Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

MMR Vaccine

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Jumboman wrote: »
    From the horses mouth ...



    Former Merck doctor predicts Gardasil will become 'greatest medical scandal of all time'

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044895_Gardasil_vaccine_medical_scandal_Merck.html#ixzz30c4RwaQt

    Back from a ban, having been warned about the quality of posts expected here, and you post from naturalnews?

    Bye.

    Banned. For good this time.


  • Options
    #123
    Martx
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Martx


    sadly I can't post links to outbreaks which happened in population where vaccination was 99%. research number 3821823 and it was published in Pubmed.


  • Options
    #124
    Mr Williams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 188 ✭✭Mr Williams


    Martx wrote: »
    sadly I can't post links to outbreaks which happened in population where vaccination was 99%. research number 3821823 and it was published in Pubmed.

    Be careful you cant say that it doesnt fit in with the moderates narrative.


  • Options
    #125
    Mr Williams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 188 ✭✭Mr Williams


    Jumboman wrote: »
    From the horses mouth ...



    Former Merck doctor predicts Gardasil will become 'greatest medical scandal of all time'

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044895_Gardasil_vaccine_medical_scandal_Merck.html#ixzz30c4RwaQt


    Very good link. The doctor from the company who makes the vaccine calls it "completely worthless". That should make anybody sit up and think.


  • Options
    #126
    Just Like Heaven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭Just Like Heaven


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    Very good link. The doctor from the company who makes the vaccine calls it "completely worthless". That should make anybody sit up and think.

    Is it really a good link though? Can you provide some links to evidence to back up this guy's "predictions". Cause, I've had a bit of a google now and the main arguments I can find against the vaccine are that cervical cancer isn't a big deal anymore and makes up a small proportion of cancers (I wonder why) and that the smear test for detecting cervical cancer is very effective these days (great, but not as great as not getting cervical cancer surely?).

    Anyway, looking forward to those links.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Just Like Heaven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭Just Like Heaven


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    Be careful you cant say that it doesnt fit in with the moderates narrative.

    I wonder if you even read the abstract of that article. Outbreaks happen yes, that's why vaccination is so important. The article points out that outbreaks can still happen once the proposed 'minimum' for herd immunity has been reached.

    If anything, somebody sensible might argue that from now on that people frequenting 'high risk' zones such as secondary schools should be tested every couple of years to ensure they are immune and if they aren't that they must be vaccinated again maybe? And that 95% isn't a good enough minimum for herd immunity and that governments should aim for more to be vaccinated. Perhaps the people who carried out the tests after the breakout were paid to do it by a drug company and now the government will be able to apply more pressure to get people vaccinated. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

    What are you using the paper to argue exactly? Because according to it "none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles."

    So, how many more of the 74 seronegative students might have contracted measles had nobody been vaccinated? Do you think less might have?


  • Options
    #128
    LoopyLolly88
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭LoopyLolly88


    Yes my older 2 kids got the mmr & once my 8 month old is old enough to get it he will too.


  • Options
    #129
    Mr Williams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 188 ✭✭Mr Williams


    There is too much "group think" around vaccines people need to step out of the box and see whats really going on.

    10 years ago if I had said there was a housing bubble in Ireland I would of been told to shut up and listen to the "experts".

    The same thing is happening with vaccines.


  • Options
    #130
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    There is too much "group think" around vaccines people need to step out of the box and see whats really going on.

    Do you even know what 'group think' means?


  • Options
    #131
    Taco Chips
    Registered Users Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Taco Chips


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    There is too much "group think" around vaccines people need to step out of the box and see whats really going on.

    10 years ago if I had said there was a housing bubble in Ireland I would of been told to shut up and listen to the "experts".

    The same thing is happening with vaccines.

    You think stepping outside of the box is rubbishing multiple scientific studies and global healthcare trends since the advent of vaccines? To be honest the group think label is more applicable to anti-vaccinistas. They're like a rabble that swoop in and keep screeching the same falsities over and over even when they're been shown to be incorrect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Just Like Heaven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭Just Like Heaven


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    There is too much "group think" around vaccines people need to step out of the box and see whats really going on.

    10 years ago if I had said there was a housing bubble in Ireland I would of been told to shut up and listen to the "experts".

    The same thing is happening with vaccines.


    Actually it's you who is believing in the prediction of an 'expert' in this scenario. Take a minute to consider that.

    And you maybe arguing against the opinions of other experts, but they have the science and research to back theirs up.

    Do you intend to link any evidence to the claims you are making or are you just winding us all up.


  • Options
    #133
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    reminder to one and all- this is the health sciences forum, and as such we expect a decent standard of posting. That means no anecdotal evidence, no links to naturalnews etc. peer reviewed articles only. Anyone not adhering to this will be banned.


  • Options
    #134
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,558 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    10 years ago if I had said there was a housing bubble in Ireland I would of been told to shut up and listen to the "experts".
    .

    You clearly don't remember 10 years ago very well.


  • Options
    #135
    Nonoperational
    Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭Nonoperational


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    There is too much "group think" around vaccines people need to step out of the box and see whats really going on.

    10 years ago if I had said there was a housing bubble in Ireland I would of been told to shut up and listen to the "experts".

    The same thing is happening with vaccines.

    The MMR is around for over 40 years. I really can't fathom why people like yourself, with no evidence, would spread such delusional nonsense.


  • Options
    #136
    Mr Williams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 188 ✭✭Mr Williams


    sam34 wrote: »
    reminder to one and all- this is the health sciences forum, and as such we expect a decent standard of posting. That means no anecdotal evidence, no links to naturalnews etc. peer reviewed articles only. Anyone not adhering to this will be banned.


    Your obsessed with peer reviewed articles. By your logic smoking must have been safe in the 1940s because there was no peer reviewed articles on the dangers of smoking then.

    Most doctors who have concerns about the vaccine are afraid to speak out because it would be career suicide for them.

    What is wrong with "anecdotal evidence" if a mother witnesses her child getting sick from a medication should that not carry any weight ?

    I could post evidence linking MMR to autism but it doesnt come from "official" sources therefore you think its completely invalid. Only information approved from the medical industry can be taken seriously by you.


  • Options
    #137
    Mr Williams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 188 ✭✭Mr Williams


    Jumboman wrote: »
    lol I neally fell off my chair when I read that headline. Reminds me of this


    These are same clowns we suppose to take health advice from :eek:


  • Options
    #138
    Mr Williams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 188 ✭✭Mr Williams


    Jumboman wrote: »
    Can anyone answer me this if vaccines are so safe then why dont the drug companies accept liability for them ? its not like the drug companies are short of money.

    If a car company made defective cars they could not pass liability on to the state.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-indemnified-drug-firm-behind-swine-flu-vaccine-26726426.html


    That looks like a smoking gun to me....


  • Options
    #139
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,558 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    Your obsessed with peer reviewed articles. By your logic smoking must have been safe in the 1940s because there was no peer reviewed articles on the dangers of smoking then.

    Severe logical fallacy there. That comparison is invalid.

    What we have here are peer reviewed studies showing they are safe, and a website run by a quack to try sell their "remedies" screaming they're not - and little else other than that one website ever gets linked to.

    And no, you can't post evidence about MMR & autism and none of what we already know you're going to post is actually evidence by any standards.


  • Options
    #140
    Martx
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Martx


    Nonoperational wrote: »
    The MMR is around for over 40 years. I really can't fathom why people like yourself, with no evidence, would spread such delusional nonsense.

    If diagnosed properly, most diseases are cured with pills and antibiotics in these days. It's big difference what was 40 years ago and now.
    In addition about measles outbreaks here's few more researches on Pubmed:
    no.3618578, no.1994745, no.1884314, no.8668833, no.7740350

    Regarding Gardasil vaccine, everybody in here can check VAERS (The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) website and see how many deaths and serious adverse reactions were reported. I've read that doctors in USA agree that only 1-10% of these adverse reactions are reported, so actual numbers would be much higher.
    Can you trust scientists? Pubmed article PMC1124634 and dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the research scientists was wanted by FBI. You can check their website for offences he was charged. Criminals doing researches and we are supposted to trust them?


  • Options
    #141
    Dingle_berry
    Registered Users Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Dingle_berry


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    Your obsessed with peer reviewed articles. By your logic smoking must have been safe in the 1940s because there was no peer reviewed articles on the dangers of smoking then.

    Most doctors who have concerns about the vaccine are afraid to speak out because it would be career suicide for them.

    What is wrong with "anecdotal evidence" if a mother witnesses her child getting sick from a medication should that not carry any weight ?

    I could post evidence linking MMR to autism but it doesnt come from "official" sources therefore you think its completely invalid. Only information approved from the medical industry can be taken seriously by you.

    We as health care professionals are "obsessed" with peer reviewed articles because they are the safest way for us to learn. Peer review means that several people from different backgrounds think that the research was done correctly. It does not say that the conclusions drawn are correct or absolute.
    The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is based on a small sample population in an uncontrolled fashion. Look at the information leaflet for any drug and you will see side effects ranging from likely to extremely unlikely but possible. If anecdotal evidence formed the basis of medicine no drugs, not even Chinese herbs or homeopathy, would be adopted.
    Yes the peer review process can get things wrong and it can be fooled (it's not immune to fraud). It's strength lies in numbers/statistics and review. This way we get treatments that work for people, we know what dangers to look for and we can revise previous conclusions.

    More importantly this is the health sciences forum. We're interested in the science of health here, not conspiracy theories about how doctors are out to turn us into regulars in their clinics. Most of the posts in this thread belong in the conspiracy theories forum IMO


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    These are same clowns we suppose to take health advice from :eek:

    Doctors in 1949? You do realise its 65 years later?


  • Options
    #143
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

    gotta catch them all ?


  • Options
    #144
    Martx
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Martx


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    Doctors in 1949? You do realise its 65 years later?

    65 years from today, people will be laughing from doctors and what they are saying today :D


  • Options
    #145
    Nonoperational
    Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭Nonoperational


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    These are same clowns we suppose to take health advice from :eek:

    Jesus man you must just be deliberately trolling now. That was 60 years ago. You do realise that doctors don't recommend smoking now, or haven't done for many many years. Peer reviewed studies showed that smoking = bad and policy was changed to that effect.

    Peer reviewed studies have consistently shown that MMR vaccine = good for many many years now and therefore we vaccinate our population. You're being incredibly selective in your reasoning.


  • Options
    #146
    Nonoperational
    Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭Nonoperational


    Martx wrote: »
    65 years from today, people will be laughing from doctors and what they are saying today :D

    You'd swear the MMR was introduced last week. Go look at life expectancy and compare now and 65 years ago. Give it up man. You're out of your depth.


  • Options
    #147
    Martx
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Martx


    Nonoperational wrote: »
    You'd swear the MMR was introduced last week. Go look at life expectancy and compare now and 65 years ago. Give it up man. You're out of your depth.

    Of course all that was improved only because of vaccines. Show me the research which proves 100% that vaccines saved the world.


  • Options
    #148
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Martx wrote: »
    Of course all that was improved only because of vaccines. Show me the research which proves 100% that vaccines saved the world.

    Take a break for another week


  • Options
    #149
    Mr Williams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 188 ✭✭Mr Williams


    Martx wrote: »
    If diagnosed properly, most diseases are cured with pills and antibiotics in these days. It's big difference what was 40 years ago and now.
    In addition about measles outbreaks here's few more researches on Pubmed:
    no.3618578, no.1994745, no.1884314, no.8668833, no.7740350

    Regarding Gardasil vaccine, everybody in here can check VAERS (The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) website and see how many deaths and serious adverse reactions were reported. I've read that doctors in USA agree that only 1-10% of these adverse reactions are reported, so actual numbers would be much higher.
    Can you trust scientists? Pubmed article PMC1124634 and dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the research scientists was wanted by FBI. You can check their website for offences he was charged. Criminals doing researches and we are supposted to trust them?


    You cant trust any "reseach" done by Dr Donald Kimmel either. That scumbag laughed at patients who had their jaws destroyed by one of his products.

    BTW this is not a conspiracy theory its public knowledge.


  • Options
    #150
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Mr Williams wrote: »
    You cant trust any "reseach" done by Dr Donald Kimmel either. That scumbag laughed at patients who had their jaws destroyed by one of his products.

    BTW this is not a conspiracy theory its public knowledge.


    You know well this sort of "evidence" in not acceptable here as proof to back up your point of view.
    Take a break for a week.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Martx
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Martx


    I don't see any comments to my posted researches, can they be trusted or not?


Advertisement