incurable . life wrecking illness. Not to be glibly dismissed.

Anyways as others have said, your technique is to "discredit" wholesale any opposition which is why we shoot and take cover! As I am doing now! And check please as there are huge discrepancies between your words and the objective truth

Bye!

You "shoot and take cover" because you have no interest in debate. You care only about spreading your bilious, hateful and dangerous agenda.

You, earlier in the thread:

Graces7 wrote: »

This post is full of provable .. virulent factual inaccuraries

really not worth the bothering any more. yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn!

Graces7 wrote: »

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn....

Graces7 wrote: »

have a lovely day... I mean that,, blessings and peace

Igotadose · 24-01-2020 9:22am

And, not surprisingly, ,Skeptical Raptor's taken a detailed look at the Rees 'study.' https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/hpv-vaccine-efficacy-anti-vaxxers-pick-bad-study-ignore-positive-data/

Summary quote about the Rees study "..this study shows us nothing. There are better ones that actually establish HPV vaccine benefits between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (plus showing us that there are no safety concerns).

Of course, the anti-vaxxers will cherrypick this poorly designed and poorly concluded study to say “gotcha.” Well, anti-vaxxers, you got nothing."

So, nothing to see here, same old same old. BTW the fancy journal that it's in, is one of those 'low impact' journals (i.e., pay us we'll publish it, my cousin does the peer review kind of places).

Graces7 · 24-01-2020 1:00pm

I owe you a debt of sincere gratitude in that this thread prompted me to look up the R.E.G.R.E.T websites for the first time for a long while

To read the real and objective "other side" to this dangerous vaccine.

I had not kept up with developments so thank you so very much and I urge you to update on this.

Simon Harris's input is especially valid.

Vaccines are after all a matter of personal choice. Weighing dangers against all else
And we need to make an informed choice based on all sides of the situation.

So many young folk suffering permanent damage from Gardasil

For what is in many if not most cases is an STD

Again, thank you.
Just dropped in and not time to catch up with other posts since last night

DublinWriter · 24-01-2020 2:09pm

Interesting piece, first study I've seen that considers the schedule in toto:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/

CramCycle · 24-01-2020 2:12pm

Graces7 wrote: »

So many young folk suffering permanent damage from Gardasil

How many is so many, there are a few verified reports of severe illnesses after receiving the vaccine, the number of these though is known to be in line with the number of such actions occuring randomly in the normal population, ie having a reaction does not mean it is actually a reaction. Doesn't mean it is not but your no more likely to get it because of the vaccine.

For what is in many if not most cases is an STD

SO because it is an STD, we shouldn't protect people from it? Genuine question.

Long story short, if your against the vaccine, fine, that is your choice but the stats don't back up your opinion, and while some people have terrible things randomly happen to them, sometimes close to the time they had a vaccine (and I am talking one severe reaction per 2 million people (actually it is a far lower number but to round things off).

Has any of the one person here who know of someone with a reaction, know if they reported it to HPRA? Like they are meant too via their Doctor or Nurse.

There are a number of reasons not to get the vaccine:
- Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to any component of HPV vaccine, or to a previous dose of HPV vaccine, should not get the vaccine.
- Anyone with severe allergies, including an allergy to yeast, should talk to their doctor before getting the vaccine.
- HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women. However, receiving HPV vaccine when pregnant is not cause for alarm. Women who are breastfeeding may get the vaccine.
- People who are mildly ill (low-grade fever of less than 101 degrees, a cold, runny nose, or cough) when a dose of HPV vaccine is planned can still be vaccinated. People with a moderate or severe illness should wait until they are better.

Taken from the CDC which also has lots of links to data on the G9 vaccine in the US

ancapailldorcha · 24-01-2020 2:12pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Interesting piece, first study I've seen that considers the schedule in toto:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/

It's a CBS news piece from 2011 with no link to the actual study.

DublinWriter · 24-01-2020 2:18pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a CBS news piece from 2011 with no link to the actual study.

There's this crazy thing called Google...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086?scroll=top&needAccess=true

ancapailldorcha · 24-01-2020 2:20pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's this crazy thing called Google...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Have you read the study or are you just dumping links and expecting other people to do the reading for you?

FYI, Sharyl Attkisson is an anti-vaxxer so I'll be taking anything she says with a mountain of salt.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments