Anti-vaxxers

copeyhagen · 24-09-2019 3:21pm

hcf500 wrote: »

OK, not a class action but very similar! Having read more about it, it is a "test case". The outcome of that case will mostly determine the outcome of the following cases? Apparently they are almost certain to win the case. Is it the gov or gsk that will have to pay though? Both are being sued.

what's your opinion on vaccinations?

hcf500 · 24-09-2019 3:24pm

copeyhagen wrote: »

what's your opinion on vaccinations?

Vaccines are great but when they go wrong, there needs to be accountability and victims need to be taken care of. Is it acceptable to talk about the negative impact some vaccines have on some people?

Dohnjoe · 24-09-2019 3:34pm

hcf500 wrote: »

Vaccines are great but when they go wrong, there needs to be accountability and victims need to be taken care of. Is it acceptable to talk about the negative impact some vaccines have on some people?

Of course, but due to the number of anti-vaxxers disguising themselves as "just concerned about vaccine safety" we get a lot of bull**** thrown into any case

Nothing is 100%, not even vaccines. Unfortunately there are those who use any incidents as a fulcrum to wedge in their anti-vaxx or vaccine doubting narratives.

Context is very important.

CramCycle · 24-09-2019 3:47pm

hcf500 wrote: »

OK, not a class action but very similar! Having read more about it, it is a "test case". The outcome of that case will mostly determine the outcome of the following cases? Apparently they are almost certain to win the case. Is it the gov or gsk that will have to pay though? Both are being sued.

Government, they indemnified GSK. Even the article states this. HPRA claims they knew but that these were in line with normal rates of reactions for this vaccine, which is an odd statement for one that has not completed trials.

Government are fighting it as there are 80 cases after this one, if they admit in one, they admit in all.

Not sure why this case would make the thread quiet.

hcf500 · 24-09-2019 3:56pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Government, they indemnified GSK. Even the article states this. HPRA claims they knew but that these were in line with normal rates of reactions for this vaccine, which is an odd statement for one that has not completed trials.

Government are fighting it as there are 80 cases after this one, if they admit in one, they admit in all.

Not sure why this case would make the thread quiet.

This thread receives updates every few weeks about someone that has been affected negatively because of not having their vaccines. Some people here seem to thrive off of these stories, the anti vax gift to them. I cant imagine they would be very quick to post news about a vaccine manufacturer losing a case in court though!

Varta · 24-09-2019 4:15pm

Doctors who suspect that a patient has been affected by the swine flu vaccine are seeking batch numbers. This is very curious. Is there a suspicion that some batches of the vaccine were problematic? If it turns out that this vaccine was dodgy, the manufacturer should be crucified, because by selling bad vaccines they do more harm to vaccine campaigns than anti-vaxxers ever could.

hcf500 · 24-09-2019 4:24pm

Varta wrote: »

Doctors who suspect that a patient has been affected by the swine flu vaccine are seeking batch numbers. This is very curious. Is there a suspicion that some batches of the vaccine were problematic? If it turns out that this vaccine was dodgy, the manufacturer should be crucified, because by selling bad vaccines they do more harm to vaccine campaigns than anti-vaxxers ever could.

Where did you hear that? Don't doctors already have the batch numbers for the vaccines they administered?

Brian? · 24-09-2019 4:35pm

hcf500 wrote: »

CramCycle wrote: »

Thanks for the links. :rolleyes:

There you go

Mistakes were made with the swine flu vaccine process. It's already been admitted.

Varta · 24-09-2019 4:37pm

hcf500 wrote: »

Where did you hear that? Don't doctors already have the batch numbers for the vaccines they administered?

They do indeed. I'm referring to consultants seeking the batch numbers from the medic who administered the vaccine. There is something not right about this particular vaccine.

Brian? · 24-09-2019 4:39pm

Varta wrote: »

Doctors who suspect that a patient has been affected by the swine flu vaccine are seeking batch numbers. This is very curious. Is there a suspicion that some batches of the vaccine were problematic? If it turns out that this vaccine was dodgy, the manufacturer should be crucified, because by selling bad vaccines they do more harm to vaccine campaigns than anti-vaxxers ever could.

From memory, the swine flu vaccine was rushed through without the appropriate clinical trials because of the perceived danger the swine flu represented. A very real danger.

The lesson is that scientific rigor is important, not that vaccines are dangerous. You're right though, it's mana from heaven for the anti vax movement.

Varta · 24-09-2019 4:47pm

Brian? wrote: »

From memory, the swine flu vaccine was rushed through without the appropriate clinical trials because of the perceived danger the swine flu represented. A very real danger.

The lesson is that scientific rigor is important, not that vaccines are dangerous. You're right though, it's mana from heaven for the anti vax movement.

The other lesson may be that governments should not indemnify pharmaceutical companies.

CramCycle · 24-09-2019 4:55pm

Varta wrote: »

The other lesson may be that governments should not indemnify pharmaceutical companies.

The reason they done this was because GSK were not going to put it up for sale here unless indemnified, as rightly so, the trials were not complete. (If I have read that correctly).

It was idiotic of the government not to have done their homework properly and is a prime example of how dangerous scaremongering can be. It was idiotic of them to make a statement on the public airwaves without knowing all the ins and outs.

If found against, the government should rightly be taken to task for overriding scientific rigour, if they are found not guilty, they should still get in trouble for jumping the gun.

None of this makes vaccines dangerous.

hcf500 · 24-09-2019 5:08pm

Brian? wrote: »

Mistakes were made with the swine flu vaccine process. It's already been admitted.

It's already been admitted by everyone other than the Irish government it seems, who are spending millions trying to defend the case. Not to mention dragging it out for years for the children affected. It was 10 years ago that the vaccine was introduced! If they never admit fault or blame then how can they ever be trusted! This should be a story of the past now.

Brian? · 24-09-2019 5:20pm

hcf500 wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Mistakes were made with the swine flu vaccine process. It's already been admitted.

It's already been admitted by everyone other than the Irish government it seems, who are spending millions trying to defend the case. Not to mention dragging it out for years for the children affected. It was 10 years ago that the vaccine was introduced! If they never admit fault or blame then how can they ever be trusted! This should be a story of the past now.

No, they're defending themselves from a charge of negligence. The person suing will have to prove negligence on the part of the state. I imagine the state will argue it wasn't negligent based on the WHO identifying the swine flu as potentially a global pandemic and they took action as best they could.

hcf500 · 24-09-2019 5:28pm

Brian? wrote: »

No, they're defending themselves from a charge of negligence. The person suing will have to prove negligence on the part of the state. I imagine the state will argue it wasn't negligent based on the WHO identifying the swine flu as potentially a global pandemic and they took action as best they could.

Thing is that when they were notified of problems with the vaccine, they did not carry out any review or make any changes to the vaccination guidelines for doctors. They vaccinated children as late as 2011 with it when there were no fears of the swine flu. It was long gone by then

CramCycle · 24-09-2019 11:48pm

Varta wrote: »

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

No there is not, in fact there is a wonderful video earlier in the thread where not only is it acknowledged, it is point blanket accepted. The point is that there are adverse reactions, the more important point is that these are so rare and unlikely that more people are saved, significantly more.

In passing, your comments on batch numbers of the vaccines, every doctor has recorded these for years, your kids vaccine passports has te numbers in them, the HCP who administered them has a copy, typically double checked by another person in the room if done in school. The idea that doctors are searcing for them is absurd considering how at hand they should be for any half competent HCP

hcf500 wrote: »

Since I was the one that resurrected this thread this time, can you tell me what I said that was factually incorrect? Im guessing you are one of those people who can only use insults as a debate strategy though.

Its the thin edge of the wedge debating style. Your point was the thread would go quiet when the vaccine company lose. This being misleading because the vaccine company are indemnified by the Irish government. The issues with the intro of the vaccine that had not finished trials are noted in the article, and GSK themselves would not release it here without the protection of the government.

The truth is, and lets just shorten the debate here because it is pointless. If there is one problem here, and it turns out that the lawsuit is justified, then the Irish Government is too blame.

hcf500 · 25-09-2019 12:17am

CramCycle wrote: »

Its the thin edge of the wedge debating style. Your point was the thread would go quiet when the vaccine company lose. This being misleading because the vaccine company are indemnified by the Irish government. The issues with the intro of the vaccine that had not finished trials are noted in the article, and GSK themselves would not release it here without the protection of the government.

The truth is, and lets just shorten the debate here because it is pointless. If there is one problem here, and it turns out that the lawsuit is justified, then the Irish Government is too blame.

I completely agree with you about it being the governments fault. Im sure GSK developed the vaccine to be as safe as they could make it under the constraints they faced. Im sure the government released the vaccine with the best of intentions. However, their good intentions became tainted once they decided to ignore reports from Sweden and warnings from GSK. They made the conscious decision to keep stocks of that vaccine and vaccinate more children in 2011. No other country was vaccinating children with pandemrix in 2011. Not only should there be damages paid, but there should be accountability and criminal charges..

Seth Brundle · 25-09-2019 8:51am

hcf500 wrote: »

Not only should there be damages paid, but there should be accountability and criminal charges..

Can I ask what your interest in this is?

PhoneMain · 25-09-2019 10:31am

CramCycle wrote: »

Thanks for the links. :rolleyes:

Don't worry, they'll have a Youtube video up in no time.

hcf500 · 25-09-2019 12:11pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Can I ask what your interest in this is?

You can. I don't have any interest in this. When searching for an Irish lawyer, I came across this story on Michael Boylans Law Firm site.

hcf500 · 25-09-2019 12:12pm

PhoneMain wrote: »

Don't worry, they'll have a Youtube video up in no time.

Why do you think Ill have a youtube video "up in no time"?

ohnonotgmail · 25-09-2019 12:12pm

PhoneMain wrote: »

Don't worry, they'll have a Youtube video up in no time.

With a length that would make Francis Ford Coppola blush.

hcf500 · 25-09-2019 12:15pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

With a length that would make Francis Ford Coppola blush.

What are you talking about?

expectationlost · 25-09-2019 1:41pm

see this press ombudmans decsion about an article that was in the Irish examiner https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/press-council-ruling-a-man-and-the-irish-examiner-952738.html can anyone find the original HPSC Epi-insight article? (cos newspapers won't link to sources) https://www.hpsc.ie/epi-insight/

Megwepz · 25-09-2019 5:08pm

I had my son at the very start of 2010, was quite a young, nervous new Mum at the time. Brought my little boy for the usual round of vaccines and the nurse administering it was explaining what she was going to give him and included the swine flu vaccine.

As young and unsure about this whole mothering thing as I was, I told her that I was not comfortable with him receiving the vaccine at this time, I didn't know enough about it and I felt like the whole thing had kind of come out of nowhere and been kind or rushed into our clinics. She gave me such a dressing down, made me feel so tiny and useless as a mother, told me I was putting my child at risk and would only have myself to blame WHEN he contracted swine flu.... I stood my ground.

My friend did not... and she is now the mother of the most beautiful 10yr old boy who suffers from chronic narcolepsy.

I'm 100% in agreement on the importance of vaccinations - but there was something about this one that never felt right to me.

xzanti · 25-09-2019 5:36pm

Megwepz wrote: »

I had my son at the very start of 2010, was quite a young, nervous new Mum at the time. Brought my little boy for the usual round of vaccines and the nurse administering it was explaining what she was going to give him and included the swine flu vaccine.

As young and unsure about this whole mothering thing as I was, I told her that I was not comfortable with him receiving the vaccine at this time, I didn't know enough about it and I felt like the whole thing had kind of come out of nowhere and been kind or rushed into our clinics. She gave me such a dressing down, made me feel so tiny and useless as a mother, told me I was putting my child at risk and would only have myself to blame WHEN he contracted swine flu.... I stood my ground.

My friend did not... and she is now the mother of the most beautiful 10yr old boy who suffers from chronic narcolepsy.

I'm 100% in agreement on the importance of vaccinations - but there was something about this one that never felt right to me.

I had the swine flu jab at 38 weeks pregnant in 2010.

I was so glad I did because my son's birth coincided with an outbreak in the Rotunda where I was having him. The night he was born the nurses were walking around us with disease masks on.

He was recently diagnosed with Auditory Processing Disorder with Sensory. As a toddler he displayed autistic characteristics which he seemed to grow out of.

Was it because of the vaccine, who knows. I certainly don't.

If I could go back in time I would still have the jab, as it may have saved his life if he'd come in contact with the bug.

I wouldn't change anything about him.

That said, I support parents who believe their child was vaccine injured who choose to seek justice. The Vera Duffy's of this world. The people who will be changing their grown child's nappies when they should be enjoying their retirement. Those people.

Seth Brundle · 25-09-2019 6:29pm

Megwepz wrote: »

I had my son at the very start of 2010, was quite a young, nervous new Mum at the time. Brought my little boy for the usual round of vaccines and the nurse administering it was explaining what she was going to give him and included the swine flu vaccine.

As young and unsure about this whole mothering thing as I was, I told her that I was not comfortable with him receiving the vaccine at this time, I didn't know enough about it and I felt like the whole thing had kind of come out of nowhere and been kind or rushed into our clinics. She gave me such a dressing down, made me feel so tiny and useless as a mother, told me I was putting my child at risk and would only have myself to blame WHEN he contracted swine flu.... I stood my ground.

My friend did not... and she is now the mother of the most beautiful 10yr old boy who suffers from chronic narcolepsy.

I'm 100% in agreement on the importance of vaccinations - but there was something about this one that never felt right to me.

So you ignored a professional and chose not to vaccinate. You put your child's life (and the life of children around them) at risk because you were uncomfortable in your ignorance.

As for your friend: what's your point there?

ub52 · 26-09-2019 12:20am

Why worry about them ?
Its a passing fad
They will all be dead in a couple of generations

Neyite · 26-09-2019 10:24am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So you ignored a professional and chose not to vaccinate. You put your child's life (and the life of children around them) at risk because you were uncomfortable in your ignorance.

As for your friend: what's your point there?

Seth, I'm 100% pro vaccine. I vaccinated my son on schedule and luckily I wasn't pregnant around the time of the swine flu outbreak, but we were trying for a baby and my SIL expecting and even when it was being promoted, there were reports from reputable sources saying that it was untested and that it was rushed due to the outbreak and there was chatter about adverse outcomes. My SIL chose not to take that particular vaccine based on those reports and reserved the right to change her mind if outbreaks were to occur nearby. Her doctor said it was very much optional. I would have taken the SF vaccine in a heartbeat if it had been tested properly. I'd have consented to my baby having it if it had had been tested properly.

When we are pregnant /breastfeeding we get castigated for everything we put into our bodies and doctors are quick to withdraw most medicines. We are lucky if they let us take paracetamol. People judge you for having a can of coke, not to mention smoking or drinking alcohol. Doctors were basically saying "here's an intravenous drug you have to take. We can't tell you what's in it, nor can we confirm it's safety to you or your baby because it's been rushed through normal testing protocols"

There's a reason why babies, children and pregnant women are usually excluded from experimental or clinical trials. Thalidomide is a good example. It was hailed as a saviour to women for morning sickness, in a time when medications to pregnant women was not strictly monitored or controlled because they believed that what a mother ingests can't cross the placenta. Even just the other week, the impact on alcohol to semen was published which shows a potential link to an increase in miscarriage due to male alcohol intake. There is so much we have still to learn about foetal medicine. Giving untested medications of any sort to a pregnant woman or newborn has to be unethical.

Swine flu vaccine was rushed onto the market due to the outbreak. We know this. If we want people to have faith in vaccines they need to have them tested long before we are the point where we are giving them to pregnant women and infants.

expectationlost · 26-09-2019 12:29pm

expectationlost wrote: »

see this press ombudmans decsion about an article that was in the Irish examiner https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/press-council-ruling-a-man-and-the-irish-examiner-952738.html can anyone find the original HPSC Epi-insight article? (cos newspapers won't link to sources) https://www.hpsc.ie/epi-insight/

it seems the HPSC Epi-insight article has been withdrawn so we can't even read the original source, seems like a bad example to publish and was highly likely to be misconstrued by newspapers who wouldn't make the distinction about the non-type-able un-vacinatable virus that this kid had and the type you can and should get vaccinated for

Anti-vaxxers

Comments