Anti-vaxxers

steddyeddy

I might seem like I'm targetting doctors, but I think both the public and the experts have a role in vaccinations and antibiotic resistance.

Hellywelly

My son caught whooping cough despite being vaccinated. Doctor said this can happen & that he had a mild dose of it. He was frighteningly sick with it. I cannot imagine what it would have been like if he had gotten a not so mild dose and after seeing and hearing how awful it is as a disease I can't comprehend anyone not vaccinating their child against it.
I'm alll for choice but not when ill informed decisions can compromise public health.

Mardy Bum

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Anti vaccination advocates are victims of poor educations. The ultimate result being profound ignorance.

They seem to be linked with pro life groups in Ireland ironically.

mikeecho

I know a few anti vaxers, the same few have views on Monsanto /coca cola etc

A few of them have what I consider poor levels of education, ie home schooled (their parents were hippies)

The others. ... I honestly believe that they have either mental deficiencies or are easily lead by the fantastic.

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Anti vaccination advocates are victims of poor educations. The ultimate result being profound ignorance.

They seem to be linked with pro life groups in Ireland ironically.

I wish that were the case. Andrew Wakefield, privately educated, medically trained but thick as two short planks is behind the anti-vaccination movement. I would put it down to stupidity rather than education.

Canis Lupus

Down with vaccines!

Junkyard Tom

I refuse to have my dogs vaccinated because I don't want them to be autistic.

FACT.

arayess

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah come on, they are in a far better position to process and understand the information about the research and implications than the average Google expert.

It's kinda worrying that you don't appreciate that. Further worrying is that you equate the abilities of both. Expertise acquire by Google with no ability to really understand the information is incredibly fallible.

are they?
They get their degree spend a few years jobbing about and maybe upskill.
After that unless you are driven there is no obligation for refreshing your knowledge.
They consult the latest edition of MIMS to determine the medication and "next patient!"


Oddly you leave out the fact that some of the initial sources of the anti vax arguments found on google is made by well ....other doctors
They may be quacks or not....but they are doctors some of them with degrees and qualification galore...

VinLieger wrote: »

Exvept you kinda need to have some kind of real medical knowledge to challenge medical opinion the makey up anti vaxxer fake science garbage doesnt count.

Its kind of worrying you cant aee that

This isn't true. There is some makey up anti vax stuff by blow hards I'll grant you that. But equally you have many people with no science background defending vaccinations to the hilt raging online about anti vaxxers and in reality they themselves haven't a rashers...

sometimes common sense should prevail - take for example.
The bird flu vaccinate that was issues out.. I had an opinion that it was developed and tested in too short a space of time.
Medical opinion told me it was safe. But how do they know? How does the people in the school telling me it's safe know? They are only getting teh details of other...repeating the mantra. Sometimes this mantra comes directly from the manufacturers themselves...like ffs.
I had doubts.....out of good conscience I refused permission for my son to get it.

sometimes keeping your eyes open can serve you well

btw i'm not anti-vaxx Im a skeptic moreso.
my son has had most vaccinations

I am wary of the whole process and the demand no to over ride consent and parental consent is very worrying indeed.
It makes me question it more.

arayess

arayess wrote: »

are they?
They get their degree spend a few years jobbing about and maybe upskill.
After that unless you are driven there is no obligation for refreshing your knowledge.
They consult the latest edition of MIMS to determine the medication and "next patient!"

Well don't rely on ignorance and stereotyping anyway. Obviously you don't know anyone who has gone to med school and qualified as a GP, if you think it's just "a degree and a bit of jobbing and upskilling".

Again, your inability to grasp why doctors, even if they don't spend years researching vaccinations, but are simply in a better position to assess and process the information, is remarkable.

branie2

I was vaccinated as a child, and I came out fine.

arayess

Deleted User wrote: »

Well don't rely on ignorance and stereotyping anyway. Obviously you don't know anyone who has gone to med school and qualified as a GP, if you think it's just "a degree and a bit of jobbing and upskilling".

Again, your inability to grasp why doctors, even if they don't spend years researching vaccinations, but are simply in a better position to assess and process the information, is remarkable.

oddly i do. I suggest your are talking out your hole.
given the fact I referenced "mims" might be an indicator that I do know a little. you think?

unless they are involved in that area research they are just taking the offical line , they are reading the same sh8te we all are.
If you actually read what I wrote ,,,I mean read it properly you will recall I said

arayess wrote: »

they may understand the topic better than the average punter but please don't claim they know whether a vaccine is safe any better than anybody else.

.

arayess

arayess wrote: »

oddly i do. I suggest your are talking out your hole...

There endeth the "debate". Don't get too wound up at it all. I'm just laughing at your whole "sure medicine is just a bit of jobbing...but I said MIMS so I know this stuff" shtick.

arayess

Deleted User wrote: »

There endeth the "debate". Don't get too wound up at it all. I'm just laughing at your whole "sure medicine is just a bit of jobbing...but I said MIMS so I know this stuff" shtick.

could be worse....
you could write a post about "How I stood up to a man on the internet " and stick it beside the one of how you lost a friend

steddyeddy

You two get a room!

arayess

arayess wrote: »

could be worse....
you could write another post about "How I stood up to a man on the internet and lost a friend"

More and more wound up...it's delightful!

Count to ten...and relax...breath...is this the usual level of anti vaxx debate? Do they all fly off the handle about it because people laugh at the naivety of someone saying "I know as much as a doctor because I Googled some article"?

ancapailldorcha

arayess wrote: »

Oddly you leave out the fact that some of the initial sources of the anti vax arguments found on google is made by well ....other doctors
They may be quacks or not....but they are doctors some of them with degrees and qualification galore...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

arayess wrote: »

This isn't true. There is some makey up anti vax stuff by blow hards I'll grant you that. But equally you have many people with no science background defending vaccinations to the hilt raging online about anti vaxxers and in reality they themselves haven't a rashers...

Clinical trials. You can't just package a vaccine or any other medical intervention and sell it. It has to be tested for safety and efficacy. People defend vaccinations to the hilt because they're almost universally safe and effective. Granted, there are a few isolated incidents but there's no such thing as a 100% safe and effective medical product or procedure.

arayess wrote: »

I am wary of the whole process and the demand no to over ride consent and parental consent is very worrying indeed.
It makes me question it more.

Given that pig ignorant, narcissistic parents who have no better source to derive self-worth from than feeding their own anti-corporation crusader fantasies stand to undo some of the greatest advances in medical history, no I am not one bit worried about overriding their consent. Frankly, if I had my way, every school in the country would be obligated to verify immunisaton records before admitting children.

TGJD

arayess wrote: »

are they?
They get their degree spend a few years jobbing about and maybe upskill.
After that unless you are driven there is no obligation for refreshing your knowledge.
They consult the latest edition of MIMS to determine the medication and "next patient!"

.

There is an obligation to refresh your knowledge. Minimum 50 hours a year continuous medical education in order to keep your license.

Samaris

My job requires me to be vaccinated against certain really nasty illnesses. Believe me, I take the vaccines over the risk of Hep B.

One of the biggest problems in all this is that it covers up actual potential problems with sheer hysteria. It is very difficult to investigate vaccines now because if one vaccine, no matter how little it is used, proves to actually be dangerous, it will be taken up gleefully by a horde of anti-vaxxers who will use it as a weapon to insist that no vaccines are safe.

No vaccines is not safe. God, we are not so far from the days when epidemics would sweep through a population and kill huge portions of it. Smallpox, eliminated in 1979 (more or less) due to vaccination, had already killed 300-500 million people in the 20th century. 80% of children who contracted it died. There is still no cure. That is sort of the risk that people want to take and worse, want to enforce on everyone else, despite the whole debate being very easily tracked back to a set of absolute lies.

Whooping cough, chickenpox, measles, mumps, German measles all did grave damage before being driven back by protecting individuals against contracting them as early as possible. They all sound like harmless little childhood illnesses. They're not.

Whooping cough - Extremely contagious, can last for up to ten weeks ("hundred day cough"), during which whoops can break ribs, cause breathlessness (even stop breathing temporarily in babies), rupture internal organs (seriously.) can cause fainting, vomiting and sometimes death. Vaccination is imperfect for this disease - people who are vaccinated can contract it (albeit it is more rare), but tend to get a milder dose.

Chickenpox - Extremely infectious, and more dangerous for new babies and for adults, in whom it can kill (associated risks in adults - encephalitis, pneumonia, bronchitis and hepatitis). Extremely dangerous in hospitals, so if you were too lazy to get vaccinated against it, be bloody careful about hospitals.

German measles - considered one of the lesser childhood illnesses. But it is very infectious and has a long incubation period. It was a devil in boarding schools as it could rip through the population in weeks. Rarely causes deaths, but if a pregnant woman gets exposed, the results can be devastating to her child.

We've forgotten what having these diseases endemic in our societies was like. We've forgotten that past generations rarely had a childhood in which one of their friends didn't die at some point in school years from an "innocent" childhood illness.

judeboy101

Samaris wrote: »

My job requires me to be vaccinated against certain really nasty illnesses. Believe me, I take the vaccines over the risk of Hep B.

One of the biggest problems in all this is that it covers up actual potential problems with sheer hysteria. It is very difficult to investigate vaccines now because if one vaccine, no matter how little it is used, proves to actually be dangerous, it will be taken up gleefully by a horde of anti-vaxxers who will use it as a weapon to insist that no vaccines are safe.

No vaccines is not safe. God, we are not so far from the days when epidemics would sweep through a population and kill huge portions of it. Smallpox, eliminated in 1979 (more or less) due to vaccination, had already killed 300-500 million people in the 20th century. 80% of children who contracted it died. There is still no cure. That is sort of the risk that people want to take and worse, want to enforce on everyone else, despite the whole debate being very easily tracked back to a set of absolute lies.

Whooping cough, chickenpox, measles, mumps, German measles all did grave damage before being driven back by protecting individuals against contracting them as early as possible. They all sound like harmless little childhood illnesses. They're not.

Whooping cough - Extremely contagious, can last for up to ten weeks ("hundred day cough"), during which whoops can break ribs, cause breathlessness (even stop breathing temporarily in babies), rupture internal organs (seriously.) can cause fainting, vomiting and sometimes death. Vaccination is imperfect for this disease - people who are vaccinated can contract it (albeit it is more rare), but tend to get a milder dose.

Chickenpox - Extremely infectious, and more dangerous for new babies and for adults, in whom it can kill (associated risks in adults - encephalitis, pneumonia, bronchitis and hepatitis). Extremely dangerous in hospitals, so if you were too lazy to get vaccinated against it, be bloody careful about hospitals.

German measles - considered one of the lesser childhood illnesses. But it is very infectious and has a long incubation period. It was a devil in boarding schools as it could rip through the population in weeks. Rarely causes deaths, but if a pregnant woman gets exposed, the results can be devastating to her child.

We've forgotten what having these diseases endemic in our societies was like. We've forgotten that past generations rarely had a childhood in which one of their friends didn't die at some point in school years from an "innocent" childhood illness.

Grew up in 70's/80's no such thing as mmr, 7 in 1 etc, neither myself or my friends died from contracting these diseases which were still endemic in Ireland.when my eldest brought home chicken pox. I made sure the rest of the kids shared their cups/baths etc. Certain diseases need to be eradicated due to globalization but not all.they act to weef out the weak and stupid.

ancapailldorcha

judeboy101 wrote: »

Grew up in 70's/80's no such thing as mmr, 7 in 1 etc, neither myself or my friends died from contracting these diseases which were still endemic in Ireland.when my eldest brought home chicken pox. I made sure the rest of the kids shared their cups/baths etc. Certain diseases need to be eradicated due to globalization but not all.they act to weef out the weak and stupid.

As long as you and your mates are fine, screw everyone else. Is that it? It is nice to actually see the nastiness behind the anti-vax movement at least instead of the faux-concern which is usually on display.

Samaris

LirW wrote: »

Honestly I love the people drinking bleach for detoxing their bodies even more. Work mate of my stepdad is one of them, absolute nutter.

...!

judeboy101 wrote: »

Grew up in 70's/80's no such thing as mmr, 7 in 1 etc, neither myself or my friends died from contracting these diseases which were still endemic in Ireland.when my eldest brought home chicken pox. I made sure the rest of the kids shared their cups/baths etc. Certain diseases need to be eradicated due to globalization but not all.they act to weef out the weak and stupid.

Do they deserve it then? What happens if it's your child that contracts something that you didn't see fit to vaccinate them against? Does your child deserve to die of a tragically preventable illness because it "weeds out the weak and stupid"? Or does that only matter when it's someone else's child?

Don't think that your child has some sort of moral benefit that means they cannot contract dangerous illnesses. That is insane.

Of course many survive childhood illnesses. Others do not. Others never recover fully and are left weakened, paralysed, blind, mentally damaged, scarred, etcetera. In none of those cases is the effect in any way related to the moral standing or intelligence of the child that catches it.

"Weed out the weak and stupid" is perhaps the single most stupid argument for not vaccinating I have seen and that includes the complete discredited autism argument. At least that is based in real fear and not completely illogical superiority and a truly nasty view towards victims of disease.

Also, by the 70s, vaccines were fairly well accepted. Maybe you never got any and got lucky, whoopie for you. Others did not escape so well in the days of no vaccinations and hope. The idea of sharing the illness around was a perfectly acceptable and sensible one at the time and indeed is one of the bases for vaccination - you're getting it out of the way in the least harmful way possible at an age where a child is most likely to escape unscathed so they have a certain immunity to it later. Nowadays we can introduce the disease to the immune system in a way that it cannot take hold and get the same benefits without actually having a houseful of sick and/or fratchety kids.

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

judeboy101

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As long as you and your mates are fine, screw everyone else. Is that it? It is nice to actually see the nastiness behind the anti-vax movement at least instead of the faux-concern which is usually on display.

It's called evolution. Genetically fit individuals will be better equipped to survive disease and pass on genes that ensure resistance. Vaccines have their place when alien pathogens are introduced to a new area. Aids is a good example. It occurs naturally in Africa, left to its own devices the human population in Africa would have developed immuno-cultural defences to it, but it was allowed spread outside and becomes a problem. Same goes for small pox in Europe. Diseases are only a problem when they spread beyond their natural ecosystem.

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

judeboy101

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's called evolution. Genetically fit individuals will be better equipped to survive disease and pass on genes that ensure resistance. Vaccines have their place when alien pathogens are introduced to a new area. Aids is a good example. It occurs naturally in Africa, left to its own devices the human population in Africa would have developed immuno-cultural defences to it, but it was allowed spread outside and becomes a problem. Same goes for small pox in Europe. Diseases are only a problem when they spread beyond their natural ecosystem.

Totally agree.

If all anti-vaxxers were to catch the illnesses/diseases that vaccines prevent and then die, the world will be a much smarter place.

Samaris

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's called evolution. Genetically fit individuals will be better equipped to survive disease and pass on genes that ensure resistance. Vaccines have their place when alien pathogens are introduced to a new area. Aids is a good example. It occurs naturally in Africa, left to its own devices the human population in Africa would have developed immuno-cultural defences to it, but it was allowed spread outside and becomes a problem. Same goes for small pox in Europe. Diseases are only a problem when they spread beyond their natural ecosystem.

Intelligent individuals ensure their survival by not catching the damned things to start with and take sensible precautions.

Also, AIDS was quite a problem within Africa and definitely a problem for those who contracted it. I don't get an argument that amounts to "don't try to prevent it, it decreases the surplus population" rubbish.

Finally, I cannot help but think that if it was you or one of your children that caught measles, you'd be a little less about killing off the "weak and stupid" (diseases do not offer an IQ test beforehand, although the IQ test of whether you've gotten basic prevention against this illness may count) and a bit more about eradicating awful diseases.

gctest50

judeboy101 wrote: »

........................

Aids is a good example. It occurs naturally in Africa, left to its own devices the human population in Africa would have developed immuno-cultural defences to it, .............

.

oh noes the anti-vaxxers are right

About one in ten children infected with HIV have a “monkey-like” immune system that protects them from developing Aids, according to a study in South Africa.

Scientists from Oxford University found 170 children with HIV who had not received any treatment and yet had not developed symptoms associated with Aids.

Despite high levels of the virus in their blood, their immune systems “stayed calm” according to Philip Goulder, a professor of immunology in the department of pediatrics.

.

judeboy101

Samaris wrote: »

Intelligent individuals ensure their survival by not catching the damned things to start with and take sensible precautions.

Also, AIDS was quite a problem within Africa and definitely a problem for those who contracted it. I don't get an argument that amounts to "don't try to prevent it, it decreases the surplus population" rubbish.

Finally, I cannot help but think that if it was you or one of your children that caught measles, you'd be a little less about killing off the "weak and stupid" (diseases do not offer an IQ test beforehand, although the IQ test of whether you've gotten basic prevention against this illness may count) and a bit more about eradicating awful diseases.

Ouch, call the burn unit. Seriously, if that's your best argument. Most 40yr old+ in this country got virtually no level of vaccination as children, most like myself got measles, mumps German measles, chickenpox etc. I can picture you in a previous life offering vaccines to desperate Mothers in a tenement in Dublin using the exact same argument.

Samaris

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ouch, call the burn unit. Seriously, if that's your best argument. Most 40yr old+ in this country got virtually no level of vaccination as children, most like myself got measles, mumps German measles, chickenpox etc. I can picture you in a previous life offering vaccines to desperate Mothers in a tenement in Dublin using the exact same argument.

My best argument? No, my best argument is the simple statistical evidence that since vaccination was taken seriously by the majority of people, serious illnesses have decreased drastically in our populations. Most people, your good self not included, reckon this is a good thing.

The second argument is that all the arguments against it that rely on fecking Andrew Wakefield are relying on proven lies. A great deal of the rest of the arguments appear to rely on Facebook.

And considering how diseases spread in those tenement buildings, yes actually, that would be a sane thing to do.

The best argument made in this thread appears to be that endemic illnesses weed out the weak and stupid. That is a bat**** stupid argument.

It's true about HIV in certain parts of Africa though, and that's a good thing. No, vaccinations are not The Only Method of getting rid of an illness. Diseases are usually in a permanent war of one-upmanship with immune systems. Vaccination is a weapon in the war that is extremely effective and it is a bit foolish to reject it. In terms of approaching the problem of disease, it's akin to going into battle with neither armour nor weapon and saying that war eradicates the weak and stupid. Just because you manage to survive (probably by being surrounded by armed and armoured people) doesn't mean that it's a remotely intelligent way of carrying on. And if everyone follows your lazy unarmoured argument, the battle probably won't go well for your side. Freeriding only works to a certain extent.

Edit: Actually, what the hell even IS your argument? That diseases aren't an issue, only kill the "weak and stupid" and vaccination is therefore pointless?

Sofiztikated

judeboy101 wrote: »

Grew up in 70's/80's no such thing as mmr, 7 in 1 etc, neither myself or my friends died from contracting these diseases which were still endemic in Ireland.when my eldest brought home chicken pox. I made sure the rest of the kids shared their cups/baths etc. Certain diseases need to be eradicated due to globalization but not all.they act to weef out the weak and stupid.

This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on Boards.

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ouch, call the burn unit. Seriously, if that's your best argument. Most 40yr old+ in this country got virtually no level of vaccination as children, most like myself got measles, mumps German measles, chickenpox etc. I can picture you in a previous life offering vaccines to desperate Mothers in a tenement in Dublin using the exact same argument.

Oh wait. You surpassed yourself.

The infant mortality rate has dropped from (probability of an infant surviving from birth to the age of 5, per 1000 live births) 35.3 in 1960 to to 3.6 in 2015. And that can be directly related to vaccines, as well as other factors.

You say you are 40+ and don't think any of your friends died from contracting disease? I'd nearly wager that if you mother is still alive, ask her if she knows of any children dying of them. I'd nearly guarantee she'd be able to rattle off a few deaths.

**** sake, it's ok to be concerned about what is in a vaccine. It's not ok to be deliberately ignorant about what the diseases can do, and how vaccines work.

Atoms for Peace

Edward Jenner must be pissed wherever he is, first that "celebrity" family tarnish his surname and Facebook cretins do the same to his legacy.

jackofalltrades

Samaris wrote: »

We've forgotten what having these diseases endemic in our societies was like.
We've forgotten that past generations rarely had a childhood in which one of their friends didn't die at some point in school years from an "innocent" childhood illness.

This is the nub of the problem really.
Advancements in medical science and increased safety in our societies has insulated us from danger and caused some to become complacent.
Also as others have pointed out herd immunity offers protection to people who haven't vaccinated their children.
So they aren't really forced to face the full consequences of their actions.
Their child could infect and kill a child who couldn't be vaccinated and they'd be none the wiser.

I would be against mandatory vaccinations though.
I would support excluding unvaccinated children from creches and schools.

ancapailldorcha

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's called evolution. Genetically fit individuals will be better equipped to survive disease and pass on genes that ensure resistance. Vaccines have their place when alien pathogens are introduced to a new area. Aids is a good example. It occurs naturally in Africa, left to its own devices the human population in Africa would have developed immuno-cultural defences to it, but it was allowed spread outside and becomes a problem. Same goes for small pox in Europe. Diseases are only a problem when they spread beyond their natural ecosystem.

What a hideous way to view the world. There's not a shred of evidence to back up that nonsense about AIDS so why you'd come out with something so daft is beyond me.

Danbo!

My two year old is not vaccinated because she cannot be, so she relies on herd immunity not just to stay well, but to survive.

Before she came along, I always had a hatred of anti-vaxxers due to their stupidity, ignorance and selfishness. But now, I've a whole new level of absolute disgust for them. I've never knowingly met one face-to-face, but therein lies the problem, they don't go around with Anti-Vax t-shirts, so you never know which sniffly little feckers to avoid at the playground.

I have no idea how the issue could be stopped, but it's great to hear of creches refusing children without them. A step in the right direction.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What a hideous way to view the world. There's not a shred of evidence to back up that nonsense about AIDS so why you'd come out with something so daft is beyond me.

Ignorance in its purest and most arrogant form.

pjohnson

Candie wrote: »

Ignorance in its purest and most arrogant form.

He was right when he said the weakest will be "weefed" out. Anti-Vaxers are helping nature "weef" them out. They are causing their own extinction.

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

He was right when he said the weakest will be "weefed" out. Anti-Vaxers are helping nature "weef" them out. They are causing their own extinction.

They'll face the Gwim Weefeh...

Capt'n Midnight

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ouch, call the burn unit. Seriously, if that's your best argument. Most 40yr old+ in this country got virtually no level of vaccination as children, most like myself got measles, mumps German measles, chickenpox etc. I can picture you in a previous life offering vaccines to desperate Mothers in a tenement in Dublin using the exact same argument.

I've already posted that I know two people who have lost most of their hearing and another who is blind because of preventable diseases.

And most 40yr old + in this country got the 3 in 1 injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis (whooping cough) in primary along with the Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) in the sugar cube. https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/whoweare/vacchistory.html


Interesting you said 40 years because https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/hcpinfo/guidelines/chapter12.pdf

The incidence in Ireland declined dramatically
after the introduction of monocomponent measles vaccine in 1985, from
10,000 cases in that year to 201 cases in 1987

Samaris

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I've already posted that I know two people who have lost most of their hearing and another who is blind because of preventable diseases.

And most 40yr old + in this country got the 3 in 1 injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis (whooping cough) in primary along with the Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) in the sugar cube. https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/whoweare/vacchistory.html


Interesting you said 40 years because https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/hcpinfo/guidelines/chapter12.pdf

I thought that despite the other poster there were vaccinations in common usage in the 1970s, just didn't have the time or energy to root it out. Besides, his parents may have avoided vaccination for Reasons as well. Doesn't excuse his suggestion that people weren't being innoculated, mind you. I should have remembered the whole sugar cube thing though. And god knows, children in boarding schools were regularly getting shots in the UK at least from the 1930/40s onwards. You'll certainly find references to them in books of the era.

So the argument comes back down to "I survived by freeriding and my children will too, because we're not weak*", I guess.

Actually, given there are people in this thread with children or relatives that cannot be immunised, the whole "weak" argument becomes even more disgusting. While most of us aren't like that, that sort of argument does become very dangerous and extraordinarily selfish to those people.


*Whatever that even means in context.

osarusan

Some of the posts on this thread demonstrate that the idea that diseases weed out and eliminate the weak and stupid is a flawed concept.

Turtwig

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's called evolution. Genetically fit individuals will be better equipped to survive disease and pass on genes that ensure resistance. Vaccines have their place when alien pathogens are introduced to a new area. Aids is a good example. It occurs naturally in Africa, left to its own devices the human population in Africa would have developed immuno-cultural defences to it, but it was allowed spread outside and becomes a problem. Same goes for small pox in Europe. Diseases are only a problem when they spread beyond their natural ecosystem.

Such a gross misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Ever wonder why morbid diseases like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia survive for generations? Evolution isn't black or white beneficial for people, it only cares about reproducing. Many times there is a trade off for a reproductive benefit. In the case of sickle cell anemia that disease gives its hereditary carriers a distinct advantage against infection from Malaria. The wonderful immuno cultural natural defences you envisage are often nasty pieces of sh1t in their own right.

This misconception people have that evolution is some benign process that is to the net benefit of making people's lives better shows a gross misunderstanding of what survival of the fittest actually means.

Annasopra

osarusan wrote: »

Some of the posts on this thread demonstrate that the idea that diseases weed out and eliminate the weak and stupid is a flawed concept.

Its not just a flawed concept, it's a sickening one. It is pretty much a step on the way to Eugenics ideology.

pitifulgod

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not just a flawed concept, it's a sickening one. It is pretty much a step on the way to Eugenics ideology.

And it's ironically exposing people with extraordinarily stupid, dangerous and uninformed, the amount of times I spot ridiculous arguments around the topic of evolution...

Ashbourne hoop

Good article here http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/doctors-should-fight-irrational-movement-against-vaccination-1.3116926 in relation to withholding CA payments for anti-vaxxers. The part on the 50% uptake rate on the HPV vaccine makes for particularly grim reading.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Totally agree.

If all anti-vaxxers were to catch the illnesses/diseases that vaccines prevent and then die, the world will be a much smarter place.

Unfortunately they were all probably vaccinated by their parents. It's their poor, unprotected children who will pay the price.

Night Falls

I'd say a venn diagram of anti-vaxxers and the anti-fluoridation because WASTE PRODUCT crowd would be a single circle of stupidity.

Village Crazy Lady

My mum lost 2 uncles and 2 siblings to TB, now we are all vaccinated. Happy days. All my children are bang up to date with their vaccines. And i will continue to make sure they have all the protection needed but also to prevent them passing on any to children who cant have them.

But regarding the uptake figures for the HPV vaccine, im shocked. At the age of 27, i had an abnormal smear, after follow up and more tests i had SIN 2 pre cancerous cells. Lucky me they spotted it early. I have daughters who will be having the HPV cause i don't want them to go through what i did.

If there is a way to prevent your children from contracting something that could possibly affect their quality of life or even kill them why would you refuse??

Ashbourne hoop

Village Crazy Lady wrote: »

My mum lost 2 uncles and 2 siblings to TB, now we are all vaccinated. Happy days. All my children are bang up to date with their vaccines. And i will continue to make sure they have all the protection needed but also to prevent them passing on any to children who cant have them.

But regarding the uptake figures for the HPV vaccine, im shocked. At the age of 27, i had an abnormal smear, after follow up and more tests i had SIN 2 pre cancerous cells. Lucky me they spotted it early. I have daughters who will be having the HPV cause i don't want them to go through what i did.

If there is a way to prevent your children from contracting something that could possibly affect their quality of life or even kill them why would you refuse??

Exactly. I really don't understand a low uptake on this. Beggars belief to be honest. The likes of Facebook allow misinformation to be spread so easily, with people not willing to read anything longer than a tweet to get information.

knipex

xzanti wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from the Centre for Disease Control website. I just randomly picked the HPV vaccine, but the advice is similar for most of the vaccines.

I'm not an "anti-vaxxer". My son is vaccinated fully. But I would ponder why there is no allergy test for kids before the vaccines are given. They appear to acknowledge that some are susceptible to allergic reaction. But how are we to know if we're going to have a "life threatening reaction" to a vaccine, if you've never had it before?

I would akin it to handing out peanuts to a class full of kids, who've never had peanuts, without some sort of patch test first.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjemMP2kPLVAhWJJ8AKHd0vAFMQFgg3MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fvaccines%2Fvpd%2Fshould-not-vacc.html&usg=AFQjCNEVCEMw1EcrBwUUORNWItttJv7VuA

The exact same paragraph could be used substituting vaccine for, fish, nuts, dairy, eggs, bee stings or multiple other items. I know one person who had a very very bad reaction, life threatening, to latex, another to a product they used to clean their car. I have twice (in 27 years) had to be rushed to hospital due to severe reaction and to this day have no idea what it was to..