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

Anti-vaxxers

Options
1…132133135137138…199

Comments

  • Options
    #4022
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Kept people alive enough to continue paying for drugs more like.

    So they should of been left to die? People can always refuse treatment.


  • Options
    #4023
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,488 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    stefanovich wrote: »
    I posted a link to the CDC website, you can count the doses yourself.

    O.K. thanks for confirming you made the number up. (When you first posted your lie, I looked at the identical web site, got to about 50.) So, which anti-vax site *did* you actually get the number 72 from?


  • Options
    #4024
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Amantine wrote: »
    More children with learning difficulties, asthma, eczema, Type 1 diabetes... More adults with Alzheimers. I'd trade measles and chicken pox for Alzheimers any day!

    T1DM, this I have to hear this unless you are referring to that one p hacking paper?
    ZX7R wrote: »
    If I were you ,I'd be more worried about the trace amounts of allumium in fish as it higher than amounts of all vacations+ boosters combined one would receive in one's life Time.
    It is similar to the issues with pig meat and sulphites a few years ago. More in a typical bottle of red than in a whole pig but everyoen went mental.


  • Options
    #4025
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Igotadose wrote: »
    O.K. thanks for confirming you made the number up. (When you first posted your lie, I looked at the identical web site, got to about 50.) So, which anti-vax site *did* you actually get the number 72 from?

    The only point here I want to make is that big pharma cannot be trusted by themselves. Studies they sponsor cannot be trusted. Doctors they bribe cannot be trusted. Okay so it is 50 instead of 72. Still pretty high? Could any of those injections be avoided and result in a decreased risk of complication? Maybe..


  • Options
    #4026
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Every single pharmaceutical company existence has a blackened history. They are some of the most corrupt and sick industries in existence.

    Which is what strong regulations are for. History has taught us to never accept that a corporation will act in the interests of the public, at least it will never do so as a first priority. It is for governments to create that priority.

    Europe has strong regulation and it is no coincidence that most recent pharma scandals have arisen in the US and in those developing jurisdictions that have money (e.g. China and Korea).

    The responses to those scandals are telling. The US is moving ever towards weaker regulation. China executes pharma execs.

    I'm against the death penalty, but even more against a deregulated pharma industry.
    stefanovich wrote: »
    The only point here I want to make is that big pharma cannot be trusted by themselves. Studies they sponsor cannot be trusted. Doctors they bribe cannot be trusted. Okay so it is 50 instead of 72. Still pretty high? Could any of those injections be avoided and result in a decreased risk of complication? Maybe..

    Yes, they cannot be trusted. But they are regulated, and that's a framework for improvement. The inaccuracies in the data you obtained make an important point. A pharma company that fakes data may end up with people in prison, or executed. Not always, but it's always a risk for the pharma company to consider.

    Anti-vax sources are not subject to any such regulations. There are no consequences for them for spreading misinformation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4027
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    stefanovich wrote: »
    The only point here I want to make is that big pharma cannot be trusted by themselves. Studies they sponsor cannot be trusted. Doctors they bribe cannot be trusted. Okay so it is 50 instead of 72. Still pretty high? Could any of those injections be avoided and result in a decreased risk of complication? Maybe..

    Neither can you by the sounds of it, if you're just going to post lies/made up numbers then why should anyone take anything else you say as true?


  • Options
    #4028
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Neither can you by the sounds of it, if you're just going to post lies/made up numbers then why should anyone take anything else you say as true?

    You are suggesting I deliberately misled people. Perhaps I was lazy in my research which I am sure we are all guilty of at some stage of another.

    I was just trying to illustrate that the number of vaccines is being ramped up over in the states and that is worrying.


  • Options
    #4029
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    stefanovich wrote: »
    You are suggesting I deliberately misled people. Perhaps I was lazy in my research which I am sure we are all guilty of at some stage of another.

    I was just trying to illustrate that the number of vaccines is being ramped up over in the states and that is worrying.

    That's exactly what you did when you posted fake numbers claiming people receive 72 vaccines!

    Plus this is an Irish site, why are you posting US figures? Thats like going into a thread on housing and saying sure rent in the US is much lower so it cant be all that bad lads.


  • Options
    #4030
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Neither can you by the sounds of it, if you're just going to post lies/made up numbers then why should anyone take anything else you say as true?

    I don't think it's entirely fair to accuse most anti-vax proponents of lying. Their sources lie, or are reckless about the truth in pursuit of their agenda, but the vast majority of the people repeating the lies have simply trusted the wrong source, and don't know how to determine what sources to trust. That's a really common problem, and plenty of pro-vaccine folks would be equally guilty of it.


  • Options
    #4031
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I don't think it's entirely fair to accuse most anti-vax proponents of lying. Their sources lie, or are reckless about the truth in pursuit of their agenda, but the vast majority of the people repeating the lies have simply trusted the wrong source, and don't know how to determine what sources to trust. That's a really common problem, and plenty of pro-vaccine folks would be equally guilty of it.

    Thats true but that poster claimed 72 (a number he seemed to pull out of his rear end) and has avoided clarifying where he got the number for days/weeks.

    It's only today he has admitted he made the number up and didnt/couldnt even post a link to where he got the number from.

    At best its misleading and at worse it's downright dishonest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4032
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Amantine wrote: »
    More children with learning difficulties, asthma, eczema, Type 1 diabetes... More adults with Alzheimers. I'd trade measles and chicken pox for Alzheimers any day!

    Got good sources on each of those claims? Asthma is of particular interest to me as I'm asthmatic, so I happen to know there's little basis for that claim. Retrospective studies suggest a link, but once you do meta-analysis it disappears.


  • Options
    #4033
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,488 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I don't think it's entirely fair to accuse most anti-vax proponents of lying. Their sources lie, or are reckless about the truth in pursuit of their agenda, but the vast majority of the people repeating the lies have simply trusted the wrong source, and don't know how to determine what sources to trust. That's a really common problem, and plenty of pro-vaccine folks would be equally guilty of it.

    I disagree. I believe they're all lying. By calling them the liars they are, maybe they'll become skeptical (there's that word again) about their sources.

    In this particular case, it took repeated posts by several of us to get the poster to own up to their own falsehoods. In fact, I question if whether the poster even looked at the CDC site beforehand, rather than regurgitating some anti-vax lie and got called out on it.

    And as pointed out elsewhere, the schedule for Ireland's different, too. Guess what - even lower...


  • Options
    #4034
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    stefanovich wrote: »
    We need a proper pharmaceutical company sponsored study!!
    So you're opposed to independent scientific research now?
    stefanovich wrote: »
    Reality is there are vested interests on both sides. Big pharma has a history of treating patients with utter contempt and cannot be trusted. Anti vax people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    I think we need to be critical and not just follow advice blindly. Question who paid for a particular study and what they have to gain. Some vaccines are likely safe. Some perhaps are not.
    You're biting your nose off to spite your face.


  • Options
    #4035
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Every single pharmaceutical company existence has a blackened history. They are some of the most corrupt and sick industries in existence.
    Should we ban them all and just let people die without proper intervention?


  • Options
    #4036
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    stefanovich wrote: »
    The only point here I want to make is that big pharma cannot be trusted by themselves. Studies they sponsor cannot be trusted. Doctors they bribe cannot be trusted. Okay so it is 50 instead of 72. Still pretty high? Could any of those injections be avoided and result in a decreased risk of complication? Maybe..

    50 or 72? Does it really matter? How does Europe manage to keep it to 12 or so vaccinations and the US need over double that?


  • Options
    #4037
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Kept people alive enough to continue paying for drugs more like.
    Erm, are you really stupid enough to post that?

    I previously asked you whether I should stay off my medication which helps prevent me from a natural but premature death. You appeared to agree that I shouldn't go off them.
    Make up your mind as otherwise people will think you are just posting crap continuously!


  • Options
    #4038
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Erm, are you really stupid enough to post that?

    I previously asked you whether I should stay off my medication which helps prevent me from a natural but premature death. You appeared to agree that I shouldn't go off them.
    Make up your mind as otherwise people will think you are just posting crap continuously!

    Please don't call me stupid.

    Again and again they have put profit ahead of patient welfare. What I am saying is that they cannot be trusted. Of course they have developed lots of beneficial drugs but if there were a safer alternative you can be sure they wouldn't tell you that.


  • Options
    #4039
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    Amantine wrote: »
    50 or 72? Does it really matter? How does Europe manage to keep it to 12 or so vaccinations and the US need over double that?
    But by sheer coincidence the US also has the sickest children and the highest mother mortality rate in the western world?


  • Options
    #4040
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Igotadose wrote: »
    I disagree. I believe they're all lying. By calling them the liars they are, maybe they'll become skeptical (there's that word again) about their sources.

    In this particular case, it took repeated posts by several of us to get the poster to own up to their own falsehoods. In fact, I question if whether the poster even looked at the CDC site beforehand, rather than regurgitating some anti-vax lie and got called out on it.

    And as pointed out elsewhere, the schedule for Ireland's different, too. Guess what - even lower...

    I take the point on this specific example- the poster probably realised the shaky ground but wouldn't back down. That is dishonest for sure.

    However I don't think there's much call to generalize, and it may be damaging. What studies have been done on the subject of persuading antivaxers suggests calling them liars will not improve outcomes (ie switch hesitants to accepting vaccination).

    I think it's WHO who even specifically note that question motives is counter-productive.


  • Options
    #4041
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,744 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Amantine wrote: »
    But by sheer coincidence the US also has the sickest children and the highest mother mortality rate in the western world?

    That has much more to do with the lack of any coherent social health care policy, a reliance on charity healthcare that only becomes available to patients upon catastrophic diagnosis, a lack of access to affordable treatment for many ailments and massive numbers of children that in any other part of the world would be considered as living in poverty.

    Actual income level and access to affordable healthcare has much more bearing on child mortality in the US than the vaccine schedule.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4042
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Amantine wrote: »
    But by sheer coincidence the US also has the sickest children and the highest mother mortality rate in the western world?

    There are so many confounding factors in that culture, that yes, it is almost certainly a coincidence. Also correlation/causation fallacy, but that hardly comes into it when there are so many more likely causes.


  • Options
    #4043
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    chartoftheday_2231_Maternal_mortality_rate_n.jpg
    Amantine wrote: »
    But by sheer coincidence the US also has the sickest children and the highest mother mortality rate in the western world?


  • Options
    #4044
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Please don't call me stupid.

    Again and again they have put profit ahead of patient welfare. What I am saying is that they cannot be trusted. Of course they have developed lots of beneficial drugs but if there were a safer alternative you can be sure they wouldn't tell you that.

    Who is "they" in this instance, Big Pharma a single entity? This makes no sense.

    If AstraZeneca have an asthma preventer inhaler that works well but carries a low risk of stroke, are you seriously suggesting that GSK are not going to release an inhaler with comparable efficacy in trials that doesn't have a risk of stroke? That "they" won't "tell you" about the product they just dropped $1 billion in research on, that they need to shift millions of units of per year to get into profit.

    They're greedy and amoral, but they're not a single colluding entity and they're also not morons.


  • Options
    #4045
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Amantine wrote: »
    chartoftheday_2231_Maternal_mortality_rate_n.jpg

    Great image. Explain something for me though. Vaccination rates have been increasing throughout, so why did US maternal mortality drop from 1990-1995. Rates have been increasing in all developed countries, so why has maternal mortality dropped worldwide?

    This image contradicts your point.


  • Options
    #4046
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    banie01 wrote: »
    That has much more to do with the lack of any coherent social health care policy, a reliance on charity healthcare that only becomes available to patients upon catastrophic diagnosis, a lack of access to affordable treatment for many ailments and massive numbers of children that in any other part of the world would be considered as living in poverty.

    Actual income level and access to affordable healthcare has much more bearing on child mortality in the US than the vaccine schedule.

    So we agree there is a serious problem with the Americans health care system?
    If so, why is that? Does it have anything to do with pharmaceutical companies? With the corruption of the CDC? How can such an advanced country let down its people like that? Can we really trust people who can’t look after their nation to do good, unbiased science? For such an expensive healthcare system, where is the money going? Now think about the fact that all the studies that I posted are European or Asian studies, not American... and yet they are criticised by Americans. Is it all just a coincidence?


  • Options
    #4047
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,488 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Healthcare availability driving the maternal mortality issues in the US.

    Cuts to planned parenthood make a difference, 'birth clinics' are a lightly-regulated cesspit of fake medical care, and the assault on healthcare for the poor, posed as repealing of Obamacare, are a big contributor.
    Adult male life expectancy is dropping, too.

    But, this is better discussed somewhere other than the anti-vax thread. One of the Trump threads might be a better choice.


  • Options
    #4048
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Amantine wrote: »
    So we agree there is a serious problem with the Americans health care system?
    If so, why is that? Does it have anything to do with pharmaceutical companies? With the corruption of the CDC? How can such an advanced country let down its people like that? Can we really trust people who can’t look after their nation to do good, unbiased science? For such an expensive healthcare system, where is the money going? Now think about the fact that all the studies that I posted are European or Asian studies, not American... and yet they are criticised by Americans. Is it all just a coincidence?

    Most of us would agree about that broad point (see by comments earlier about weak regulation in the US), but you're using it to make a bogus argument about vaccines.

    We all know pharma companies are not good guys, but that just means we have to make them work for us.


  • Options
    #4049
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Great image. Explain something for me though. Vaccination rates have been increasing throughout, so why did US maternal mortality drop from 1990-1995. Rates have been increasing in all developed countries, so why has maternal mortality dropped worldwide?

    This image contradicts your point.

    Because not all vaccines are the same. The American vaccination schedule is not the same as the third world countries. As much as you want to portray me as being against all vaccines, that is not the case. Some vaccines will save lives in third world countries. As you can see in the picture the increased vaccination schedule in the US is not linked with better maternal health.


  • Options
    #4050
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    We all know pharma companies are not good guys, but that just means we have to make them work for us.

    I couldn’t agree more. How do you suggest we do that? Right now they have huge control over us. 70% of the WHO funding comes from non governmental sources. The WHO is what controls most of our healthcare decisions, including vaccines.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4051
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Please don't call me stupid.
    Where did I call you stupid? I'm quite sure that I posted no such thing.
    stefanovich wrote: »
    Again and again they have put profit ahead of patient welfare. What I am saying is that they cannot be trusted. Of course they have developed lots of beneficial drugs but if there were a safer alternative you can be sure they wouldn't tell you that.
    Your paranoia is scary.
    By the way, you should stay away from the internet - you can catch AIDS from it!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement