Anti-vaxxers

banie01

stefanovich wrote: »

If they could defend the case they would.

Not at all, very often the decision to settle is the result of a CB analysis.
It's a quite simple piece of arithmetic.
The costs of court fees, counsel and legal fees, expert witnesses and all other ancillary costs of a case. Plus the estimated cost of reputational harm and PR and mitigation costs. Plus the likely appeal costs.

It should be noted that the appeal costs are factored in even in the event of winning the initial action as the plaintiff can always seek to appeal a verdict they aren't happy with.

It's taking the totality of those costs, and comparing them to the smallest sum likely to make the plaintiff agree to withdraw their action on a no liability basis and to have them agree to take no further action nor attach themselves to similar.

It also precludes the sharing of any particular detail or evidence that the plaintiff may have came across in their discovery with anyone.
I have yet to see a settlement agreement that doesn't also ensure quite a strict confidentiality clause.

Choosing to settle has done the Anti-Vaxxers cause in this instance absolutely zero good.

Pandremix has flaws, there are few who would disagree.
Drawing an equivalence between a flawed vaccine and a flawed medicine is quite a spurious argument however.

It's akin to saying that 1 medicine caused a cohort of people to experience severe side effects, therefore all medicine is flawed and suspect so we must stop taking all medicine.

Graces7

banie01 wrote: »

Not at all, very often the decision to settle is the

Pandremix has flaws, there are few who would disagree.
Drawing an equivalence between a flawed vaccine and a flawed medicine is quite a spurious argument however.

It's akin to saying that 1 medicine caused a cohort of people to experience severe side effects, therefore all medicine is flawed and suspect so we must stop taking all medicine.

Not true. And in all this discussion scant sympathy for or even acknowledgement of the number of young lives ruined through this "flaw".

We all need to check and double check everything we take, rather than the kind of blind faith that is presumed of us. Our bodies; our lives. Our responsibility. And to respect those who choose NO.

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

Why will we never know? Surely if it is so safe we are still taking it and therefore we will have loads of data?

Because there were alternatives with different formulations that didn't show an association so they are used instead.

stefanovich

banie01 wrote: »

It's akin to saying that 1 medicine caused a cohort of people to experience severe side effects, therefore all medicine is flawed and suspect so we must stop taking all medicine.

It does prove that the HSE are risk takers and also that not all vaccines can be considered safe. That why I advocate doing your own research.

stefanovich

jh79 wrote: »

Because there were alternatives with different formulations that didn't show an association so they are used instead.

So the original advice is not longer considered the best advice. They are not infallible?!

jh79

Graces7 wrote: »

Not true. And in all this discussion scant sympathy for or even acknowledgement of the number of young lives ruined through this "flaw".

We all need to check and double check everything we take, rather than the kind of blind faith that is presumed of us. Our bodies; our lives. Our responsibility. And to respect those who choose NO.

What process do you use to "check and double check" ?

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

So the original advice is not longer considered the best advice. They are not infallible?!

All medical advice/decisions are assessments of risk and benefits and some adverse effects occur in such small numbers that they would only be caught in post approval studies when enough doses have been administered.

banie01

Graces7 wrote: »

Not true. And in all this discussion scant sympathy for or even acknowledgement of the number of young lives ruined through this "flaw".

We all need to check and double check everything we take, rather than the kind of blind faith that is presumed of us. Our bodies; our lives. Our responsibility. And to respect those who choose NO.

Grace's, your contribution to this thread has been to waltz in present BS claims and appeal to emotion rather than evidence.
Then you scuttle away again when pressed for anything that resembles evidence rather than a story.
Back up your "experience" with actual evidence

Many people have been severely harmed by thalidomide, because particular risk factors around pregnancy were not researched or indeed even properly considered at the time of its primary use.
Does that mean that we should ignore all medicines?
Because at one time, one medicine was suspect and all other medicine is similar?
That is the equivalence that Anti-Vaxxers seek to rely on.

It's an equivalence that is patently false.

banie01

stefanovich wrote: »

It does prove that the HSE are risk takers and also that not all vaccines can be considered safe. That why I advocate doing your own research.

It actually proves nothing, and this is the issue with settling the case rather than progressing to a verdict.

One can make inferences based on the settlement, but one is as entitled to make inferences as to the motivation of the plaintiff as the respondent on that basis.

The fact that the case was settled means it was settled on a without fault or prejudice basis, no liability can be inferred from a decision to settle and nor can a decision to settle be used or inferred in any other action as an admission of liability on the part of the respondent in any similar subsequent action.

If this action was taken with the aim of exposing Big Pharma, settling is a poor outcome.
If it was taken to ensure the harm encountered by a person exposed to an unenumerated risk, is compensated?
Then at least the patient in question has a more secure future.

However, settlement attached no liability, no responsibility and no actual blame to the respondent.
It's quite simply the cheapest means for them to get out from under this, without accruing additional cost or liability.

ancapailldorcha

stefanovich wrote: »

So the original advice is not longer considered the best advice. They are not infallible?!

They might not be infallible but they're significantly better than people pushing a putrid agenda who use other people's misfortune as an excuse to push said agenda.

VicMackey1

banie01 wrote: »

It actually proves nothing, and this is the issue with settling the case rather than progressing to a verdict.

One can make inferences based on the settlement, but one is as entitled to make inferences as to the motivation of the plaintiff as the respondent on that basis.

The fact that the case was settled means it was settled on a without fault or prejudice basis, no liability can be inferred from a decision to settle and nor can a decision to settle be used or inferred in any other action as an admission of liability on the part of the respondent in any similar subsequent action.

If this action was taken with the aim of exposing Big Pharma, settling is a poor outcome.
If it was taken to ensure the harm encountered by a person exposed to an unenumerated risk, is compensated?
Then at least the patient in question has a more secure future.

However, settlement attached no liability, no responsibility and no actual blame to the respondent.
It's quite simply the cheapest means for them to get out from under this, without accruing additional cost or liability.

Chances are that it will cost them more in the long run. There is already another case underway which should be before the courts in the next 6 months or so. The legal costs for defending these cases will climb and climb. One of the days during the trial, there were about 50 defense solicitors and barristers in the court, all paid for by the state! They cant afford to settle every case confidentially.

Ralphyroo

stefanovich wrote: »

Did I say that? You are for blindly taking everything given to you without ever reading the leaflets?

Doctor prescribes cream for an eye infection. Leaflet says it is dangerous during pregnancy. Take it anyway?

We just regularly cleaned the eye and it was resolved. No risk to baby.

How exactly can an cream that's "dangerous" during pregnancy affect a baby who is obviously not pregnant. The majority of medication isn't licensed for use in pregnancy and should be used with caution because obviously they don't conduct clinical trials on pregnant women. The only cream I can think of that is dangerous during pregnancy is vitamin A because it can cause defects, but that's for acne not eye infection

mountai

Igotadose wrote: »

Uh, your anti-women diatribe doesn't reflect well on you and not sure what you're on about. The recent Cervical check scandals had nothing to do with vaccines, so why are you maligning women? Has your wife had the HPV vaccine?

But, that's neither here nor there when it comes to vaccines. As Dr. Kelleher says, they're looking to protect the health of the society and some may lose their individual liberties as a result. Example, during a pandemic, you may be forced to be vaccinated despite your objections.

"Anti Women diatribe"?. Dont think so . The purpose of my post was to illustrate the manner in which Women are treated by the HSE in this country . If you interpret my post as anti women then you must be part of the HSE trying to defend the system . Dr Kelleher stated he wished to "Give them the information , he WANTS TO GIVE THEM , so that they do the things he WANTS THEM TO DO." Does that sound like FULL DISCLOSURE to you . THATS what people are legally entitled to .

Dohnjoe

Graces7 wrote: »

We all need to check and double check everything we take, rather than the kind of blind faith that is presumed of us. Our bodies; our lives. Our responsibility. And to respect those who choose NO.

With vaccines you aren't choosing "no", you are actively choosing to put lives at risk.

Option one is to take relatively (read: highly) safe vaccines, option two is a global return of deadly infectious diseases.

stefanovich

Ralphyroo wrote: »

How exactly can an cream that's "dangerous" during pregnancy affect a baby who is obviously not pregnant. The majority of medication isn't licensed for use in pregnancy and should be used with caution because obviously they don't conduct clinical trials on pregnant women. The only cream I can think of that is dangerous during pregnancy is vitamin A because it can cause defects, but that's for acne not eye infection

Let me clarify, this was prescribed to a pregnant family member. The box has a red mark saying that it should not be given to pregnant women. Doctor made a mistake or was careless.

stefanovich

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They might not be infallible but they're significantly better than people pushing a putrid agenda who use other people's misfortune as an excuse to push said agenda.

All I am advocating is for people to make themselves aware of any risks involved. Read the leaflet. Read credible studies.

For instance, I declined a particular vaccine when I went abroad as it seemed there was zero risk of me contracting that particular disease.

ancapailldorcha

stefanovich wrote: »

All I am advocating is for people to make themselves aware of any risks involved. Read the leaflet. Read credible studies.

For instance, I declined a particular vaccine when I went abroad as it seemed there was zero risk of me contracting that particular disease.

Credible stories being anecdotes that agree with your agenda of course.

stefanovich

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Credible stories being anecdotes that agree with your agenda of course.

I have no agenda. I vaccinated my child.

Dohnjoe

stefanovich wrote: »

All I am advocating is for people to make themselves aware of any risks involved. Read the leaflet. Read credible studies.

There are people who don't read credible studies. They look up vaccines and stumble upon denier and doubt propaganda packaged as fact. They can't discern what's real and what's not

They see an online debate (like this), about a particular vaccine, with plenty of out of context comments and they decide there is something to doubt about vaccines in general

fryup

are anti-vaxxers also anti-antibiotic ? do they have a hang up about other medication?

iamwhoiam

fryup wrote: »

are anti-vaxxers also anti-antibiotic ? do they have a hang up about other medication?

You may be very sure if an anti vaxxers child got measles and a dreaded measles encephalites they would be screaming for anti biotics and many other support medicines .

Igotadose

stefanovich wrote: »

I have no agenda. I vaccinated my child.

stefanovich wrote: »

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

stefanovich wrote: »

When I was born there were no vaccines.

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..

Your agenda seems obvious. Why should we believe you vaccinated your child? You've been caught out lying in the past.

Your just an anti-vaxxer.

VicMackey1

Unfortunately I see lots of posts coming from REGRET on FB using the recent settlement to further their own false claims. Other than REGRET, the gov should be taking the blame for a lot of this. These cases should never have dragged on for 10 years. They should have been settled and forgotten about by now. Instead, it just highlights how untrustworthy our health services are and how little they care for the people they injure! Looks like these cases will still be making the news for years to come.

ancapailldorcha

stefanovich wrote: »

I have no agenda. I vaccinated my child.

Seems odd given your posting manner.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

You may be very sure if an anti vaxxers child got measles and a dreaded measles encephalites they would be screaming for anti biotics and many other support medicines .

Antibiotics are only useful for treating bacterial infections.

iamwhoiam

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems odd given your posting manner.



Antibiotics are only useful for treating bacterial infections.

I am well aware of that . Kids can get bacterial pneumonia , bacterial otitis media, meningitis and subsequent septicaemia and other bacterial infections post measles infection
I have nursed them and its a dreadful illness

Dohnjoe

Igotadose wrote: »

Your agenda seems obvious. Why should we believe you vaccinated your child? You've been caught out lying in the past.

Your just an anti-vaxxer.

Bingo, another anti-vaxxer disguising themselves as a "I'm just concerned about X".

Ralphyroo

stefanovich wrote: »

Let me clarify, this was prescribed to a pregnant family member. The box has a red mark saying that it should not be given to pregnant women. Doctor made a mistake or was careless.

Ok that's different altogether

Seth Brundle

mountai wrote: »

"Anti Women diatribe"?. Dont think so . The purpose of my post was to illustrate the manner in which Women are treated by the HSE in this country . If you interpret my post as anti women then you must be part of the HSE trying to defend the system . Dr Kelleher stated he wished to "Give them the information , he WANTS TO GIVE THEM , so that they do the things he WANTS THEM TO DO." Does that sound like FULL DISCLOSURE to you . THATS what people are legally entitled to .

What's with the CAPS? Do you believe they give extra credibility to your post?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

stefanovich wrote: »

And yet they settled...

I would never just trust my doctor's word or that of the HSE. The amount of times I or a family member have been prescribed medication without any mention of side effects or risks and, on closer inspection, we have decided it is not worth it or even dangerous.

Doctors are good at examination and diagnosis but they are never going to care as much about you and your family as you yourself.

My advice is to do your own research and make your own decisions. Don't just pop every pill they give you. You are only a statistic after all.

Oh god. What kind of research?

Igotadose

mountai wrote: »

The Women of Ireland are treated like lowly minnions , guess what , they deserve it because not ONE OFFICIAL WOMENS ORGANIZATION have come out TO FIGHT the system in support of the recent scandals that the HSE has presided over .

mountai wrote: »

"Anti Women diatribe"?. Dont think so

Really? "They deserve it" seems, well, not particularly supportive. Does your wife agree? As someone pointed out, what official Men's organization (and frankly, the idea of an official men's or women's organization is hilarious), spoke up?


As for how the HSE treats women, I completelyagree with you - they treat women horribly. The tendrils of the RCC are throughout the HSE. Google Savita Halappanavar for one example, but there are ample examples. Personally think they should fire everyone in the HSE and rehire, starting with reducing the number of administrators from whatever outrageous percentage it is (40%?) to about 5%. And put Doctors in charge of hospitals like in the US. Not administrators. Plus everyone working for them should have education in the field they're practicing in, like minimum Master's degrees in areas like Mental Health, not the bogus paraprofessionals they use who buy their degrees online. If you want to start a 'problems with the HSE and how to fix it thread,' feel free.

But, that's not germane here. You also said:

mountai wrote: »

The next big scandal concerning vaccines is the HPV Vaccine . The present head of vaccines in Ireland , Dr Kevin Kellegher instructed that the PIL be deliberately hidden from
Parents before vaccination .

Why is this the next big scandal? And, the youtube video you mentioned, was a lecture on bioethics during a pandemic. Do you have an exact quote of him saying not to share PIL with parents in that video?