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

steddyeddy

If someone doesn't get a MMR vaccine for their child based on a choice that kid could develop measles mumps or rubella. How would that parent not be to blame for that? Letting someone do that to their child is not the society I want to live in.

zenno

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Many of us don't find this issue hilarious.

I never said it was hilarious. Where did I say this ?. please don't add unspoken words regarding my comment please.

Right forget about it, back to the subject at hand .

mrsoundie

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You're sadly wrong.

There's many thousands who still fight seatbelt and helmet laws.

And end up getting fined for not abiding by the law.

The funny thing is, I would wager anyone in a crash who did not wear a seat-belt, would on hindsight rue that decision.

Calibos

mrsoundie wrote: »

No one has ever given out that the mandatory wearing of seat-belts is against their civil liberties. Yet we all wear them and are aware of the benefits of wearing one during a crash.

A bit simplistic, I acknowledge, but I do believe the comparison is justified.

I'm afraid thats a bad example. There actually are lots of people who do just that ie. they are more afraid of the small risk of being trapped in a burning car than the massively greater risk of bouncing around inside or outside the car.

MilanPan!c

mrsoundie wrote: »

And end up getting fined for not abiding by the law.

The funny thing is, I would wager anyone in a crash who did not wear a seat-belt, would on hindsight rue that decision.

Again you'd be surprised; there's many an idiot that would choose to hurt themselves in "defence" of "liberty".

zenno

steddyeddy wrote: »

If someone doesn't get a MMR vaccine for their child based on a choice that kid could develop measles mumps or rubella. How would that parent not be to blame for that? Letting someone do that to their child is not the society I want to live in.

Eddy, the law at this time has no right to dictate force untoward any parent regarding vaccinations.

Now, unless this law is changed just like it was in the united states where they knock on your door and say... we are here to vaccinate your child...the school told us that you were non-compliant in doing so last week, so we are here now to force inoculate your child, if you refuse to allow us to do this, you will be sent a summons to appear in court.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

When that vaccine becomes not suitable we'll make another one. On that not can you guess what else makes vaccines not suitable? That's right un-vaccinated children. These children act as reservoirs for disease thereby allowing these diseases to mutate. This means that different strains could arise making the vaccine useless.

No one was forced to take Thalidomide which was used (wrongly) for morning sickness. This was also damaging because of the sterochemistry involved in one version.

steddyeddy

zenno wrote: »

Eddy, the law at this time has no right to dictate force untoward any parent regarding vaccinations.

Now, unless this law is changed just like it was in the united states where they knock on your door and say... we are here to vaccinate your child...the school told us that you were non-compliant in doing so last week, so we are here now to force inoculate your child, if you refuse to allow us to do this, you will be sent a summons to appear in court.

How about refusing un-vaccinated children school thereby preventing those who can't get vaccinated due to allergy ect from getting ill?

zenno

SpaceTime wrote: »

There's no life with out risk.

You could get up in the morning, get into the shower, fall and hit your head and die. It happens to a few people every year.

Does that mean you don't shower or get out of bed?

You have to decide what's a really big risk e.g. running between lanes of traffic on a motorway in the dark and what's a really small risk taking a shower.

Human psychology tends to actually be quite poor at risk assessment sometimes when something complicated or when someone says something vaguely believable about something that they don't quite understand.

Mothers are very attached to their child as we all know, so they are more suspicious to all kinds of things, they don't take chances.

mrsoundie

Calibos wrote: »

I'm afraid thats a bad example. There actually are lots of people who do just that ie. they are more afraid of the small risk of being trapped in a burning car than the massively greater risk of bouncing around inside or outside the car.

Ok, I do concede there are people who think like that, and it highlights the point that the reward outweighs the risk.

zenno

steddyeddy wrote: »

How about refusing un-vaccinated children school thereby preventing those who can't get vaccinated due to allergy ect from getting ill?

In america that probably wouldn't be a problem, but here in Ireland, it would be on the grounds of discrimination, so I can't see it working, but I understand your point.

Annabella1

Unvaccinated kids attending crèche/pre school are a potential risk to younger babies
MMR is not given until 12 months so a unvaccinated older child could pass it on to a baby under this age
Children should not be given the free school year unless they produce a vaccination cert
That will sort it

Czarcasm

steddyeddy wrote: »

If someone doesn't get a MMR vaccine for their child based on a choice that kid could develop measles mumps or rubella. How would that parent not be to blame for that? Letting someone do that to their child is not the society I want to live in.

The important word there Eddy being "could" develop measles, mumps or rubella. There's no guarantee that without the vaccine they WILL go on to develop measles, mumps or rubella. Of course the parent would be to blame IF their child developed these diseases after not being vaccinated against them, but it'd take some balls to stand there and say to them "I told you so!". I wouldn't want to live in a society that forced people to do something that they believed was not in the best interests of their child, no matter if I'd a virtual mountain of scientific evidence that contradicted their belief. All I could do is present them with that information and it is still their choice. I have informed them. After that, it is up to the parent.

steddyeddy wrote: »

How about refusing un-vaccinated children school thereby preventing those who can't get vaccinated due to allergy ect from getting ill?

A nice idea in principle, but then you are denying the child a right to education. That would only continue the cycle of ignorance. If you take something as simple as head lice. It's fcuking rampant among school children every year, but all the school can do is advise that the parents keep the child out of school until the infection clears up. They cannot force the parents to keep the child out of school.

MilanPan!c

Czarcasm wrote: »

The important word there Eddy being "could" develop measles, mumps or rubella. There's no guarantee that without the vaccine they WILL go on to develop measles, mumps or rubella. Of course the parent would be to blame IF their child developed these diseases after not being vaccinated against them, but it'd take some balls to stand there and say to them "I told you so!". I wouldn't want to live in a society that forced people to do something that they believed was not in the best interests of their child, no matter if I'd a virtual mountain of scientific evidence that contradicted their belief. All I could do is present them with that information and it is still their choice. I have informed them. After that, it is up to the parent.





A nice idea in principle, but then you are denying the child a right to education. That would only continue the cycle of ignorance. If you take something as simple as head lice. It's fcuking rampant among school children every year, but all the school can do is advise that the parents keep the child out of school until the infection clears up. They cannot force the parents to keep the child out of school.

Eh again no.

You have no right to endanger your neighbour. At all.

If you refuse you're children should be vaccinated against your will.

Then they don't miss any school.

kylith

Czarcasm wrote: »

A nice idea in principle, but then you are denying the child a right to education. That would only continue the cycle of ignorance. If you take something as simple as head lice. It's fcuking rampant among school children every year, but all the school can do is advise that the parents keep the child out of school until the infection clears up. They cannot force the parents to keep the child out of school.

Untrue, as they could be homeschooled. You're right about the cycle of ignorance though.

zenno

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Eh again no.

You have no right to endanger your neighbour. At all.

If you refuse you're children should be vaccinated against your will.

Then they don't miss any school.

This is your opinion only, it is outside the boundaries of rules regarding this issue in relation to school policy and government law.

Bounty Hunter Dan

Vaccines are not the cause of Autism but they can without question lead to a child developing Autism.

Gut damage* is the most common denominator with those that develop an ASD and so finding just what it is that is causing that damage is were the majority of the current research is now focused and at present, the jury is out on just what is precisely responsible for that damage, just as the jury is also out on what the proportional number those children which develop an ASD which vaccines are responsible for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2NlxVrR_LM

*
The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.

MilanPan!c

zenno wrote: »

This is your opinion only, it is outside the boundaries of rules regarding this issue in relation to school policy and government law.

Of course it's not law, but it's also the best possible option as no eligible children should be allowed to go unvaccinated.

MilanPan!c

Bounty Hunter Dan wrote: »

Vaccines are not the cause of Autism but they can without question lead to a child developing Autism.

Gut damage* is the most common denominator with those that develop an ASD and so finding just what it is that is causing that damage is were the majority of the current research is now focused and at present, the jury is out on just what is precisely responsible for that damage, just as the jury is also out on what the proportional number those children which develop an ASD which vaccines are responsible for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2NlxVrR_LM

*
The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.

As yes, this common list, which has been thoroughly debunked and which has no evidence of any connection.

I guess the copy and paste attack from the fringers has begun.

This has been widely discussed and heres a good debunking of it:

leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2013/05/07/studies-supporting-andrew-wakefield/

"...after 15 years, we are offered 28 studies, none of which supports the MMR-enterocolitis-autism hypothesis. It is not surprising that over this period Wakefield has failed to win the support of a single paediatrician, paediatric gastroenterologist, child psychiatrist or autism specialist in England."

Bounty Hunter Dan

MilanPan!c wrote: »

As yes, this common list, which has been thoroughly debunked and which has no evidence of any connection.

Connection with what? Did you even read my post?

Obviously not.

Czarcasm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Sorry, but your hyperbolic nonsense doesn't persuade me.

We AREN'T all little kingdoms at all. We thrive because we're part of society.

We form associations naturally and always have and will.

I'm not going to associate with you unless I have something to gain from you. Bring something to the table and we'll talk.

See how that works? Sometimes we form associations naturally, more times we form associations out of necessity.

Once you associate yourself with others you lose the absolute right to be unconcerned with anyone but yourself... no matter what Ayn Rand or the Ron Paul messageboard might tell you.

I wouldn't say a person loses the right to be unconcerned about themselves once they associate with others. They learn to compromise for the greater good. If I don't see I have anything to gain from the association, I don't have to compromise. If you want to force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs, you're going to have to come up with a more compelling argument than "because I believe it's the right thing to do, and my reason and logic are flawless and your reason and logic are flawed based on your beliefs that I don't agree with.

You argue "where will it stop," but society HAS shown that it can self-regulate. Abortion has been legal in the US for deacdes and yet there's not forced Abortions; children are still being born and parents aren't allowed to kill their children once their born.

The US is a terrible example of a self-regulated society given they are a melting pot of cultures, beliefs, races, political and social ideologies and even sexes, all competing for dominance and their point of view being the correct one based on their own version of what seems reasonable and logical to them. The only reason they haven't killed each other off is because the law says they're not allowed to.

There's a middle ground with many rules that isn't ever pushed beyond what's responsible and reasonable.

That depends on what an individual considers responsible and reasonable, and there are plenty that couldn't find the middle ground if you gave them a map, because they're solely focussed on their individual beliefs.

You not ever going to convince me that individual liberty is more important than society as a whole. No reasonable person has ever taken that nonsense seriously.

Yeah, that whole Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a complete waste of time, sure who's going to take that seriously when they come out with nonsense like this -

Article 18:


Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

and then confound such codswallop with this:

Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

People having a right to hold an opinion that differs from your own? Pfft, such nonsense. Totally unreasonable and illogical. You should bring this to the attention of the UN General Assembly immediately - you're right and they're all wrong...

Good luck with that.

chocksaway

Bounty Hunter Dan wrote: »

Connection with what? Did you even read my post?

Obviously not.

You know that most if the studies you reference are by Wakefield yes? The guy who was discredited and barred from practicing for falsifying medical records of people in his studies?

MilanPan!c

Bounty Hunter Dan wrote: »

Connection with what? Did you even read my post?

Obviously not.

I read your regurgitated nonsense.

How many of those have you read?

How many were co-authored by Wakefied? Or his friends?

How many were published more than 30 years ago?

How many aren't even valid references?

You wouldn't know, would you?

MilanPan!c

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not going to associate with you unless I have something to gain from you. Bring something to the table and we'll talk.

See how that works? Sometimes we form associations naturally, more times we form associations out of necessity.





I wouldn't say a person loses the right to be unconcerned about themselves once they associate with others. They learn to compromise for the greater good. If I don't see I have anything to gain from the association, I don't have to compromise. If you want to force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs, you're going to have to come up with a more compelling argument than "because I believe it's the right thing to do, and my reason and logic are flawless and your reason and logic are flawed based on your beliefs that I don't agree with.





The US is a terrible example of a self-regulated society given they are a melting pot of cultures, beliefs, races, political and social ideologies and even sexes, all competing for dominance and their point of view being the correct one based on their own version of what seems reasonable and logical to them. The only reason they haven't killed each other off is because the law says they're not allowed to.





That depends on what an individual considers responsible and reasonable, and there are plenty that couldn't find the middle ground if you gave them a map, because they're solely focussed on their individual beliefs.





Yeah, that whole Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a complete waste of time, sure who's going to take that seriously when they come out with nonsense like this -



and then confound such codswallop with this:



People having a right to hold an opinion that differs from your own? Pfft, such nonsense. Totally unreasonable and illogical. You should bring this to the attention of the UN General Assembly immediately - you're right and they're all wrong...

Good luck with that.

I love the idea that there's a way for a child or pregnant woman to compromise with someone infected with measles.

Lol.

Lots of laws restrict your personal freedom. The UN is grand with that.

Get over yourself.

zenno

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Of course it's not law, but it's also the best possible option as no eligible children should be allowed to go unvaccinated.

Well man, if you want this scenario, I'd suggest that you pop yourself up for election, and when you get there you will be popped back out because no-one wants a dictator, unless you can programme the majority of citizens into believing their lives will be more fruiticious by taking their freedom to choose away, good luck with that.

There's actually folk in government that think like this, quite shocking indeed, so much for the servant government doing what the populous wants. Wait till someone gets in that actually forces this into law constitutionally.

Do what you are told or else.





They can suck this.

It's a lollypop

Bounty Hunter Dan

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I read your regurgitated nonsense.

How many of those have you read?

How many were co-authored by Wakefied? Or his friends?

How many were published more than 30 years ago?

How many aren't even valid references?

You wouldn't know, would you?

What in the name of God are you waffling about?

None of those studies implicate vaccines.

Yet again, I suggest you actually read my post.

MilanPan!c

zenno wrote: »

Well man, if you want this scenario, I'd suggest that you pop yourself up for election, and when you get there you will be popped back out because no-one wants a dictator, unless you can programme the majority of citizens into believing their lives will be more fruiticious by taking their freedom to choose away, good luck with that.

No doubt the average Irish voter wouldn't like it. I certainly be as popular as Bertie or Haughey.

MilanPan!c

Bounty Hunter Dan wrote: »

What in the name of God are you waffling about?

None of those studies implicate vaccines.

Yet again, I suggest you actually read my post.

I have read your post.

Care to answer my question?

Also care to explain why you've copied and pasted a list circulated only by anti-vax nuts?

A list which purports to show that Wakefield, who is largely responsible for that list, has been independently verified as being correct.

And for the record - autism is genetic. It's connection to GI issues isn't causal.

zenno

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No doubt the average Irish voter wouldn't like it. I certainly be as popular as Bertie or Haughey.

So, just saying, if you got yourself in a position where you had the power of government, would you change the law for full mandatory vaccinations on your populous ?. And also would you have no problem with it removing the rights of all folk ? if you had the power ?.

Bounty Hunter Dan

chocksaway wrote: »

You know that most if the studies you reference are by Wakefield yes? The guy who was discredited and barred from practicing for falsifying medical records of people in his studies?

Again, I am not suggesting the studies show vaccines as responsible for anything, but are you saying that all those studies showing gut abnormalities in those with ASDs should all be ignored because Wakefield was named / involved with some of them? Really? Despite all the.. Science and everything?

Jimoslimos

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe the government should make it illegal for men to have sex with men, too. Since they are 40 times more likely to develop and pass on HIV than men who only sleep with women.

This is a really really poor analogy. For starters you can be prosecuted for transmitting HIV to a partner if you knowingly refuse or neglect to disclose your status.

chocksaway

Bounty Hunter Dan wrote: »

Again, I am not suggesting the studies show vaccines as responsible for anything, but are you saying that all those studies showing gut abnormalities in those with ASDs should all be ignored because Wakefield was named / involved with some of them? Really? Despite all the.. Science and everything?

In my opinion, I think that because he has been proved a fraud that any results from his lab or ones he's linked to should be investigated fully by independent bodies. The science community has a long memory and one seen to be falsifying data will never be trusted again.

Gatling

Wonder if you could realistically take legal action against a parent if a baby was infected through an older school going sibling as a result of an infection like M,M,R due to a child or children not be innoclated ,
If the baby suffered long term effects of one of the above

Bounty Hunter Dan

chocksaway wrote: »

In my opinion, I think that because he has been proved a fraud that any results from his lab or ones he's linked to should be investigated fully by independent bodies. The science community has a long memory and one seen to be falsifying data will never be trusted again.

I take your point but Wakefield was involved in almost 200 other research studies and none of them have been retracted, let alone had the science of them questioned. Here are studies from PubMed alone. People talk about Wakefield as if he was Harold Shipman. Brian Deer was guilty of far more scrupulous behavior than Wakefield ever was and maybe one day the truth of that will come out.

A point that people quickly forget is that Wakefield has never been anti-vaccine. He called for single vaccines at a time when single vaccines where available in the UK. He also continues to be pro single vaccines and promotes certain vaccination schedules offered in many European countries. Course, then you get the pharma fanbois who claim the guy was only doing that as he was planning to swamp the marketplace with his own vaccines.

Anyway, all that aside, many similar studies have shown bowel abnormalities in those with ASDs regardless and don't follow from where he left off at all, as they are on their own path.

MilanPan!c

zenno wrote: »

So, just saying, if you got yourself in a position where you had the power of government, would you change the law for full mandatory vaccinations on your populous ?. And also would you have no problem with it removing the rights of all folk ? if you had the power ?.

Would I? Yes.

But it wouldn't be full. Some people - as we've discussed - can't be vaccinated due to health issues.

Everyone else, yes.

Because individuals have no right to endanger their neighbours. That's not a guaranteed freedom.

MilanPan!c

chocksaway wrote: »

In my opinion, I think that because he has been proved a fraud that any results from his lab or ones he's linked to should be investigated fully by independent bodies. The science community has a long memory and one seen to be falsifying data will never be trusted again.

He falsified the result of every single person - child - in the study ... And he did it for money.

There's plenty of legitimate research into autism, but he's likely not involved in any of it.

And for the record, he continues this behaviour. He hasn't ever stopped being a lying scumbag.

zenno

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Would I? Yes.

But it wouldn't be full. Some people - as we've discussed - can't be vaccinated due to health issues.

Everyone else, yes.

Because individuals have no right to endanger their neighbours. That's not a guaranteed freedom.

You're a hard man on your fellow citizens.

MilanPan!c

More on Wakefield's continued unethical behaviour:

leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/01/23/comment-on-wrong-about-vaccine-safety-a-review-of-andrew-wakefields-callous-disregard/

If you read that and STILL want to post papers by the guy, I'm gonna continue to point out how much of a crook he is.

MilanPan!c

zenno wrote: »

You're a hard man on your fellow citizens.

I'm not.

I'm a hard man on people that want to endanger them.

It's the same reason I am against drink driving and murder and rape:

People can't just do what they want if it harms someone else.

Capt'n Midnight

gvn wrote: »

Nope.

The idea of The State forcing an individual to receive a vaccination against his or her will (or against the will of his or her parents in the case of a child) makes me queasy. My view stems not from a distaste for or distrust in vaccinations, but from a belief in individual liberty.

The state has a duty of care towards those who can't protect themselves.

There are some lifestyle choices that the rest of the planet and future generations shouldn't have to subsidise.


http://www.hpsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/VaccinePreventable/Mumps/Publications/File,606,en.pdf

However, in recent years,
deaths from measles have been reported as approximately 1-2 per 1,000 reported cases in the
United States. This has also been the experience in several recent outbreaks in Europe due to
low vaccine uptake, where there have been fatal cases of measles. In Ireland eight deaths from
measles were reported to the Central Statistics Office between 1990 and 1999. There were
three deaths and over 1,600 reported cases in Ireland in 2000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-25868719

The current outbreak follows the largest spread of measles in Wales since the introduction of the MMR vaccination.

There were more than 1,200 suspected cases in the same area between November 2012 and July 2013, resulting in one death and causing 88 people to be hospitalised.

Interestingly it's still one or two deaths per thousand and 1% hospitalisation.

Measles kills. Measles can also cause permanent health problems. Having had it I wouldn't wish it on anyone else.



We know that some diseases can be eradicated FOREVER if at just one point in time everyone gets vaccinated. Even if you completely ignore the health benefits and that it means no one need ever suffer from those diseases the economic benefits last forever too.

To me not getting kids vaccinated for a disease they are likely to be exposed to is one of the most selfish things someone can do.

Czarcasm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Lots of silliness here.

Better brace yourself, I'm not even out of first gear yet.

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

Society adjudicates nothing. We've replaced lynch mob mentality with legal systems which adjudicate for society to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands and forcing people to act against their beliefs.

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

Vaccinations are available for individuals those that want them. It'd be great if we could convince society as a whole of the benefits of vaccinations, but in order to do that, you have to come up with a compelling enough argument for the individual.

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

Rules are put in place to protect people from other people who choose to break those rules? I think you may have that arseways tbh.

This is the point you're wilfully ignoring.

I'm not ignoring anything, you're just not making a very compelling argument to force people to act in a way that they don't believe is in the best interests of their children.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

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

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

Wowza! Y'know if you're trying to make a compelling argument to people that there is no correlation between a vaccine and intellectual disability, it's probably best that you refrain from ill informed judgements ascribing people's disagreement with you to the possibility that they are suffering from mental illness. I'm surprised nobody ripped you a new one for that ill informed assertion, but then maybe the handful of posters that thanked your post don't have any issue with your ill informed assertions when it suits them too.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Am I understanding you correctly. There was a disease that could have been eliminated but it was wise of us not to do so because this allowed us to learn more about the disease and as a result we have better prognosis for those who currently have the condition … (but would not have it all if we actually did eliminate it!!!) ?
I suspect I am missing something in your argument!

You are indeed missing something twowheelsgood. You're missing the fact that these aren't just diseases, they are people. You have to consider the cost of riding roughshod over people's rights vs the benefit to society of doing so.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Eh again no.

You have no right to endanger your neighbour. At all.

If you refuse you're children should be vaccinated against your will.

Then they don't miss any school.

The Magdelene Laundries called, they want their ideas back. I've got the Victorian era on hold, they wanted to know when you'd be bringing people in for forced lobotomies.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I love the idea that there's a way for a child or pregnant woman to compromise with someone infected with measles.

Lol.

"Pox parties" are no laughing matter.

Lots of laws restrict your personal freedom. The UN is grand with that.

Still no law that can force a parent to vaccinate their child, nor do I see one forthcoming.

Get over yourself.

We're not back in the playground now. Childish retorts like that don't make for a very compelling argument in a discussion with adults.

Bounty Hunter Dan

MilanPan!c wrote: »

He falsified the result of every single person - child - in the study ... And he did it for money.

No he didn't. Stop believing everything you read.

Birroc

I trusted vaccines until the swine flu was forced upon us in what seemed like a panicked over reaction. We opted out at the last minute because I got nervous. And I think I was right.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

My cousin is married to this lunatic, he's very much a believer of women aren't capable of making decisions for themselves and is of the opinion if women are assertive and know their own minds then that means they are trouble.

Anyway, when she had their first child she lost a lot of blood but he would not allow her have a blood transfusion, for whatever reason. And because she was breastfeeding he didn't allow her take iron meds for very long, instead making her eat iron rich foods.

Anyway, with his bizzare outlook on modern medicine he refused to allow the child have any immunisations and at the age of 3, his son got whooping cough and was really really sick for so long.

How selfish. Something that could be prevented but, nope. Not allowed.

Frank Lee Midere

Bounty Hunter Dan wrote: »

No he didn't. Stop believing everything you read.

Is he supposed to believe everything you read instead?

People should be allowed to not vaccinate but be prosecuted if their child infects others. Jailed if that infection causes death.

Gatling

LexieOnRale wrote: »

My cousin is married to this lunatic, he's very much a believer of women aren't capable of making decisions for themselves and is of the opinion if women are assertive and know their own minds then that means they are trouble.

Anyway, when she had their first child she lost a lot of blood but he would not allow her have a blood transfusion, for whatever reason. And because she was breastfeeding he didn't allow her take iron meds for very long, instead making her eat iron rich foods.

Anyway, with his bizzare outlook on modern medicine he refused to allow the child have any immunisations and at the age of 3, his son got whooping cough and was really really sick for so long.

How selfish. Something that could be prevented but, nope. Not allowed.

Prime candidate for a proper kicking imo

MilanPan!c

Bounty Hunter Dan wrote: »

No he didn't. Stop believing everything you read.

Yes, he did.

So says the Lancet, so says the British Journal of Medicine.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC’s 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study’s admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

steddyeddy

Birroc wrote: »

I trusted vaccines until the swine flu was forced upon us in what seemed like a panicked over reaction. We opted out at the last minute because I got nervous. And I think I was right.

Do you also refuse every medication because Thalidomide was dangerous?

MilanPan!c

Czarcasm wrote: »

Better brace yourself, I'm not even out of first gear yet.

Society adjudicates nothing. We've replaced lynch mob mentality with legal systems which adjudicate for society to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands and forcing people to act against their beliefs.


Vaccinations are available for individuals those that want them. It'd be great if we could convince society as a whole of the benefits of vaccinations, but in order to do that, you have to come up with a compelling enough argument for the individual.

Rules are put in place to protect people from other people who choose to break those rules? I think you may have that arseways tbh.

I'm not ignoring anything, you're just not making a very compelling argument to force people to act in a way that they don't believe is in the best interests of their children.

Wowza! Y'know if you're trying to make a compelling argument to people that there is no correlation between a vaccine and intellectual disability, it's probably best that you refrain from ill informed judgements ascribing people's disagreement with you to the possibility that they are suffering from mental illness. I'm surprised nobody ripped you a new one for that ill informed assertion, but then maybe the handful of posters that thanked your post don't have any issue with your ill informed assertions when it suits them too.

You are indeed missing something twowheelsgood. You're missing the fact that these aren't just diseases, they are people. You have to consider the cost of riding roughshod over people's rights vs the benefit to society of doing so.

The Magdelene Laundries called, they want their ideas back. I've got the Victorian era on hold, they wanted to know when you'd be bringing people in for forced lobotomies.

"Pox parties" are no laughing matter.

Still no law that can force a parent to vaccinate their child, nor do I see one forthcoming.

We're not back in the playground now. Childish retorts like that don't make for a very compelling argument in a discussion with adults.

So much nonsense it's hard to reply to it all.

I'll try and hit the highlight.

- You think Chicken Pox and Measles are the same?

- Society actually DOES adjudicate pretty much everything, either through legal challenges or elections or through changing mores in culture.

- You think rules aren't there to protect people??

- Lot's of rules are forced on people; you think you should be allowed to endanger your neighbour and that anyone who disagrees is basically the same as a sex abuser?

- you worry about individuals freedom, but have no problem with letting individuals harm society - that's your bottom line. It's pathetic.

angelfire9

Czarcasm wrote: »

Vaccinations are available for individuals those that want them. It'd be great if we could convince society as a whole of the benefits of vaccinations, but in order to do that, you have to come up with a compelling enough argument

Here you go:

angelfire9 wrote: »

Back in the '70's while pregnant with yours truly my mother contracted Rubella in her first trimester
For those that don't know, invitro contraction of the disease can result in severe mental and or physical handicaps, deafness, blindness, hydrocephalus etc etc
In 1970's Catholic Ireland it was gently suggested to my mother that a trip to England on the boat might be the best thing for the family (I am youngest of 4 so she was looking at minding a handicapped child + 3 others)

By what our family considers a miracle I was born without visible defect eyesight perfect but with congenital deafness resulting in years of being dragged to ENT specialists and speech therapists

I can hear the same spectrums as dolphins apparently but less than 40% of what the average person hears

I was born at 39+4 and weighed the same as an infant born at 28 weeks gestation and was delicate for first 10 years
My mother was a RGN, if vaccines had been available she would have been first in line but they weren't
Neither were they readily available in the 80's when yours truly contracted Whooping Cough & regular measles

Am I pro vaccine
You can bet your ass I am

I am walking proof of the damage these diseases can do

Did my mothers experience have any long term affect on me?
Well I'd never get into the Gardaí or Defence Forces with my hearing

Ironically I have no immunity to Rubella now either so every unvaccinated child poses a potential risk to health
I was a virtual hermit during my two pregnancies for fear of coming in contact with someone who had Rubella because their parents hadn't bothered vaccinating

Apparently people still believe the connection between Autism & vaccinations
But Measles, Mumps & Rubella are three diseases that under the right conditions can cause death or physical defects far worse (in my opinion) than autism

So, for any parent or potential parent out there who is wavering on this issue
Please please please vaccinate your kids
It is only when we have a vaccine update in the high 90's worldwide that we can consider ourselves on the path towards erridication if these diseases
Do your bit to stop the potential spread
Do it for yourself, for your kids and for all the people out there who have no immunity for whom vaccines are ineffective

I would hate to see a mother going through 9 months of mental turmoil like my mother did for the sake of a few small injections

If that's not a compelling argument I don't know what is
You put me in front of any leftie looney anti vaccine person and I'll tear their argument to shreds
Years of being singled out in the playground because I couldn't hear what was been said to me
Having to sit my aural leaving cert exams seperate from everyone else so that the volume could be blasted out for me!

I have dozens of those stories