Anti-vaxxers

ancapailldorcha

Anti-Wakefield propaganda? That's simply pathetic.

Look, I don't know what's compelling you to defend this nonsense but given that you've either lied or gotten multiple things wrong along with the fact that you've not provided a single shred of proof it would seem that engaging with you is simply pointless.

TheChizler

In fairness to Wakefield the media did far more damage by spreading hyperbolic messages about his flawed study than he ever did. If it wasn't for tabloids grabbing on to the hoax we wouldn't be here talking about it 20 years on.

https://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

rawn

Dr Brown wrote: »

There has never been a large scale study to compare vaccinated against non vaccinated people.

That would be the gold standard in science to prove just how "safe" Vaccines really are.

Until that study happens the overall safety of Vaccines will always be in question.

We can already see how effective and safe vaccines are without doing yet another study. Besides let's face it - antivaxxers will never be satisfied with any study that proves their safety.

Dr Brown

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Anti-Wakefield propaganda? That's simply pathetic.

Look, I don't know what's compelling you to defend this nonsense but given that you've either lied or gotten multiple things wrong along with the fact that you've not provided a single shred of proof it would seem that engaging with you is simply pointless.

Yes Anti-Wakefield propaganda. Count how many times you hear the word "discredited" when ever Wakefields name is mentioned.

I personally know people whose children have been injured by Vaccines.

In one case the child ended up in hospital the same day he got the Vaccine and was never the same from that day on.

But of course you must think its some sort of "conspiracy theory".

If you want proof that the MMR Vaccine causes real harm just google William Thompson the guy worked in the CDC.

Dr Brown

rawn wrote: »

We can already see how effective and safe vaccines are without doing yet another study. Besides let's face it - antivaxxers will never be satisfied with any study that proves their safety.

lol "effective and safe" is a marketing term that gets used over and over again to promote Vaccines.


Without a large scale study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated we can never know how "safe" Vaccines really are.


The same type of studies are done for just about every other drug I don't see why they cant to do the same for Vaccines.

endacl

Jaysus, you post some awful bollocks.

mikhail

Dr Brown wrote: »

lol "effective and safe" is a marketing term that gets used over and over again to promote Vaccines.


Without a large scale study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated we can never know how "safe" Vaccines really are.


The same type of studies are done for just about every other drug I don't see why they cant to do the same for Vaccines.

You mean like the one reported here, involving about half a million Danish children that found no link between MMR and autism, and no link between vaccination age and autism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124634/

Is almost every child born in Denmark between 1992 and 1997 not large scale enough for you, or are you just peddling a lie?

Dr Brown

mikhail wrote: »

You mean like the one reported here, involving about half a million Danish children that found no link between MMR and autism, and no link between vaccination age and autism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124634/

Is almost every child born in Denmark between 1992 and 1997 not large scale enough for you, or are you just peddling a lie?

Is that the same study written by a Doctor who was charged with fraud ?


http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/04/danish-study-cdc-doctor-who-debunked-autism-vaccines-link-indicted-on-fraud.html

Paddy OFurniture

I find anything popular on social media is usually a bad idea. Anti-vaxxers are a prime example.

Paddy OFurniture

Paddy OFurniture wrote: »

I find anything popular on social media is usually a bad idea. Anti-vaxxers are a prime example.

The earth is indeed a pancake. He who shouts loudest will receive rapturous acclaim from the easily led.

mickrock

rawn wrote: »

Vaccines are tested, trailed, studied, re calibrated and scrutinized by a number of different bodies all across the globe.

The pharmaceutical companies are sneaky in how they test the safety of vaccines. And the regulators let them get away with it.

Most vaccines contain Aluminium adjuvants which are neurotoxins. In clinical trials instead of testing vaccines against an inert placebo, the "placebo" they use contain aluminium.

The following is from the paper:
Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

"the continued use of aluminum-containing placebos in vaccine clinical trials may have lead to an underestimation of the true rate of adverse outcomes associated with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines."

Here's the abstract:

"Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community."

http://www.academia.edu/6688207/Aluminum_Vaccine_Adjuvants_Are_they_Safe

VicMackey1

Dr Brown wrote: »

I'm for safe Vaccines.

For some people Vaccines are like a religion that can never be questioned.

Only a few years ago people who questioned the Swine Flu Vaccine were labeled conspiracy nut jobs who were anti science simply for questioning the Vaccine.

Now fast forward to 2018 and the people who questioned the Swine Flu Vaccine were proved to be 100% right all along.

Give it a few years and Regret and others will be vindicated.

How safe do you want vaccines to be? 100%? Which vaccines do you consider to be safe?

2018? It only took a couple of years for doctors and scientists to accept that there was a link between narcolepsy and the swine flu vaccine. Of course, they were not going to dismiss a vaccine because a small number of people had an issue with it. Once studies were completed and showed a casual relationship, it was widely accepted that there was a link. Why has this not happened with Gardasil? Because the studies showed that it is a safe vaccine!

To quote a parent from the REGRET site " I have three daughters and I am convinced all three have had some type of reaction to this injection." REGRET is made up entirely of this nonsense where their feelings or any parents "medical degree" trumps science.

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

Is that the same study written by a Doctor who was charged with fraud ?


http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/04/danish-study-cdc-doctor-who-debunked-autism-vaccines-link-indicted-on-fraud.html

No but don't let that stop you from peddling this weird anti-vaxxer religion without providing any evidence.

VinLieger

Dr Brown wrote: »

Is that the same study written by a Doctor who was charged with fraud ?


http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/04/danish-study-cdc-doctor-who-debunked-autism-vaccines-link-indicted-on-fraud.html

Nope

Lead author Dr Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen

But keep trying its enjoyable to watch someone flail around so pathetically

jh79

VicMackey1 wrote: »

How safe do you want vaccines to be? 100%? Which vaccines do you consider to be safe?

2018? It only took a couple of years for doctors and scientists to accept that there was a link between narcolepsy and the swine flu vaccine. Of course, they were not going to dismiss a vaccine because a small number of people had an issue with it. Once studies were completed and showed a casual relationship, it was widely accepted that there was a link. Why has this not happened with Gardasil? Because the studies showed that it is a safe vaccine!

To quote a parent from the REGRET site " I have three daughters and I am convinced all three have had some type of reaction to this injection." REGRET is made up entirely of this nonsense where their feelings or any parents "medical degree" trumps science.

Here is a review of that paper;

So let’s get to the meat of the article, such as it is. Personally, after reading it a thought kept going through my head, namely that chemistry journals (particularly journals devoted to inorganic chemistry) probably shouldn’t be publishing medical articles. The editors and peer reviewers, so enamored with an apparently strong correlation, fell for the oldest crank gambit in the book: Confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps the most irritating part of the article is how Tomljenovic and Shaw misuse and abuse Hill’s criteria, a famous set of nine criteria postulated by Sir Austin Bradford-Hill for assessing the plausibility and likelihood of a particular correlation indicating causation.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

VicMackey1

jh79 wrote: »

Here is a review of that paper;

So let’s get to the meat of the article, such as it is. Personally, after reading it a thought kept going through my head, namely that chemistry journals (particularly journals devoted to inorganic chemistry) probably shouldn’t be publishing medical articles. The editors and peer reviewers, so enamored with an apparently strong correlation, fell for the oldest crank gambit in the book: Confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps the most irritating part of the article is how Tomljenovic and Shaw misuse and abuse Hill’s criteria, a famous set of nine criteria postulated by Sir Austin Bradford-Hill for assessing the plausibility and likelihood of a particular correlation indicating causation.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

What paper are you referring to? The link won't open for me.

jh79

VicMackey1 wrote: »

What paper are you referring to? The link won't open for me.

Sorry quoted wrong poster, meant to quote the post linking aluminium to adverse events

Igotadose

mickrock wrote: »

Here's the abstract:
http://www.academia.edu/6688207/Aluminum_Vaccine_Adjuvants_Are_they_Safe

Here's the refutation: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2013/07/10/comment-on-do-aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants-contribute-to-the-rising-prevalence-of-autism/

(like I say regularly on this thread - try making it difficult when you post 'science.' Look to see if you can find the refutation, because if it's anti-vax, it's refuted)

Some nuggets from the refutation: "Their study was funded by private foundations. Namely, “This work was supported by the Katlyn Fox and the Dwoskin Family Foundations.” Claire Dwoskin is a former board member of the self-named “National Vaccine Information Center”, which is heavily biased against vaccines. Ms. Dwoskin herself is heavily biased against vaccines, having stated that “Vaccines are a holocaust of poison on our children’s brains and immune systems.

...
Frankly, had I funded this work, it would have been the last time Tomljenovic and Shaw would have seen a dime from me again. Not because of the answer, but because this effort so clearly cherrypicked results and produced such a clearly biased answer. Tomljenovic and Shaw, however, have continued to receive support from at least the Dwoskin Family Foundation."

--

A bit more. The paper's been retracted. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/09/journal-retract-paper-called-anti-vaccine-pseudoscience/

The author's are notorious in the scientific community as anti-vax cranks (This isn't the first rubbished paper they've published.) Apparently they're blathering about vaccination based on all their training as opthamologists.

VicMackey1

jh79 wrote: »

Sorry quoted wrong poster, meant to quote the post linking aluminium to adverse events

Link is working! Must be my crap internet

jh79

mickrock wrote: »

The pharmaceutical companies are sneaky in how they test the safety of vaccines. And the regulators let them get away with it.

Most vaccines contain Aluminium adjuvants which are neurotoxins. In clinical trials instead of testing vaccines against an inert placebo, the "placebo" they use contain aluminium.

The following is from the paper:
Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

"the continued use of aluminum-containing placebos in vaccine clinical trials may have lead to an underestimation of the true rate of adverse outcomes associated with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines."

Here's the abstract:

"Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community."

http://www.academia.edu/6688207/Aluminum_Vaccine_Adjuvants_Are_they_Safe

Here is a review of that paper;

So let’s get to the meat of the article, such as it is. Personally, after reading it a thought kept going through my head, namely that chemistry journals (particularly journals devoted to inorganic chemistry) probably shouldn’t be publishing medical articles. The editors and peer reviewers, so enamored with an apparently strong correlation, fell for the oldest crank gambit in the book: Confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps the most irritating part of the article is how Tomljenovic and Shaw misuse and abuse Hill’s criteria, a famous set of nine criteria postulated by Sir Austin Bradford-Hill for assessing the plausibility and likelihood of a particular correlation indicating causation.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2011...d-by-the-decr/

For Forks Sake

So, in positive news, just over a decade after rolling out a national HPV programme, Australia is well en route to eliminate cervical cancer:

Read that again. Eliminate. Cervical. Cancer.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/cervical-cancer-set-to-be-eliminated-from-australia-in-global-first-20181002-p507dn.html

Dohnjoe

Dr Brown wrote: »

There has never been a large scale study to compare vaccinated against non vaccinated people.

That would be the gold standard in science to prove just how "safe" Vaccines really are.

Until that study happens the overall safety of Vaccines will always be in question.

Wow.

I want largescale study where anti-vaxxers travel to remote parts of Africa and Asia without their jabs. A win-win situation.

Igotadose

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Dr Brown wrote: »

There has never been a large scale study to compare vaccinated against non vaccinated people.

That would be the gold standard in science to prove just how "safe" Vaccines really are.

Until that study happens the overall safety of Vaccines will always be in question.

Wow.

I want largescale study where anti-vaxxers travel to remote parts of Africa and Asia without their jabs. A win-win situation.

No. Send their unvaccinated children. The antivax cranks all have their childhood immunities.

ohnonotgmail

Igotadose wrote: »

No. Send their unvaccinated children. The antivax cranks all have their childhood immunities.

Not to the likes of typhus they dont.

nthclare

I hope I'm not disrupting the thread, I got the flu vaccine last year and I'm sorry I didn't start getting​ it a few years previously.

I work outdoors mostly and have a physical job.
Luckily it's a public sector job,as every year I got a bad bout of the flu and could be out for 5 day's.
It's harder for the body to recover from a flu virus when you're pruning, digging, planting and harvesting trees shrubs and bedding plants all day.
In a less physical job I'd say a flu isn't as hard on the body.

I got the flu vaccine last year and it worked,I'll be getting it again this winter.
Only had 2 sick days this year compared to 6 last year

rawn

For Forks Sake wrote: »

So, in positive news, just over a decade after rolling out a national HPV programme, Australia is well en route to eliminate cervical cancer:

Read that again. Eliminate. Cervical. Cancer.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/cervical-cancer-set-to-be-eliminated-from-australia-in-global-first-20181002-p507dn.html

Amazing!

It's funny how antivaxxers think that Big pHARMa don't want to cure cancer because they make more money treating it, but when they actually come up with a cheap, efficient way to PREVENT cancer, antivaxxers lobby against it.

batgoat

nthclare wrote: »

I hope I'm not disrupting the thread, I got the flu vaccine last year and I'm sorry I didn't start getting​ it a few years previously.

I work outdoors mostly and have a physical job.
Luckily it's a public sector job,as every year I got a bad bout of the flu and could be out for 5 day's.
It's harder for the body to recover from a flu virus when you're pruning, digging, planting and harvesting trees shrubs and bedding plants all day.
In a less physical job I'd say a flu isn't as hard on the body.

I got the flu vaccine last year and it worked,I'll be getting it again this winter.
Only had 2 sick days this year compared to 6 last year

I have to get it this week actually, on immunosuppressants so pretty important for me on that front.

mcmoustache

pjohnson wrote: »

Oooh goody a conspiracy theorist is loose in AH. I've catching up to do.

Conspiracy theories have gone mainstream and the world is worse for it.

Queen Cleopatra

VicMackey1 wrote: »

How safe do you want vaccines to be? 100%? Which vaccines do you consider to be safe?

2018? It only took a couple of years for doctors and scientists to accept that there was a link between narcolepsy and the swine flu vaccine. Of course, they were not going to dismiss a vaccine because a small number of people had an issue with it. Once studies were completed and showed a casual relationship, it was widely accepted that there was a link. Why has this not happened with Gardasil? Because the studies showed that it is a safe vaccine!

To quote a parent from the REGRET site " I have three daughters and I am convinced all three have had some type of reaction to this injection." REGRET is made up entirely of this nonsense where their feelings or any parents "medical degree" trumps science.

I posted a link earlier in the thread that you conveniently ignored. A quote from that link regarding pandemrix being fully tested.

Quote from EMA
Pandemrix was developed for use specifically in a flu pandemic. It was authorised in the European Union (EU) on 29 September 2009 to immunise citizens against the H1N1 pandemic influenza strain.
Information from clinical trials in more than 6,000 subjects was assessed as part of an extensive review of the vaccine’s safety profile before its authorisation, and the outcome of the assessment is available on the EMA website (1,2

VicMackey1

Queen Cleopatra wrote: »

I posted a link earlier in the thread that you conveniently ignored. A quote from that link regarding pandemrix being fully tested.

Quote from EMA
Pandemrix was developed for use specifically in a flu pandemic. It was authorised in the European Union (EU) on 29 September 2009 to immunise citizens against the H1N1 pandemic influenza strain.
Information from clinical trials in more than 6,000 subjects was assessed as part of an extensive review of the vaccine’s safety profile before its authorisation, and the outcome of the assessment is available on the EMA website (1,2

The vaccine they used for those clinical trials (H5N1) was not the same as the final vaccine produced (H1N1).