Anti-vaxxers

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

There is no question that vaccine injury exists. We don't know how prevalent it is as there have been no studies on vaccine injury - unless you can you post some here?
Autism IS very complex. You are dehumanising victims of vaccine injury when you state that they don't vaccinate without reason just to feel special.

You are asserting that it exists so the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I'm not the one using autistic people to make a point.

Amantine wrote: »

Ancapailldorcha dismissing ANY POST that doesn't agree with your view with a one liner makes for a very one side conversation. This is exactly the limited black and white thinking I posted about in my previous post. What is there to gain from this divide? How can either side learn from the other? Please answer my question below

When you're too lazy to read the links you post, they're dumps and I have no problem whatsoever calling that out.

Amantine wrote: »

My question was:
From my research measles is mostly dangerous in malnourished populations but I could be wrong. Does anyone have the figures for the actual statistics for casualties for measles in say the UK, Ireland or other European countries? How many deaths are we talking here? I can't find anything. With half a million kids unvaccinated since 2010 in the Uk, and many more in Europe and measles being so incredibly contagious we should have a quite a big toll by now, what is it?

Why don't you do your own reserch then and stop asking other people to do it for you?

Dohnjoe

Amantine wrote: »

My question was:
From my research measles is mostly dangerous in malnourished populations but I could be wrong. Does anyone have the figures for the actual statistics for casualties for measles in say the UK, Ireland or other European countries? How many deaths are we talking here? I can't find anything. With half a million kids unvaccinated since 2010 in the Uk, and many more in Europe and measles being so incredibly contagious we should have a quite a big toll by now, what is it?

What research are you doing? it takes seconds in google to find this information

e.g.

http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2019/measles-in-europe-record-number-of-both-sick-and-immunized

Europe-wide 72 deaths from measles in 2018, 80,000 infected

bt25

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Thanks for the response

Paste-dumping links, 90 minute youtube videos, whataboutery, logical fallacies, deflection, evasion, bad science are components of poor discussion



Fair enough. There's no proven link between vaccines and autism. There isn't much doubt about this in the scientific and medical community.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of information on the internet, some people can't differentiate the bad info from the good. And then, as we all know, there are those that don't want to



Personally I haven't found this to be the case. There's always a risk, to virtually anything, but in relation to vaccines the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.



Evidence supports the facts, not tribalism

Thank you for your responses. I agree generally but I lean to the side that feels that any medicines should be confirmed safe before use. Ones that have been used for a long time we can see what the long term effect and true risks from, new ones are less confirmed and to just say one is safe therefore all are safe is nonsensical to me. Also, the focus always seems to be on Autism but again, that is not the only risks that are suggested and in fact highlighted as potential risks by the manufacturer. I, however, feel that the suggestion that all should be ignored for the greater good is a bit too simplistic but then on top for some to suggest it should be forced is downright insane. Each needs to be taken as it's own but also as part of what is a massive unknown mix which we currently have no long term data to confirm what the impact is on all of or a smaller subset of the population. There are risks of STIs that are much higher and real threats in the general population but no suggestions of forcing everyone to stop having sex!

Amantine

Dohnjoe wrote: »

http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2019/measles-in-europe-record-number-of-both-sick-and-immunized

Europe-wide 72 deaths from measles in 2018, 80,000 infected

How many in the UK? How many in Roumania?

bt25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but it's people who refuse to even consider the evidence that are undermining intelligent science based discourse.

You say that parents are refusing to vaccinate due to vaccine injury yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this. If vaccine injury were prevalent, the health regulators and authorities would have stepped in a long time ago. We need to make decisions based on empirical evidence, ie data and not on feelings and Facebook groups.

Autism is highly complex and people who have it don't deserve to be dehumanised by people who just want an excuse either not to vaccinate or to feel special.

There are a few fallacies in conclusions here based on a weak premise of trust in a system and individuals. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm saying that to base your rejection of the presentable symptoms of a subset of the population is nonsensical. Is there a link between the vaccine and the symptoms? I don't know, you don't either and based on what I've so far found in the research it isn't confirmed as no link so to suggest then that these anecdotal statements are less valid than your own ones seems to be missing the mark. I would like to see what research has been carried out to show no link with any of the alleged symptoms to each of the vaccines, stressing again that each vaccine is different, the highlighted effects are different and dismissal of these with a blanket statement doesn't improve the trust of the system and the substances being used and instead fuel an environment of distrust. Being honest about risks and reviewing potential unexpected side effects openly is far more useful if the intention is to get the majority of people to continue taking each of the vaccines.

ancapailldorcha

bt25 wrote: »

There are a few fallacies in conclusions here based on a weak premise of trust in a system and individuals. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm saying that to base your rejection of the presentable symptoms of a subset of the population is nonsensical. Is there a link between the vaccine and the symptoms? I don't know, you don't either and based on what I've so far found in the research it isn't confirmed as no link so to suggest then that these anecdotal statements are less valid than your own ones seems to be missing the mark. I would like to see what research has been carried out to show no link with any of the alleged symptoms to each of the vaccines, stressing again that each vaccine is different, the highlighted effects are different and dismissal of these with a blanket statement doesn't improve the trust of the system and the substances being used and instead fuel an environment of distrust. Being honest about risks and reviewing potential unexpected side effects openly is far more useful if the intention is to get the majority of people to continue taking each of the vaccines.

I'm not the one making claims about vaccine injury. Perhaps if we see some evidence from that side of the debate we can look at it. It's not up to me to do other people's research.

Amantine

tony1980 wrote: »

Unfortunately they didn’t in our case, one day we had our daughter and the next, well, it’s something you can only experience first hand in what you lose!
When other little girls are around our house with people visiting now, around my daughters age, i end up in tears later that day because of the difference I see between them and things I never got to experience with her as she grew up, nor will ever experience with her!

I'm so sorry to hear that, I can't imagine what that must be like.
Did any doctors, the HSE or any organisation recognise what happened? Was it ever linked to a vaccine?

batgoat

Amantine wrote: »

How many in the UK?

See the main difference between "vaccine injuries" which rarely have anything to back them up and actually getting something like measles, plenty do know people who have suffered learn term consequences from measles. I know a guy who ended up deaf as a result of measles. Then you've got the likes of encephalitis. These ruin lives. And vaccines will protect against it.

Then you've got the hpv vaccine which protects against 70% of cervical cancers. Meanwhile you and others can't even prove some basics of your claims. You are actively endangering lives and taking advantage of vulnerable parents.

To the poster who thinks their child got autism from a vaccine. They did not. Autism manifests at about the same age as getting initial vaccines. Does not mean vaccines cause autism and plenty of research backs this up. So I would say, embrace your child as they are and stop trying to find something to blame. You protected your child against illnesses that could ruin theirs and other's lives.

jh79

bt25 wrote: »

Thank you for your responses. I agree generally but I lean to the side that feels that any medicines should be confirmed safe before use. Ones that have been used for a long time we can see what the long term effect and true risks from, new ones are less confirmed and to just say one is safe therefore all are safe is nonsensical to me. Also, the focus always seems to be on Autism but again, that is not the only risks that are suggested and in fact highlighted as potential risks by the manufacturer. I, however, feel that the suggestion that all should be ignored for the greater good is a bit too simplistic but then on top for some to suggest it should be forced is downright insane. Each needs to be taken as it's own but also as part of what is a massive unknown mix which we currently have no long term data to confirm what the impact is on all of or a smaller subset of the population. There are risks of STIs that are much higher and real threats in the general population but no suggestions of forcing everyone to stop having sex!

So what size of a trial do you suggest prior to be released on the market?

Amantine

batgoat wrote: »

See the main difference between "vaccine injuries" which rarely have anything to back them up and actually getting something like measles, plenty do know people who have suffered learn term consequences from measles. I know a guy who ended up deaf as a result of measles. Then you've got the likes of encephalitis. These ruin lives. And vaccines will protect against it.

Then you've got the hpv vaccine which protects against 70% of cervical cancers. Meanwhile you and others can't even prove some basics of your claims. You are actively endangering lives and taking advantage of vulnerable parents.

To the poster who thinks their child got autism from a vaccine. They did not. Autism manifests at about the same age as getting initial vaccines. Does not mean vaccines cause autism and plenty of research backs this up. So I would say, embrace your child as they are and stop trying to find something to blame. You protected your child against illnesses that could ruin theirs and other's lives.

Search the thread, there is lots of evidence that vaccines are not risk free. Show me a single study that proves that the HPV protects from cervical cancer. There is no such thing.
And please, do NOT patronise a parent on what did or did not cause their child's illness.

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

And please, do NOT patronise a parent on what did or did not cause their child's illness.

I'm a parent, I did not become an expert in medical diagnosis the moment she was born.

Dohnjoe

bt25 wrote: »

Thank you for your responses. I agree generally but I lean to the side that feels that any medicines should be confirmed safe before use. Ones that have been used for a long time we can see what the long term effect and true risks from, new ones are less confirmed and to just say one is safe therefore all are safe is nonsensical to me. Also, the focus always seems to be on Autism but again, that is not the only risks that are suggested and in fact highlighted as potential risks by the manufacturer. I, however, feel that the suggestion that all should be ignored for the greater good is a bit too simplistic but then on top for some to suggest it should be forced is downright insane. Each needs to be taken as it's own but also as part of what is a massive unknown mix which we currently have no long term data to confirm what the impact is on all of or a smaller subset of the population. There are risks of STIs that are much higher and real threats in the general population but no suggestions of forcing everyone to stop having sex!

Nothing is 100% safe. Step on a plane and we are taking a risk, an acceptable risk to most people. However with flying we have a choice, with infectious diseases there isn't that choice. It's highly infectious diseases or vaccines. Thankfully vaccines not only work, but they are also remarkably safe. Remarkably safe does not mean 100% safe and I'm not sure where you are getting that notion from

As with almost any subject, no matter how straightforward, there are small groups of highly driven people with various agendas on the internet producing a large quantity of alarmist disinformation, some of which can be very convincing - which is the intention

Dohnjoe

Amantine wrote: »

How many in the UK? How many in Roumania?

Need to search for e.g. "measles cases in UK", "measles cases in Romania"

Stick with credible sources, thankfully most of the top search results (with those search criteria) are from reputable sources

Varta

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but it's people who refuse to even consider the evidence that are undermining intelligent science based discourse.

You say that parents are refusing to vaccinate due to vaccine injury yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this. If vaccine injury were prevalent, the health regulators and authorities would have stepped in a long time ago. We need to make decisions based on empirical evidence, ie data and not on feelings and Facebook groups.

Autism is highly complex and people who have it don't deserve to be dehumanised by people who just want an excuse either not to vaccinate or to feel special.

From personal experience, this simply doesn't happen. There is more or less a blanket refusal to acknowledge vaccine injury.

Quandary

Measles outbreak resulting in 2 universities being quarantined

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0426/1045772-measles-california/

The faster we make it mandatory for school going children to be vaccinated the better.

The harm that is being caused by this anti vaccination lunacy is getting more serious every month.

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

Show me a single study that proves that the HPV protects from cervical cancer. There is no such thing.

http://bfy.tw/NOUG

bt25

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nothing is 100% safe. Step on a plane and we are taking a risk, an acceptable risk to most people. However with flying we have a choice, with infectious diseases there isn't that choice. It's highly infectious diseases or vaccines. Thankfully vaccines not only work, but they are also remarkably safe. Remarkably safe does not mean 100% safe and I'm not sure where you are getting that notion from

As with almost any subject, no matter how straightforward, there are small groups of highly driven people with various agendas on the internet producing a large quantity of alarmist disinformation, some of which can be very convincing - which is the intention

that is a little bit misleading in terms of the binary nature of the argument but even to ignore that element you still make the point that they aren't 100% safe, but what percentage is each one and what are the risks of the combination at different stages of early development and safest spacing of them? I'm not looking for proof of danger, but I would like more details of safety before just trusting blindly. Viewing and treating all equal is unusual, some have been around a long time and do have a big benefit, but not all have the same risk and not all have the same benefit.

Igotadose

bt25 wrote: »

There are a few fallacies in conclusions here based on a weak premise of trust in a system and individuals. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm saying that to base your rejection of the presentable symptoms of a subset of the population is nonsensical. Is there a link between the vaccine and the symptoms? I don't know, you don't either and based on what I've so far found in the research it isn't confirmed as no link so to suggest then that these anecdotal statements are less valid than your own ones seems to be missing the mark.

There's no link between vaccines and autism discovered to date. How much data do you need? The danish government study, with 5 million person-hours of followup over 6000 subjects, found none.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30831578

This is just one of many such studies. More interesting to me is the pesticide study recently published about autism and other defects due to pesticide in California's central valley (enormous farming area.)

Anecdotes are not data.

I would like to see what research has been carried out to show no link with any of the alleged symptoms to each of the vaccines, stressing again that each vaccine is different, the highlighted effects are different and dismissal of these with a blanket statement doesn't improve the trust of the system and the substances being used and instead fuel an environment of distrust.

You don't prove a negative, that's pretty basic. That's been presented and discussed here before. For example: has it been proven that not smoking means you won't ever get lung cancer? Of course not - you can get lung cancer without ever having smoked in your life.

Being honest about risks and reviewing potential unexpected side effects openly is far more useful if the intention is to get the majority of people to continue taking each of the vaccines.

Nonsense. You're just looking to inject FUD. Various studies have been done on the rare side effects of vaccines. Skin discoloration was one. Fever (flu vaccine) another.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccine-adverse-events-rare-vast-benefits-outweigh-risks/#Vaccine_adverse_events_study

Dohnjoe

bt25 wrote: »

that is a little bit misleading in terms of the binary nature of the argument

Not sure I understand what you mean here - how is it misleading?

I would like more details of safety before just trusting blindly

Again, not sure what you mean, you require someone provides this information to you? here? in general?

This is info you can find online, the level of detail you require is subjective and up to you

Amantine

jh79 wrote: »

I'm a parent, I did not become an expert in medical diagnosis the moment she was born.

I am a parent and I absolutely am an expert in my children. I know them like I made them, gave birth to them, and lived with them since the day they were born.

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

Search the thread, there is lots of evidence that vaccines are not risk free. Show me a single study that proves that the HPV protects from cervical cancer. There is no such thing.
And please, do NOT patronise a parent on what did or did not cause their child's illness.

Amantine wrote: »

I am a parent and I absolutely am an expert in my children. I know them like I made them, gave birth to them, and lived with them since the day they were born.

Being a parent doesn't make you a medical expert. This is the sort of excuse I see often on anti-vaxxer Facebook pages used to excuse people from reading or thinking about why they hold these beliefs.

Varta wrote: »

From personal experience, this simply doesn't happen. There is more or less a blanket refusal to acknowledge vaccine injury.

Thankfully, decisions on healthcare policy aren't done based on personal experience. Seems to be much more likely that it doesn't happen or at least it doesn't happen as laid out by anti vaxxers.

granturismo

Varta wrote: »

From personal experience, this simply doesn't happen. There is more or less a blanket refusal to acknowledge vaccine injury.

What is your personal experience of vaccines causing illness in children and what links can you provide for this blanket refusal?

Dohnjoe

Amantine wrote: »

I am a parent and I absolutely am an expert in my children. I know them like I made them, gave birth to them, and lived with them since the day they were born.

I have to second the response to this - you are not an expert on their medical health and it's actually quite dangerous thinking to believe so

Deebles McBeebles

Amantine wrote: »

I am a parent and I absolutely am an expert in my children. I know them like I made them, gave birth to them, and lived with them since the day they were born.

Jesus. You don't happen to have a son named Norman Bates do you?

Varta

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Being a parent doesn't make you a medical expert. This is the sort of excuse I see often on anti-vaxxer Facebook pages used to excuse people from reading or thinking about why they hold these beliefs.



Thankfully, decisions on healthcare policy aren't done based on personal experience. Seems to be much more likely that it doesn't happen or at least it doesn't happen as laid out by anti vaxxers.

I think you need to think about what you wrote there. If half the vaccinated population had a bad personal experience do you think healthcare policy shouldn't take note of that? I'm staunchly in favour of vaccination and it may sound cruel to say it, but the number of vaccine injuries are so small that the benefits far outweigh them. That said, people who have a negative reaction should not be dismissed out of hand. What if the bad reaction was the result of a bad batch of vaccine? If the parents of the child affected are dismissed out of hand then that bad batch of vaccine remains in the system with the potential to affect other children. It is bad science to dismiss these issues out of hand, but this is very much what happens.

Varta

granturismo wrote: »

What is your personal experience of vaccines causing illness in children and what links can you provide for this blanket refusal?

I posted earlier in the thread. Essentially my child had a very bad reaction to the mmr vaccine. This was denied at every level until, eventually, it was confirmed by an immunologist. What if the reaction had been caused by a bad batch of vaccine? By refusing to engage with the idea that there had been a bad reaction, that bad batch would remain in the system with the potential to cause problems for other children. As I stated previously, I believe in vaccination. Despite my child's problem with the vaccination I didn't hesitate to have my other children vaccinated. But the blanket refusal to even consider that there might have been an issue with the vaccine (bad batch, non-sterile needle, who knows) was extremely frustrating and I could well understand how it might put people off having subsequent children vaccinated.

ancapailldorcha

Varta wrote: »

I think you need to think about what you wrote there. If half the vaccinated population had a bad personal experience do you think healthcare policy shouldn't take note of that? I'm staunchly in favour of vaccination and it may sound cruel to say it, but the number of vaccine injuries are so small that the benefits far outweigh them. That said, people who have a negative reaction should not be dismissed out of hand. What if the bad reaction was the result of a bad batch of vaccine? If the parents of the child affected are dismissed out of hand then that bad batch of vaccine remains in the system with the potential to affect other children. It is bad science to dismiss these issues out of hand, but this is very much what happens.

If half the vaccinated population had a negative experience with vaccines, there would be data to substantiate this. Decisions should be made based on data and evidence, not personal experience. My point still holds.

In the second half of your post you say that people who have a bad reaction should not be dismissed out of hand. The problem there is that you need to know that the vaccine is the culprit.

Manufacturing of vaccines, drugs, medical devices and so forth is incredibly tightly regulated. To the point where even maintaining the paper databases means forests' worth of paper are required for recording absolutely every detail down to the service history of the barometer recording the pressure of the room.

I've worked in medical testing, clinical trials and pharmaceutical manufacturing. With all the best practice in the world, there is only so much we can do to prevent accidents. Obviously, if there is a bad batch the recipients should be compensated.

I'm only dismissing lazy arguments out of hand, not genuine aggrieved parents and relatives. There has been no end of people here pasting text, linking to dodgy videos and simply spamming this thread. That is what has cause some posters, possibly myself included to adopt a more blunt manner.

Varta

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If half the vaccinated population had a negative experience with vaccines, there would be data to substantiate this. Decisions should be made based on data and evidence, not personal experience. My point still holds.

In the second half of your post you say that people who have a bad reaction should not be dismissed out of hand. The problem there is that you need to know that the vaccine is the culprit.

Manufacturing of vaccines, drugs, medical devices and so forth is incredibly tightly regulated. To the point where even maintaining the paper databases means forests' worth of paper are required for recording absolutely every detail down to the service history of the barometer recording the pressure of the room.

I've worked in medical testing, clinical trials and pharmaceutical manufacturing. With all the best practice in the world, there is only so much we can do to prevent accidents. Obviously, if there is a bad batch the recipients should be compensated.

I'm only dismissing lazy arguments out of hand, not genuine aggrieved parents and relatives. There has been no end of people here pasting text, linking to dodgy videos and simply spamming this thread. That is what has cause some posters, possibly myself included to adopt a more blunt manner.

I have no problem with a blunt manner. I also fully understand a reluctance to acknowledge vaccine issues for fear of encouraging anti-vaxxers, however, that's still not acceptable. As for data, if medics refuse to acknowledge incidents, never mind report them, how can there be data? If credibility is to be maintained, and it is essential that it is, then the whole process should be open and transparent and medics/scientists should respond rather than react. Despite how frustrated they might be with the anti-vaxxers.

Amantine

Amantine wrote: »

I am a parent and I absolutely am an expert in my children. I know them like I made them, gave birth to them, and lived with them since the day they were born.

Are you a doctor?

Sort of reminds me of parents saying I know my little darling wouldn't do x,y,z and then having to realise yes they would and have.

VinLieger

Amantine wrote: »

I am a parent and I absolutely am an expert in my children. I know them like I made them, gave birth to them, and lived with them since the day they were born.

Im guessing you would similarly be equally happy diagnosing and self medicating yourself via internet sources with absolutely zero consultation from a medical professional as if you are as you claim an expert on your children you must have even more expertise regarding yourself?