Anti-vaxxers

Ipso · 08-09-2017 6:04pm

Chiparus wrote: »

In the US vaccination is compulsory but there is a compensation scheme for those that suffer adverse effects.

Perhaps we should have this here?

Vaccine laws vary by state in the US.
This blog covers vaccine issues and other woo nonsense.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

Chiparus · 08-09-2017 6:05pm

The problem is that people do have adverse reactions from vaccines, that is a given, but the benefits from vaccination far far outweigh the consequences from vaccination.

The only question i would have is vaccination that does not have proven benefit, such as compulsory flu vaccination for healthcare workers.

Jawgap · 08-09-2017 6:06pm

Chiparus wrote: »

It was recommended previously .

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=16456

and recently it has been looked at again.

http://www.thejournal.ie/vaccination-compo-scheme-3535968-Aug2017/

As I said I'm all for it. I don't need convincing.

My wife always tells me that the great thing about practising law in Ireland is that everyone is so 'process-focused' and are all about their entitlements. Which is great if you are someone people employ to vindicate those rights, but it means we rarely get the socially optimal outcomes that other jurisdictions get when they establish comparable or equivalent schemes.

One eyed Jack · 08-09-2017 9:07pm

knipex wrote: »

That is the part that maddens me most.

They don't trust the people who do understand the science, why ??

...

However no child should die from scarlet fever, its easily treatable and even if a doctor does not recognize the disease, (which i doubt as it was never that unusual or rare an infection) the worsened symptoms and the symptoms themselves would or should trigger the prescription of an antibiotic long before it became life threatening..

You've asked and answered your own question really. The issue is one of credibility. You doubt the credibility of a complete stranger, yet you don't understand why anyone would doubt the credibility of a complete stranger?

I don't suppose you're any way handy with irony meters? Mine just exploded.

I'm reminded of my parents who were skeptical of the fact that I limped all throughout my childhood, they thought I was putting it on. When I was old enough I went to my GP and they couldn't find anything wrong so sent me to an orthopaedic specialist who diagnosed congenital hip dysplasia within minutes. Now from your posts in just this thread alone I gather you're probably familiar enough with medicine to understand what that is.

So I had a ganz osteotomy procedure to attempt to rectify the issue. Depending upon your definition of successful, it really wasn't, and at the time the orthopaedic consultant could have had no idea that 20 years later I would balloon up to 17st. Last month the same consultant tried to remove the steel pins so they wouldn't complicate a total hip replacement procedure. Their team were unsuccessful. Next month I'm due to go in for a total hip replacement, and all because of the fact that what should have been picked up in a routine examination at birth, wasn't.

The point of that anecdote? Well, in spite of the tremendous work often done by medical professionals, they aren't infallible. I don't blame them or bear any ill will towards them, I know they're doing their best.

There are no "questions to be answered" as far as I'm concerned, because I know full well that medicine isn't an exact science, and that's exactly why their definition of 'safe' when it comes to issues like vaccination and the potential outcomes of either vaccinating or not vaccinating, and the safety, well-being and welfare of my child, and my definition of safe, are obviously going to be based on two very, very different standards. Their idea of 'safe' might be 'good enough' for them, but with regard to certain vaccines, I want nothing less than 100% guaranteed outcomes, and neither science nor medicine can provide those guarantees. They can only make assumptions on the basis of probabilities.

That's not good enough for me personally.

kylith wrote: »

That article is about HSV - genital herpes, which causes cold-sore like lesions, not HPV which is linked to cancers of the cervix, penis, and anus.

Anyway, we try not to pass cold sores on to people, and the virus can be dangerous for infants (child dies after contracting herpes through traditional Jewish circumcision), so exposing an infant to genital herpes during childbirth is not wanted, and limiting the spread of genital herpes is a good idea.

Yes kylith I know the article I linked to wasn't about HPV, that it was about GW, but the point I was making was with regard to the propagandic nature of it - an article in Teen Vogue claiming that 'big pharma' is responsible for the stigma surrounding GW and of course sure there's life after GW, in an attempt to say "Hell, it's ok, GW are no big deal", reminiscent of that "Herpes Positive" bollocks that was trending on twitter last year.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you the target audience of Teen Vogue magazine. It's difficult enough to get teenagers to go for an STI test as it is, without them thinking contracting GW is no big deal. It's still a nasty bastard of a disease, and that's why I said it annoys me even more than the antivaxxer waffle.

Jawgap · 08-09-2017 9:26pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

........

The point of that anecdote? Well, in spite of the tremendous work often done by medical professionals, they aren't infallible. I don't blame them or bear any ill will towards them, I know they're doing their best.

Doubtless individual medics are fallible, they are human after all. But the collected wisdom of the various professions and disciplines that comprise medicine is a different matter altogether.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are no "questions to be answered" as far as I'm concerned, because I know full well that medicine isn't an exact science, and that's exactly why their definition of 'safe' when it comes to issues like vaccination and the potential outcomes of either vaccinating or not vaccinating, and the safety, well-being and welfare of my child, and my definition of safe, are obviously going to be based on two very, very different standards. Their idea of 'safe' might be 'good enough' for them, but with regard to certain vaccines, I want nothing less than 100% guaranteed outcomes, and neither science nor medicine can provide those guarantees. They can only make assumptions on the basis of probabilities.

That's not good enough for me personally.

........

You will never have 100% safe in anything. Risk assessment is generally a two-stage process. Focusing only on the second part - outcome probability - is, quite frankly, dumb. Because you skip hazard characterisation - in summary that means assessing 'safety' not just in probabilistic terms but also in the context of the harm which the intervention is seeking to target and the degree to which the intervention might reduce the harm.

Advocating non-vaccination because a vaccine is not proven to be 100% safe when the potential alternative is a disease quite capable of inflicting fatal or life changing outcomes is beyond stupid, it's profoundly immoral.

I really hope no one suffers those consequences, but if they do I hope either they or their proxies find a clever enough legal team to utterly obliterate the people who push the anti-vaccination nonsense with an eye-watering claim for civil damages.

One eyed Jack · 08-09-2017 10:08pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Doubtless individual medics are fallible, they are human after all. But the collected wisdom of the various professions and disciplines that comprise medicine is a different matter altogether.

I don't know do you get it yet. Of course the collected wisdom of the various professions and disciplines that compromise medicine is an entirely different matter, but people don't generally come in contact with all the various professionals and disciplinarians themselves, of the medical profession. If they're lucky, they'll only ever come across a handful and it will be a positive experience. If you have issues with blood transfusions, you should prepare for the normally rational medical professionals to... 'assume their true form', as it were :pac:

The point being, as I said, is a credibility issue, it's a trust issue, and it's an inability to relate an objective perspective to a subjective perspective - nobody wants to risk a negative experience from a subjective perspective that can be hand-waved away as a statistical outlier.

You will never have 100% safe in anything. Risk assessment is generally a two-stage process. Focusing only on the second part - outcome probability - is, quite frankly, dumb. Because you skip hazard characterisation - in summary that means assessing 'safety' not just in probabilistic terms but also in the context of the harm which the intervention is seeking to target and the degree to which the intervention might reduce the harm.

I fully understand the concept of risk assessment, probabilities and herd immunity (more than a few here who don't see the point of the flu vaccine), and it's a risk I'm either prepared to take, or a risk I'm not prepared to take, with regard to certain vaccines and procedures. That's exactly why from my perspective, I don't want to take the risk with certain vaccines and procedures because I'm not entirely convinced they would be in my child's best interests. There is nothing that could convince me otherwise, and that conclusion has nothing to do with any of the theories put forward in this thread (not even the more 'out there' ones).

Advocating non-vaccination because a vaccine is not proven to be 100% safe when the potential alternative is a disease quite capable of inflicting fatal or life changing outcomes is beyond stupid, it's profoundly immoral.

I really hope no one suffers those consequences, but if they do I hope either they or their proxies find a clever enough legal team to utterly obliterate the people who push the anti-vaccination nonsense with an eye-watering claim for civil damages.

That's about as likely to happen as someone dying from an adverse reaction to a vaccine. They're probably safe enough then.

Jawgap · 09-09-2017 6:22am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know do you get it yet. Of course the collected wisdom of the various professions and disciplines that compromise medicine is an entirely different matter, but people don't generally come in contact with all the various professionals and disciplinarians themselves, of the medical profession. If they're lucky, they'll only ever come across a handful and it will be a positive experience. If you have issues with blood transfusions, you should prepare for the normally rational medical professionals to... 'assume their true form', as it were :pac:

The point being, as I said, is a credibility issue, it's a trust issue, and it's an inability to relate an objective perspective to a subjective perspective - nobody wants to risk a negative experience from a subjective perspective that can be hand-waved away as a statistical outlier.

well that's a matter of choice......it's quite possible for anti-vaxxers to engage with the collected wisdom of medicine......in fact it's quite possible for anyone to do so........they just need to become as adept at using Google Scholar as they are at using social media

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I fully understand the concept of risk assessment, probabilities and herd immunity (more than a few here who don't see the point of the flu vaccine), and it's a risk I'm either prepared to take, or a risk I'm not prepared to take, with regard to certain vaccines and procedures. That's exactly why from my perspective, I don't want to take the risk with certain vaccines and procedures because I'm not entirely convinced they would be in my child's best interests. There is nothing that could convince me otherwise, and that conclusion has nothing to do with any of the theories put forward in this thread (not even the more 'out there' ones).

Again, you're skipping over hazard characterisation - that isn't just an important step in probabilistic risk assessment, it's the first step.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's about as likely to happen as someone dying from an adverse reaction to a vaccine. They're probably safe enough then.

Really? You don't think people holding themselves out to be experts (even if they are not specifically declaring themselves as such), offering advice to people knowing said people will likely apply that advice.....and then harm arising as a result of them acting on that advice doesn't, potentially, fall within the definition of negligent misstatement? Ok.

Yes, their 'broadcasts to the world' won't get them in any legal trouble, despite the immoral nature of them, but I'm reckoning that some of these quacks are offering one-on-one advice and all it will take is one kid to fall ill, the scales of idiocy to fall away from their parents' eyes and a judge open to the idea of holding the quack accountable (maybe one with a slightly more liberal approach to the sociological aspects of the law)......and that'll be it for the quack.

Jawgap · 10-09-2017 6:10pm

David Icke seems to support non-vacccination.......

https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/906109896462086144

Turtwig · 10-09-2017 7:26pm

I think all this vaccine controversy would go away if doctors just conspired to not diagnose autism at all and not work at improving and refining those methods for diagnosis.

mzungu · 10-09-2017 8:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

David Icke seems to support non-vacccination.......

https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/906109896462086144

Ha! "scientifically linked"? Those are the same studies by the charlatan Anthony Mawson that were funded by anti-vaccination groups and later found to be bogus. They have since been retracted. Total legit!

Icke has the neck of a giraffe.

Orion · 10-09-2017 8:27pm

Jawgap wrote: »

David Icke seems to support non-vacccination.......

https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/906109896462086144

This David Icke? He makes Jim Corr look sane

mzungu · 10-09-2017 8:39pm

Orion wrote: »

This David Icke? He makes Jim Corr look sane

Not quite....

https://twitter.com/therealjimcorr/status/273756189655965696

Edit: That twitter account is a fake.

CatFromHue · 10-09-2017 9:11pm

That can't be a real account for Jim

mzungu · 10-09-2017 9:20pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

That can't be a real account for Jim

Fair point. Just had a look at all the other tweets and it is a wind up account. Serves me right for not checking. That's my bad!

However, Jim Corr is anti-vaccination...

Irish musician Jim Corr has given his backing to a controversial film linking MMR vaccines to autism saying — “Every parent needs to see it”.

Corr (52), who is a well-known conspiracy theorist, has recommended that parents watch the US film ‘Vaxxed, From Cover Up to Catastrophe’ which is set to be screened in Ireland on May 5.

https://www.buzz.ie/weird/corrs-star-backs-anti-vaccine-film-236305

kylith · 10-09-2017 11:12pm

Jawgap wrote: »

David Icke seems to support non-vacccination.......

https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/906109896462086144

There were no autistic people when I went to school in the 80s. However 2 girls were 'slow' and one was 'retarded'. Some lads in youth group I was in were 'weird'. Methinks that it's less that autism rates have soared than that we are now better at diagnosing autism. Similarly to the way that deaths from 'fever' have plummeted but deaths from diseases that cause fevers have gone up.

(Yes, I'm aware I'm preaching the the choir here)

Orion · 11-09-2017 8:55am

kylith wrote: »

we are now better at diagnosing autism.

This. There is no correlation between the two. Better diagnosis of one does not imply the other caused it.

Jawgap · 11-09-2017 8:58am

Orion wrote: »

This. There is no correlation between the two. Better diagnosis of one does not imply the other caused it.

.....and much greater awareness, so more people come forward or are brought for examination or assessment before diagnosis. Also, as with a lot of conditions, the diagnosis has broadened over the years.

darkdubh · 11-09-2017 11:08am

Jawgap wrote: »

David Icke seems to support non-vacccination.......

https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/906109896462086144

Well what a surprise. David Icke also supports the view that the world is run by shape changinging lizard people. Next!

11-09-2017 11:37am

kylith wrote: »

There were no autistic people when I went to school in the 80s. However 2 girls were 'slow' and one was 'retarded'. Some lads in youth group I was in were 'weird'. Methinks that it's less that autism rates have soared than that we are now better at diagnosing autism.

Yep. Neighbour says her child is autistic. To be honest, in the '70s and '80s the diagnosis would have been "lovely kid, a bit quiet".

Ashbourne hoop · 11-09-2017 12:32pm

From today's Independent

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/teens-have-shown-symptoms-similar-to-hpv-vaccine-for-years-professor-36119187.html

Army_of_One · 11-09-2017 12:55pm

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

From today's Independent

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/teens-have-shown-symptoms-similar-to-hpv-vaccine-for-years-professor-36119187.html

And the usual vaxtard comments as well.Shame there isn't a cure for stupid.

Herb Powell · 11-09-2017 1:28pm

I know a few people who've recently had children and seem to be very very hesitant to vaccinate.

Extremely sad and worrying how easily utter bull**** seems to win over facts.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 11-09-2017 1:32pm

Herb Powell wrote: »

I know a few people who've recently had children and seem to be very very hesitant to vaccinate.

Extremely sad and worrying how easily utter bull**** seems to win over facts.

Yeah, it's taking hold a little now. We have a 3 week old and both the wife and I are in full agreement that she will be getting all current vaccinations.

VinLieger · 11-09-2017 1:35pm

Karla Future Whirlwind wrote: »

Yeah, it's taking hold a little now. We have a 3 week old and both the wife and I are in full agreement that she will be getting all current vaccinations.

Its time they introduced it as being mandatory for school attendance cus im not worried about the effects it will have on my kid im worried about the irresponsible scum who wont vaccincate their kids and risk the health of everyone elses children

Army_of_One · 11-09-2017 1:45pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Its time they introduced it as being mandatory for school attendance cus im not worried about the effects it will have on my kid im worried about the irresponsible scum who wont vaccincate their kids and risk the health of everyone elses children

This ^^

No access to school unless fully vaccinated(except for kids with a medical excuse). It really has to be nipped in the bud.

Jawgap · 11-09-2017 1:46pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Its time they introduced it as being mandatory for school attendance cus im not worried about the effects it will have on my kid im worried about the irresponsible scum who wont vaccincate their kids and risk the health of everyone elses children

We may diverge in our opinions here.

I think getting your kid vaccinated is one of the few things in life that is an absolute no-brained, but I also think the state's power to compel parents in a particular direction when it comes to bringing up their kids should be limited I wouldn't agree with it being made compulsory.

However, I do think people should be held accountable for their decisions an drew if parents decide to not vaccinate then I don't see any issue with them being made liable for any outbreak where their child is identified as "case 0."

Jawgap · 11-09-2017 1:49pm

A run through on where our various politicians stand on the issue.....

https://medium.com/@harrymcevansoneya/theres-no-vaccine-for-stupidity-9871254fd522

This quote probably sums up the attitude of the TDs in question

A depressing number of TDs, both from the left and the right, made the call that political advantage was worth undermining the health services provided to women, and any danger to their seat was more pressing than the danger of people dying of cancer.

Orion · 11-09-2017 2:04pm

Army_of_One wrote: »

And the usual vaxtard comments as well.Shame there isn't a cure for stupid.

Well ..... stupidity can be hereditary. Antivaxxers don't protect from preventable diseases. Darwin intervenes. :pac:

Orion · 11-09-2017 2:07pm

Jawgap wrote: »

We may diverge in our opinions here.

I think getting your kid vaccinated is one of the few things in life that is an absolute no-brained, but I also think the state's power to compel parents in a particular direction when it comes to bringing up their kids should be limited I wouldn't agree with it being made compulsory.

However, I do think people should be held accountable for their decisions an drew if parents decide to not vaccinate then I don't see any issue with them being made liable for any outbreak where their child is identified as "case 0."

I don't think that's enough. There are immuno suppressed people who's lives are endangered by these idiots. So I would have no problem with creches and schools being out of bounds for unvaccinated people unless they have a firm medical reason - such as immuno-suppression. That's not making it mandatory by the way - it's enforcing consequences for their actions.

mzungu · 11-09-2017 2:10pm

Jawgap wrote: »

A run through on where our various politicians stand on the issue.....

https://medium.com/@harrymcevansoneya/theres-no-vaccine-for-stupidity-9871254fd522

This quote probably sums up the attitude of the TDs in question

Yep, that is quite shameful. Getting re-elected is seemingly more important than peoples health.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments