Why are vaccine threads always closed off? Mod warning post 176

Lovecraft

Of course all these diseases are making or will make a comeback as the number of anti-science anti-vaxxers start persuading the broader mass of the public, pretending there is some scientific doubt about the overall benefit of vaccines.

And of course there are the free-riders like you who want the benefits without the small risks, which will add to the problem.

sullivlo

gar32 wrote: »

Just when I am thinking to do a couple of vaccines for my children I read a study like this from Yale Uni.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00003/full

I say this with all due respect gar. But currently, I'm out.

I am 100% for debate/discussion about vaccines. However I spent time and effort searching for a good reference for your information that was accessible and understandable, and your response is the above quoted article.

You seem to refuse to acknowledge any evidence that is given to you, choosing instead to try and fight it with some rebuttal. Which in this case is inconclusive!!!

So until you're willing to engage in discussion and not just throw random articles out there, I will just observe this thread.

gar32

" And of course there are the free-riders like you who want the """benefits!!!!""" without the small risks, which will add to the problem."

Benefit my children ? In every way I can yes and with the least risk to anyone else.

gar32

I want the dream no risk vaccines or low risk vaccine and I am waiting for that day.

RayCun

gar32 wrote: »

I want the dream no risk vaccines or low risk vaccine and I am waiting for that day.

You do realise that many, even most , medicines have side effects? Vaccines are extremely low risk

gar32

I feel like it's a detective movie and I just feel something is wrong.

Is it my friend who says her 1st son act different after MMR and he young son not vaccinated seem bright. More alive and develops faster.

Is it my colleague in work who is close friend is fighting to get vaccine damage money for her son.

Is it the people who cry and swear the children changed & regressed that puts fear into me yes.

I want my children to be healthy and so far I could not be happier with their health.

Is it the doctor who had my wife crying because he said our son would die from an insect bit as he was not vaccinated for tetanus yet our 2nd option said go home very low risk.

I wish this was easier. I wish 0.01% chance of side effect would let me go ahead with vaccines but I have fallen into this vaccine hell trying to find answer with only study after study with more work needed at the end of them.

Lovecraft

gar32 wrote: »

I have fallen into this vaccine hell trying to find answer with only study after study with more work needed at the end of them.

If it helps you, I can assure you that that is a standard conclusion for scientific papers in all disciplines.

njs030

My child developed a chronic illness after a vaccine. Perhaps the vaccine caused it, perhaps it was a coincidence and she would have developed it anyway. Its impossible to know because as someone (sullivo I think) has explained earlier in the thread everyone reacts differently.

People regularly ask me if I could go back in time would I still get the vaccine, the answer is yes of course I would because I STILL believe that the alternative is worse.
She may have developed this illness even if I'd refused it, then also developed something worse (because she was unvaccinated) which would eventually kill her.

I insist that everyone who visits our home is fully vaccinated because now she is totally dependant on other people not tracking their germs into her because even a cold can send her to hospital.
It's not just your children who's health you're putting in jeopardy there is many others that depend on you to listen to medical professionals and scientific evidence.
It's very selfish not to think about the risk to the community you and your unvaccinated children pose.

gar32

OK can I ask what sickness are you more worried about been brought to you home?

Kurtosis

Mod note

Gar this is a scientific forum. If you want to discuss anecdotes you can start a thread elsewhere but this forum isn't a suitable location for such a discussion. This is a last warning to stick to discussing scientific evidence or this thread will be closed.

A reminder to all posters to post in a civil, constructive manner or not at all.

Kurtosis

It's possible that you'll find a single study (or a few) which supports any viewpoint, and which may contradict other research. Differences between studies can arise due to chance, due to different methods being used, or different research of varying quality.

How does one figure out what do given this? The answer is to look at the whole body of evidence to see where the balance of benefits/risks is likely to lie. Systematic reviews and meta analyses are the best barometers of this for various medical decisions, so if you are going to do research to guide your decisions, best to focus on these rather than picking single studies out of the total body of evidence.

laserlad2010

gar32 wrote: »

Diphtheria If your child get it not much hope. Cases in EU low to zero. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/2/11-0987-f1 If there is an out break I would consider.


Tetanus 2nd most worried about yet again not very common. I clean all bleeding and get oxygen to it. No single vaccine in Germany unless older the 5 years. (Considering strongly)

Whooping Cough (Pertussis) No a very good vaccine with most adults not getting boosters and awaiting a new vaccine but probably will not give my children.


Hib (Haemophilus influenzae b) Ireland & UK with a higher risk but again few cases and mostly risk is low if breast feed. If child reaches 5 years old very unlike to catch.

Polio (Inactivated poliomyelitis) Saved millions of lives. Poland only stop live virus vaccine last year. unless it starts in German no chase will my kids get it.

Hepatitis B The virus is transmitted by exposure to infectious blood. Mostly sex or possibly medical transmitted. (I will consider when my children are older)

I love these highlighted bits. You have this image of hearing about the outbreak on the news, popping down to the doctor's "Oh I'll just start that 6 month schedule for whooping cough, there's an outbreak". I love the uncertainty of your post.

I transferred a child to Intensive Care in Temple Street at Christmas to die with confirmed Meningococcal C Meningitis. His parents had refused all vaccinations. Is that anecdotal enough for you? Is it personal enough for you?

Where I work currently a 6 week old infant died from Whooping Cough last year. Is that anecdotal enough for you? Is it personal enough for you? That child relied on herd immunity, something you intend to undermine.

ArnieSilvia

One thing to consider is that in some cases vaccines might not be 100% effective because they target certain strains of particular disease.

Pfizer's Prevenar pneumococcal vaccine is targeting 13 most popular serotypes. As far as I remember from corporate meetings, this would cover about 90% of cases. Competition forced Pfizer to work on version with 23 serotypes to give it a good selling point but as you can imagine, it will cost nearly twice to produce.
Essentially it'll be 23 vaccines in one dose which take years to make and involve thousands of people in the process.

Saying from my personal experience, vaccines I worked with would have gone through highly controlled manufacturing process, in controlled environment where air quality and cleaninless of equipment is maintained, with automation control of the process where every parameter can be checked years after manufacture, nothing can be hidden. Samples taken at multiple stages to ensure potency alongside bioburden and endotoxin sampling. Repeated validation and process simulation processes are in place to ensure that product is sterile hence safe to the patient.

In cases where patient is getting sick after taking vaccine it might be the case of "dirty" process where vaccine was contaminated and endotoxins might be the cause of this.

gar32

I am looking at the big picture and the risks are low vaccine or not. My guess is over a 20 year life sap my children have a less the 1% chance to have a serious problem with any of the vaccine related sicknesses. I have looked at it longer then I wished so I will leave this tread at that.

Thanks for every ones input but I will not add from here on.

laserlad2010

gar32 wrote: »

I am looking at the big picture and the risks are low vaccine or not. My guess is over a 20 year life sap my children have a less the 1% chance to have a serious problem with any of the vaccine related sicknesses. I have looked at it longer then I wished so I will leave this tread at that.

Thanks for every ones input but I will not add from here on.

Less than 1% is still really high when it comes to your child does it not??

What if your school run had a "less than 1%" chance of serious harm?? Your children come into contact with hundreds of other children in a year, perhaps even a month in school!!!

Your statistics and claims are completely twisted. Less than 1% risk - you have to be kidding me.

Lovecraft

laserlad2010 wrote: »

I transferred a child to Intensive Care in Temple Street at Christmas to die with confirmed Meningococcal C Meningitis. His parents had refused all vaccinations

I'm sorry to hear that, that must have been very traumatic for you. I wonder if the parents even now accept that their actions were misguided.

ArnieSilvia

Another thing in relation to side effects is that you need to remember that even these troubled medicines were given by doctors to cure illness and in some/many cases the patients could die from illness itself if drug wasn't administered anyway.

I don't take flu vaccine anymore after getting very sick from one (presume endotoxin contamination or something else), as I can live without one. But I wouldn't take any chance with life changing illnesses, I'd take them regardless. Your kids will be literally fecked if they get sick with those and as people pointed out, globalisation is a massive threat here.

If we talk about moral side of pharma industry I can tell you that IMO it's an industry with relatively high integrity as stakes are extremely high these days.
Making a vaccine or any biotech product is a long and very expensive process and they just can't afford any risk to the patient. Any questionable batch goes down the drain. There is also FDA and other agencies oversight plus shareholders won't invest in a company with shady practices as information is shared instantly now which exposes any wrongdoing.

I happened to be exposed to many other industries recently and I had a bit of shock horror after visiting some food manufacturing sites including ones involved in making baby food. Some practices and level of cleanliness were very questionable. General level of knowledge and safety of product compared with Pharma/Biopharma was much lower, yet you'd give it to your kids without questioning.

Dial Hard

gar32 wrote:

I am looking at the big picture and the risks are low vaccine or not. My guess is over a 20 year life sap my children have a less the 1% chance to have a serious problem with any of the vaccine related sicknesses. I have looked at it longer then I wished so I will leave this tread at that.

I've refrained from posting up to now, but seriously, Gar, do you not understand that the reason the chances of your children contracting these diseases are so low are *because* the vast majority of people vaccinate theirs?

Call me Al

gar32 wrote: »

I want the dream no risk vaccines or low risk vaccine and I am waiting for that day.

Below. . a list of some of the risks associated with a drug given to children all over the world everyday.... Nurofen 6+.

The risks associated are more than outweighed by the benefits provided to the child.

Eta. .. here's a list of the potential complications associated with measles (not the vaccine)

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complications.aspx

You might note the potential complications of contracting measles as a unvaccinated pregnant woman... Not pretty is it.

Unfortunately I know of several people here in Ireland who live with the consequences of their mother's contracting German measles while pregnant with them in the 1960s.
Maybe you should read first hand accounts of people in similar situations? I'm sure you could extend your searches.

Call me Al

Dial Hard wrote: »

I've refrained from posting up to now, but seriously, Gar, do you not understand that the reason the chances of your children contracting these diseases are so low are *because* the vast majority of people vaccinate theirs?

Gar32 does realise this. They admitted earlier to piggybacking off herd immunity.

Kurtosis

This may be of interest to people, a free public lecture aimed at dispelling vaccine myths. Trinity College Dublin, next Wednesday, February 15th.

sullivlo

Kurtosis wrote: »

This may be of interest to people, a free public lecture aimed at dispelling vaccine myths. Trinity College Dublin, next Wednesday, February 15th.

I was hoping to keep that quiet. Don't want to attract a certain ilk

laserlad2010

Lovecraft wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that, that must have been very traumatic for you. I wonder if the parents even now accept that their actions were misguided.

They refused. Even with their own parents (child's grandparents) telling them the truth, they insisted that he would have contracted Men C regardless.

Of course, to accept otherwise would be to accept you had killed your own child.

Damien M

dexter_morgan wrote: »

I notice that a lot of the anti vaccine types are also anti medicine in general. They rant about blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, pain meds, antibiotics etc. They will do their research and find the information that they WANT to find. They will always be against vaccines and no amount of proof otherwise will be accepted by them. The decision to vaccinate should be taken away from them for the safety of their children.

Try not to go off topic or you might draw the ire of the mods, keep it to vaccines I was told.

But which blood pressure meds are you referring to? I mean, you are aware that Cochrane found little to no benefit of blood pressure meds having any effect on overall mortality etc? And if you still believe in the cholesterol hypothesis, you'd need to keep up with scientific literature, you're not aware the largest studies ever carried out have found no link between saturated fat/cholesterol and heart disease? No? Link below (1).

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

See! I can Science as well! I give seminars awakening the public to this 'censored' knowledge, all ilks welcome

RobFowl

Mod note

Two things

First no personal attacks, have seen comments about "killing your children" etc, not cool and not acceptable. Any more and I will delete the and give the poster a short holiday ..

Second stay on topic and please give good quality links to references. There have been many good ones so far and that alone would justify keeping this thread open.

This is the last warning so don't plead ignorance or feign surprise if we have to act !

Rob

Damien M

cnocbui wrote: »

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

Same Australian company(1) that paid out a couple of million to the parents of Saba Button (2), a little one left severely disabled by a flu vaccine, made by CSL? (2)

Same company that teamed up with drug kingpins Novartis, regularly hauled before 'the beak' for all manner of fraud (4), bribery and racketeering (3)-not someone I'd be happy to jump into bed with but that's another story for another thread.

Don't sound like the most reputable bunch of chaps to me tbh. Try again.

(1)http://www.csl.com.au/about

(2)http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-06/settlement-for-saba-button-severely-disabled-by-flu-vaccine/5505632

(3)https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-370-million-civil-fraud-settlement-against-novartis

(4)http://www.fiercepharma.com/regulatory/novartis-faces-suspension-japan-after-series-of-trial-data-scandals

Damien M

RobFowl wrote: »

Mod note

Two things

First no personal attacks, have seen comments about "killing your children" etc, not cool and not acceptable. Any more and I will delete the and give the poster a short holiday ..

Second stay on topic and please give good quality links to references. There have been many good ones so far and that alone would justify keeping this thread open.

This is the last warning so don't plead ignorance or feign surprise if we have to act !

Rob

Nice one Rob, the first time I've seen a non-biased mod jump in on behalf of vaccine-refusers etc. Not even quite sure why a parent of a brain-damaged or vaccine disabled child would ever be expected to be pro-vaccine, much less ubiquitously referred to as 'anti-vaxtards'.

No one has thus far been able to give me an answer to the question; should parents of vaccine brain-damaged children (1,2,3) be expected to 'roll up the sleeves', get in line and take another hit for the greater good?

(1)http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-06/settlement-for-saba-button-severely-disabled-by-flu-vaccine/5505632

(2)https://vactruth.com/2016/12/30/boy-permanently-disabled-wins-court-case/

(3)https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010vv0566-82

(4)https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010vv0566-106-0

Yeah, yeah citation 2 is Vactruth, not acceptable, court documents are below though, 3 and 4

sullivlo

Damien M wrote: »

Nice one Rob, the first time I've seen a non-biased mod jump in on behalf of vaccine-refusers etc. Not even quite sure why a parent of a brain-damaged or vaccine disabled child would ever be expected to be pro-vaccine, much less ubiquitously referred to as 'anti-vaxtards'.

No one has thus far been able to give me an answer to the question; should parents of vaccine brain-damaged children (1,2,3) be expected to 'roll up the sleeves', get in line and take another hit for the greater good?

(1)http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-06/settlement-for-saba-button-severely-disabled-by-flu-vaccine/5505632

(2)https://vactruth.com/2016/12/30/boy-permanently-disabled-wins-court-case/

(3)https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010vv0566-82

(4)https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010vv0566-106-0

Yeah, yeah citation 2 is Vactruth, not acceptable, court documents are below though, 3 and 4

I guess there is no clear cut response. There are too many variables for anyone to answer. If it was something that would harm the child further should they contract the disease then yes, I think vaccination would be important.

Damien M

sullivlo wrote: »

I guess there is no clear cut response. There are too many variables for anyone to answer. If it was something that would harm the child further should they contract the disease then yes, I think vaccination would be important.

There are only as many variables as you want to find, here. The clear cut response is the vaccine caused the brain damage. Could be the Mercury, could be the other toxic adjuvants. It's just semantics at this stage.

CSL hurriedly pulled the specific vaccine from the market, maybe as quickly as said vaccine was rushed to the market, eh, lol. Of course it's always the same old adage with vaccine apologists- 'it wasn't the vaccine m'lud, t'was just something in it'.
Whoever specified CSL as a reputable vaccine maker in my response to query of same, needs to up their game a bit. good job it's only on here with a few learned fellas and querying minds and not in front of a crowded room. Choose your responses, or choose your battles, both won't work with me :P

Damien M

sullivlo wrote: »

I was hoping to keep that quiet. Don't want to attract a certain ilk

'http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=29535427&privcapId=20741516'

'.........He has had major collaborations with many biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.'

Bet it reads like a right ol' rogues gallery!

Same chap? He'd look parents of brain damaged/vaccine damaged kids in the eye and tell them to take one for the team, huh? Classy guy.

sullivlo

Damien M wrote: »

'http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=29535427&privcapId=20741516'

'.........He has had major collaborations with many biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.'

Bet it reads like a right ol' rogues gallery!

Same chap? He'd look parents of brain damaged/vaccine damaged kids in the eye and tell them to take one for the team, huh? Classy guy.

:rolleyes:

I'm happy to engage in reasonable discussion with anyone. I'm happy to agree that vaccines aren't perfect, and that there are cases where vaccines have had a detrimental effect on people's lives.

However, in my opinion, you're just **** stirring at this stage. You don't seem willing to engage in discussion; you appear to just have an agenda against vaccines/pharma.

I mean are there any cases in which you would vaccinate?

And yes. Same guy. And as for your snap judgement... not everything is as it seems. Bit of a harsh statement on your behalf, IMO.

Damien M

sullivlo wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I'm happy to engage in reasonable discussion with anyone. I'm happy to agree that vaccines aren't perfect, and that there are cases where vaccines have had a detrimental effect on people's lives.

However, in my opinion, you're just **** stirring at this stage. You don't seem willing to engage in discussion; you appear to just have an agenda against vaccines/pharma.

I mean are there any cases in which you would vaccinate?

And yes. Same guy. And as for your snap judgement... not everything is as it seems. Bit of a harsh statement on your behalf, IMO.

"I'm happy to engage in reasonable discussion with anyone."
No you're not. (And if you are then accede to my request for a public debate {You'll need to bolster your defence; if an admission that drug/vaccine makers are less than squeaky clean - not declaring taxes is less than squeaky clean; giving kids AIDS is a whole different level of sordidness} - if this is your main argument you'll be horribly exposed). Maybe I'm wrong but not from what I can see, I see parents of brain damaged kids branded absolutely disgusting terms, such as 'anti-vaxtards' and 'anti-progress' etc. Words like 'ilks' were used by you as well. After I was told to keep it to vaccines and not pharma in general someone else piped up and tried to pull me up on my inferred dislike of cholesterol meds, blood pressure drugs and pain meds I think it was. I was told to keep it on topic, but yet others were allowed to deride me and paint me as some stone age anti-medicine Neandarthal. Can't remember who it was but since I pointed out the lipid/cholesterol hypothesis was debunked and the science wasn't so settled after all, and that the Cochrane guys found against blood pressure meds, and I never got around to pointing out that in controlled pairs tests a humble formula made from Circumin and Boswellia outpointed Pfizer's blockbuster multi billion dollar drug Celebrex(celecoxib). The results were embarrassing for Pfizer with no one taking the herbal med suffering from liver failure or keeling over mid study. (1). No one is able to answer my question are these parents expected to vaccinate their kids again and again?

"However, in my opinion, you're just **** stirring at this stage. You don't seem willing to engage in discussion; you appear to just have an agenda against vaccines/pharma."

Definitely not stirring. I asked for a reputable vaccine maker and the only example some chap could give me was CSL, who paid out a couple of mill in compensation after leaving a girl brain damaged. No one is able to answer my question are these parents expected to vaccinate their kids again and again? This is the crux of the argument, because one poster lamented free choice when it comes to vaccines, this choice should be taken away, he said. (Can't be bothered opening up another tab to go back and check who it was.) What discussion should we have? How Merck, Sharpe & Dohme have committed drug trial fraud, killed half a million people, disseminated a hitlist of doctors to be 'silenced', concocted a phoney journal, told Elsevier it was a legit journal, numerous convictions for bribery, and did I mention their cholesterol drug Vytorin trial manipulation, where they deliberately changed the study goal to suit the results? Hah! You can trust these fellas to make your Gardasil if you want, summat tells me Gardasil was conjured up to help MSD pay their Vioxx class action lawsuit fine(s), (3, Merck Agrees to Settle Vioxx Suits for $4.85 Billion).

"I mean are there any cases in which you would vaccinate?"
Absolutely not, and end up back in hospital? Allow something made from Bayer or Baxter into me? They sold AIDS contaminated blood products, willingly and complicitly! Did I mention MSD killed half a million people with their previous drug Vioxx? And Pfizer deliberately concealed the fact that their HRT (really horse urine) caused breast cancer; thousands of women died harrowing deaths. (4)

(1) Curcumin & boswellia combo beats top arthritis pain med in trial - without the NSAID-associated risks
http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=16554

(2) Bayer Knowingly Sold Aids Infected Drugs - Thousands Contracted Hiv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh-hm9Kp8QQ
(3) Merck Agrees to Settle Vioxx Suits for $4.85 Billion
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09merck.html
(4) Pfizer Ordered to Pay $34.3 Million in HRT Lawsuit http://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/hrt/17175

RobFowl

Mod note
Damien, you've got that out of your system but please keep this to vaccines from now on. The issues around other drugs like Vioxx etc are well worthy of discussion but thats for another thread.
Have allowed that last post but any more off topic by anyone and it will be edited or deleted.
If any one wonders why we've let this go so far?
We can't and don't have the time to review every post on every thread so rely of members reporting suspect posts. All reported posts are reviewed and dealt with (or not as the case may be). We are volunteers but do try to look at things as often as we can though.
This is a good thread and has good links despite it all.
Please all keep it that way.
Rob
Moderator

sullivlo

Damien M wrote: »

"I'm happy to engage in reasonable discussion with anyone."
No you're not. (And if you are then accede to my request for a public debate {You'll need to bolster your defence; if an admission that drug/vaccine makers are less than squeaky clean - not declaring taxes is less than squeaky clean; giving kids AIDS is a whole different level of sordidness} - if this is your main argument you'll be horribly exposed). Maybe I'm wrong but not from what I can see, I see parents of brain damaged kids branded absolutely disgusting terms, such as 'anti-vaxtards' and 'anti-progress' etc. Words like 'ilks' were used by you as well. After I was told to keep it to vaccines and not pharma in general someone else piped up and tried to pull me up on my inferred dislike of cholesterol meds, blood pressure drugs and pain meds I think it was. I was told to keep it on topic, but yet others were allowed to deride me and paint me as some stone age anti-medicine Neandarthal.

If you could point out when someone was called an anti vaxtard in the thread, that would be great. And if you could also let me know what is wrong with the word "ilk", that would be fantastic too.

I like how you assume that because I am pro-vaccine that I'm not willing to engage in discussion. I think you'll find that I am willing to engage in discussion. It just proves to be difficult to engage in discussion when both sides aren't willing to listen to the others argument.

I also don't need to resort to petty insinuations about other posters to try and make my point.

For example, I have absolutely no problem in accepting the fact that there are some issues with vaccines. None. In fact I provided a link to a review on the topic. I am willing to accept that yes, vaccines DO have side effects, and that some of those side effects have had a seriously detrimental effect on the lives of children.

However, for a discussion like this to work, you need to accept that there are positives to vaccines too. My second cousin didn't get his polio vaccine and contracted the illness. He lost his legs. A friends cousin didn't get the MMR, contracted the measles and developed encephalitis and is now so severely brain damaged that he needs 24 hour care.

Damien M wrote: »

No one is able to answer my question are these parents expected to vaccinate their kids again and again?

I answered your question above. For reference:

sullivlo wrote: »

I guess there is no clear cut response. There are too many variables for anyone to answer. If it was something that would harm the child further should they contract the disease then yes, I think vaccination would be important.

There is no standard answer. Every child is different. Every circumstance is different. Nobody is saying that if your child has been brain damaged from a vaccine that they should be vaccinated again.

Damien M wrote: »

"However, in my opinion, you're just **** stirring at this stage. You don't seem willing to engage in discussion; you appear to just have an agenda against vaccines/pharma."

Definitely not stirring. I asked for a reputable vaccine maker and the only example some chap could give me was CSL, who paid out a couple of mill in compensation after leaving a girl brain damaged. No one is able to answer my question are these parents expected to vaccinate their kids again and again? This is the crux of the argument, because one poster lamented free choice when it comes to vaccines, this choice should be taken away, he said. (Can't be bothered opening up another tab to go back and check who it was.) What discussion should we have? How Merck, Sharpe & Dohme have committed drug trial fraud, killed half a million people, disseminated a hitlist of doctors to be 'silenced', concocted a phoney journal, told Elsevier it was a legit journal, numerous convictions for bribery, and did I mention their cholesterol drug Vytorin trial manipulation, where they deliberately changed the study goal to suit the results? Hah! You can trust these fellas to make your Gardasil if you want, summat tells me Gardasil was conjured up to help MSD pay their Vioxx class action lawsuit fine(s), (3, Merck Agrees to Settle Vioxx Suits for $4.85 Billion).

See above.

Damien M wrote: »

"I mean are there any cases in which you would vaccinate?"
Absolutely not, and end up back in hospital? Allow something made from Bayer or Baxter into me? They sold AIDS contaminated blood products, willingly and complicitly! Did I mention MSD killed half a million people with their previous drug Vioxx? And Pfizer deliberately concealed the fact that their HRT (really horse urine) caused breast cancer; thousands of women died harrowing deaths. (4)

(1) Curcumin & boswellia combo beats top arthritis pain med in trial - without the NSAID-associated risks
http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=16554

(2) Bayer Knowingly Sold Aids Infected Drugs - Thousands Contracted Hiv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh-hm9Kp8QQ
(3) Merck Agrees to Settle Vioxx Suits for $4.85 Billion
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09merck.html
(4) Pfizer Ordered to Pay $34.3 Million in HRT Lawsuit http://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/hrt/17175

And that, to me, is the crux of the issue. You're set in your opinion of vaccines and 100% against them. To me, that indicates that you're not willing to engage in a reasonable discussion. It's like a child saying that they don't like brocolli when they have never tried it. Or the White House shouting "fake news" at things they don't like to see.

The fact of the matter is that vaccines save lives. World over.

I'm willing to take each vaccine on a case by case basis. In my opinion, you seem to be of the opinion that all vaccines are bad. However I'm happy to read up on the benefits of receiving whatever vaccines are available and weigh up the pros and cons. I'm an adult now, I can make those decisions for myself. When I was a kid, my mum made those decisions for me. She decided to vaccinate, and I'm very thankful for that fact. If I am ever fortunate enough to have kids, I'll vaccinate.

And for what it's worth, I really, really hope that nobody close to you ever has any nasty side effects from not being vaccinated, and that if you have someone who can't be vaccinated for whatever reason, that herd immunity keeps them protected.

Nonoperational

This may seem inflammatory, but its a genuine question. The sort of <Mod Edit> beliefs portrayed by certain groups re vaccines seem to be very very entrenched and not open to any sort of reasoned discussion. Is it <Mod Edit>?

I always think it's ironic that when these people are well they can go <Mod Edit> misinformation, but it's a different case when they are on the table having a pharmaceutical company's drug eluting stent in their coronaries saving their lives, or having life saving surgery etc.

Damien M

Nonoperational wrote: »

This may seem inflammatory, but its a genuine question. The sort of <Mod Edit> beliefs portrayed by certain groups re vaccines seem to be very very entrenched and not open to any sort of reasoned discussion. Is it <Mod Edit>?

I always think it's ironic that when these people are well they can go <Mod Edit> misinformation, but it's a different case when they are on the table having a pharmaceutical company's drug eluting stent in their coronaries saving their lives, or having life saving surgery etc.

Again, the weird logic where those against vaccines are somehow against life-saving surgery. Again, the benefits of stents are overstated
with numerous stent manufacturers been convicted of falsifying data and overstating the effectiveness of their stents. Let's keep it to vaccines, eh.

dexter_morgan

I read that 40 women will die needlessly because of parents not having their daughters vaccinated against HPV last year. Think it was 15,000 that refused the vaccine. It is not surprising though. My daughter came home from primary school one day with a leaflet stating the dangers of getting the Gardasil vaccine. This leaflet was handed out by the teachers and it was written up by someone with no medical training and a very obvious bias against vaccines!

laserlad2010

I've just read the court documents linked earlier.

The plaintiff contracted transverse myelitis, a short lived neurological illness which is a risk with every single virus ever. His damages amounted to under $8000 which implies he wasn't particularly bothered by it.

I'd also point out that a lot of the pertussis scares may yet turn out to be genetic epileptic encephalopathy and neurodegenerative disorders. There is a lot of progress made in Landau-Kleffner spectrum disorders recently which may give us more information.

Temple Street Neurology team are making great inroads into gene mapping of epilepsy and neurodegenerative stuff.

To put that into layman's terms, we are starting to understand the story of "my child was fine until he got the vaccine, then he just regressed" as being most likely variants of LK or Dravet's encephalopathy.

And I am of the firm belief that not vaccinating is similar to not fastening your child's seat belt. Both endanger your child. For a child to die of a vaccine preventable illness based on parental choice is inexcusable IMHO.

sullivlo

dexter_morgan wrote: »

I read that 40 women will die needlessly because of parents not having their daughters vaccinated against HPV last year. Think it was 15,000 that refused the vaccine. It is not surprising though. My daughter came home from primary school one day with a leaflet stating the dangers of getting the Gardasil vaccine. This leaflet was handed out by the teachers and it was written up by someone with no medical training and a very obvious bias against vaccines!

But by not being vaccinated against HPV they won't have any of the side effects from the vaccine. Simples!

:rolleyes:

From the CDC website:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/hpv-safety-faqs.html#A7

From June 2006 through September 2015, when about 80 million doses of HPV vaccine had been given out in the United States, VAERS received 117 reports of death after people received the Gardasil vaccine. Among the 117 reports of death, many could not be further studied because there was not enough information included in the report to verify that a person had died. In 51 of the reports, CDC reviewed medical records, autopsy reports, or death certificates and verified that the person had died. After careful review of every reported case of death that has happened after Gardasil vaccination, CDC concluded:

There is no diagnosis that would suggest Gardasil caused the death
There is no pattern of death occurring with respect to time after vaccination
There is no consistent vaccine dose number or combination of vaccines given among the reports

By my rough calculations:
40/15,000 = 0.2% chance of death.
117/80 million = 0.00014% chance of death.

But boo vaccines. BOO.

Kurtosis

Damien M wrote: »

No one has thus far been able to give me an answer to the question; should parents of vaccine brain-damaged children (1,2,3) be expected to 'roll up the sleeves', get in line and take another hit for the greater good?

This has been answered by others but I'll give my two cents too. Of course parents of children who have suffered an adverse effect of a vaccine could be expected not to want to continue vaccinating. This is a completely understandable response, people often place more weight on their personal experience than what statistics or evidence might say (connected to the availability heuristic). However, I would wager that many people opposed to vaccination do not have first-hand experience of an adverse effect of a vaccine.

Separate from individual cases, at the population level, current evidence demonstrates that vaccination provides more benefits and less harm than not vaccinating (as sullivlo has illustrated). No medical procedure, intervention, or treatment is harm-free, so the meaningful question in any case is whether this risk is outweighed by the benefits provided.

p.s. I am keen to reply some of the points you raised which are not related to vaccines. As this isn't the topic of this thread, I am going to start a new thread on this if you wish to discuss this.

sullivlo

Kurtosis wrote: »

This has been answered by others but I'll give my two cents too. Of course parents of children who have suffered an adverse effect of a vaccine could be expected not to want to continue vaccinating. This is a completely understandable response, people often place more weight on their personal experience than what statistics or evidence might say (connected to the availability heuristic). However, I would wager that many people opposed to vaccination do not have first-hand experience of an adverse effect of a vaccine.

Separate from individual cases, at the population level, current evidence demonstrates that vaccination provides more benefits and less harm than not vaccinating (as sullivlo has illustrated). No medical procedure, intervention, or treatment is harm-free, so the meaningful question in any case is whether this risk is outweighed by the benefits provided.

p.s. I am keen to reply some of the points you raised which are not related to vaccines. As this isn't the topic of this thread, I am going to start a new thread on this if you wish to discuss this.

Off topic, but I'd be up for that too.

Damien M

sullivlo wrote: »

Me

And pray tell, who will bring this to market?
I mean... it's going to be injected into kids, right-will you stand by any proposed manufacturers claims that they'll be of the utmost integrity? Any previous collaborations?

Damien M

dexter_morgan wrote: »

I read that 40 women will die needlessly because of parents not having their daughters vaccinated against HPV last year. Think it was 15,000 that refused the vaccine. It is not surprising though. My daughter came home from primary school one day with a leaflet stating the dangers of getting the Gardasil vaccine. This leaflet was handed out by the teachers and it was written up by someone with no medical training and a very obvious bias against vaccines!

Half a million people died from MSD's last drug (1), which they 'said' was safe.
Wouldn't trust 'em as far as I could throw them!

You sure it wasn't a 'fake' MSD journal? (2)

(1) http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/46535/when-half-million-americans-died-and-nobody-noticed

(2) http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27376/title/Merck-published-fake-journal/

(3) Those with 'medical training' lacked the IQ to see that Vioxx studies were bogus and continued to prescribe it! Those with 'Medical Training' killed half a million people!

Damien M

sullivlo wrote: »

But by not being vaccinated against HPV they won't have any of the side effects from the vaccine. Simples!

:rolleyes:

From the CDC website:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/hpv-safety-faqs.html#A7



By my rough calculations:
40/15,000 = 0.2% chance of death.
117/80 million = 0.00014% chance of death.

But boo vaccines. BOO.

The CDC-that cesspit of corruption deserves a whole forum to itself!

Oh dear, this gets murkier and murkier!

'Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was named president of Merck & Co Inc's vaccine division, the company said on Monday.'

The good old revolving door, no cooling off period eh, between pharma and regulator and pharma again!?

I've written and lectured extensively on the 'Centre for Deceit Control' - just be prepared if you bring them up in a debate with me!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221

sullivlo

Damien M wrote: »

And pray tell, who will bring this to market?
I mean... it's going to be injected into kids, right-will you stand by any proposed manufacturers claims that they'll be of the utmost integrity? Any previous collaborations?

Of course. I'm in research. It's all about collaborations.

But if we were fortunate enough to get to a stage where we were producing in large scale then I'm sure the whole clinical trial process would help us stand by the integrity of the product.

And by the way, the implied it was a joke. It was referencing the fact that you previously implied that I was working late in the lab "fudging the data". So I made a funny to remind people that I do actually have a reputation to uphold.

sullivlo

Damien M wrote: »

The CDC-that cesspit of corruption deserves a whole forum to itself!

Oh dear, this gets murkier and murkier!

'Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was named president of Merck & Co Inc's vaccine division, the company said on Monday.'

The good old revolving door, no cooling off period eh, between pharma and regulator and pharma again!?

I've written and lectured extensively on the 'Centre for Deceit Control' - just be prepared if you bring them up in a debate with me!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221

Woman in NEW JOB shocker

You appear to be putting forward a few strawman arguments. My understanding of your post is that we should ignore the reported deaths (117 in 80 million) after vaccination with gardasil, and ignore the numerous reports saying that they couldn't confirm that gardasil was a factor in the deaths, and all of the other new studies previously mentioned in threads, because Merck hired a new head of vaccines?

Surely, by your reasoning, it can only be a good thing that Merck have hired somebody new and somebody who has some good knowledge of the CDC so they can uphold the integrity of the products.

sullivlo

sullivlo wrote: »

If you could point out when someone was called an anti vaxtard in the thread, that would be great. And if you could also let me know what is wrong with the word "ilk", that would be fantastic too.

I like how you assume that because I am pro-vaccine that I'm not willing to engage in discussion. I think you'll find that I am willing to engage in discussion. It just proves to be difficult to engage in discussion when both sides aren't willing to listen to the others argument.

I also don't need to resort to petty insinuations about other posters to try and make my point.

For example, I have absolutely no problem in accepting the fact that there are some issues with vaccines. None. In fact I provided a link to a review on the topic. I am willing to accept that yes, vaccines DO have side effects, and that some of those side effects have had a seriously detrimental effect on the lives of children.

However, for a discussion like this to work, you need to accept that there are positives to vaccines too. My second cousin didn't get his polio vaccine and contracted the illness. He lost his legs. A friends cousin didn't get the MMR, contracted the measles and developed encephalitis and is now so severely brain damaged that he needs 24 hour care.

Also Damien if you could comment on this, I'd appreciate it.

NeitherJohn

Damien M wrote: »

.......

I've written and lectured extensively on the 'Centre for Deceit Control' - just be prepared if you bring them up in a debate with me!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221

I'll bite.

Where have you lectured? In what capacity?

Where have you written? Peer-reviewed scientific journals?

njs030

sullivlo wrote: »

Woman in NEW JOB shocker

You appear to be putting forward a few strawman arguments. My understanding of your post is that we should ignore the reported deaths (117 in 80 million) after vaccination with gardasil, and ignore the numerous reports saying that they couldn't confirm that gardasil was a factor in the deaths, and all of the other new studies previously mentioned in threads, because Merck hired a new head of vaccines?

Surely, by your reasoning, it can only be a good thing that Merck have hired somebody new and somebody who has some good knowledge of the CDC so they can uphold the integrity of the products.

Sullivo can you explain why Merck used multiple different placebos during the gardasil trials?
To my knowledge - and please correct me if this is wrong - placebos should be inert but in some of the placebos in the trials Merck gave the participants of a control group a placebo including - AAHS, yeast protein, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and water.
Some of those ingredients will produce a reaction won't they? So going on that logic (and remembering I'm not a scientist!) when Merck said x people in our trials became sick from gardasil but x became sick from the placebo wasn't that incorrect? Or is it standard practice to use different types of placebos?

All genuine questions that I'm interested in, so I hope you don't mind me picking your brain!!

Damien M

NeitherJohn wrote: »

I'll bite.

Where have you lectured? In what capacity?

Where have you written? Peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Peer-reviewed scientific journals are just gossip, not even hearsay, many times the studies have been completely fabricated and never even carried out(1); other times the drug cos straight up just went to the typewriter and made up phoney journals. See my previous comments for other references. Remember, the unbrainwashing takes time!

(1) FDA Let Drugs Approved on Fraudulent Research Stay on the Market
https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-let-drugs-approved-on-fraudulent-research-stay-on-the-market