Anti-vaxxers

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

Please don't miss quote her.

Where did I misquote her?

Dr Brown

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where did I misquote her?

I'm talking about people in general who are using her to promote the Vaccine.


That is NOT what she wanted.

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

I'm talking about people in general who are using her to promote the Vaccine.


That is NOT what she wanted.

You quoted my post and said not to misquote her. You really should have been clearer.

Guy:Incognito

Dr Brown wrote: »

Please don't misquote her.


She refused to promote the Vaccine after she found out about the side effects.

After she found out about unfounded opinion you mean.

Carol25

I’m not anti vaccine or pro vaccine. I’m unsure as to who to trust. Clearly the Big Pharmaceutical giants have an agenda and keep rolling out vaccine after vaccine...profit after profit. I also don’t like the way there is ZERO support if someone does genuinely have a bad reaction to a vaccine. I’ve had to sign the forms before vaccinating my sons which basically absolves everyone of any responsibility for what they’re injecting into your baby/child...why is this if they’re so convinced it’s safe?
However I do understand the importance of vaccines and have gotten many over the years due to travel, etc. They play a hugely important part in keeping dangerous incurable diseases eradicated. I’m just not comfortable with some comments on here basically saying ‘so what if it affects some children/people if it protects most’. I don’t think that’s good enough.

batgoat

Paracetamol has unintended effects with a miniscule amount of people, is that not good enough? The net benefit far outweighs any risk.

Dohnjoe

Carol25 wrote: »

I’m just not comfortable with some comments on here basically saying ‘so what if it affects some children/people if it protects most’. I don’t think that’s good enough.

Can you provide an example of what you believe in an unacceptable risk related to vaccines?

Most comments in here are in response to posters who are literally denying vaccines work

Graces7

batgoat wrote: »

Paracetamol has unintended effects with a miniscule amount of people, is that not good enough? The net benefit far outweighs any risk.

it does not . it is a dangerous drug used far too widely. and far too easy to overdose accidentally.

VicMackey1

Graces7 wrote: »

it does not . it is a dangerous drug used far too widely. and far too easy to overdose accidentally.

Acetaminophen is one of the most commonly used oral analgesics and antipyretics. It has an excellent safety profile when administered in proper therapeutic doses.

Minimum toxic doses of acetaminophen for a single ingestion, posing significant risk of severe hepatotoxicity, are as follows:

Adults: 7.5-10 g

That's 15 to 20 paracetamols! Do you still think it is far to easy to overdose accidentally? Taken from THIS LINK.

dense

Dr Brown wrote: »

That money (if any) would of went to the royal free hospital.


The fact that Wakefield refused to back down shows that money was not his main motivating factor.


To say that Wakefield was only after money is laughable in the extreme when you consider that he lost his medical career in the UK due to speaking out.


When he could of just backed down and kept his job.

"would of" and "could of"......

Patrick2010

I can't take penicillin as I'll get a reaction to it. Should it be banned?
We live in an imperfect world so theres no such think as a 100% safe medicine or vaccine. The best we can do is accept that a very tiny number of people will suffer a reaction. The alternative is no one gets vaccinated and disease numbers rise.
I'm glad that nut Gemma O Doherty didn't get the presidential nomination, she tweets on almost nothing but the HPV vaccine since then.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

VicMackey1 wrote: »

...
That's 15 to 20 paracetamols! Do you still think it is far to easy to overdose accidentally? Taken from THIS LINK.

You'll get no reply to that question. It's just another unfounded, untrue statement chucked into the thread without basis or any hint of reality. At this point I wonder why the Mods allow it continue, as it spoils any chance of a proper discussion.

VicMackey1

Maci Whining Pianist wrote: »

You'll get no reply to that question. It's just another unfounded, untrue statement chucked into the thread without basis or any hint of reality. At this point I wonder why the Mods allow it continue, as it spoils any chance of a proper discussion.

Hit and Run!

Igotadose

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

After she found out about unfounded opinion you mean.

I'm sad for her and her children she had to die young.

As far as taking her advice on vaccines, remember this: she had 5 children by different, disappeared partners. Never married<snip> - would you want your daughter behaving this way? This is risky behavior in terms of contracting HPV, she took the risks, and contracted the disease. As for her objections to the vaccine, they're uninformed and wrong, frankly. If she'd had it when it was available (it's too late once you have cancer), perhaps we would have never heard of her.

Not having her smears read correctly and the information given to her right away, is not WHY she contracted HPV. We will never know why she contracted it - lots of possibilities but her lifestyle was one that encourages contracting it.

FWIW the US CDC estimates 79 million people with HPV virus today. Think of that before you don't vaccinate. Vaccinate all your children, boys and girls.

Igotadose

Maci Whining Pianist wrote: »

You'll get no reply to that question. It's just another unfounded, untrue statement chucked into the thread without basis or any hint of reality. At this point I wonder why the Mods allow it continue, as it spoils any chance of a proper discussion.

Gracie needs her regular martyrdom fix. She'll be around a bit, whine about being picked on, then disappear to some other thread to do the same, and show up again eventually.

B0jangles

Igotadose wrote: »

I'm sad for her and her children she had to die young.

As far as taking her advice on vaccines, remember this: she had 5 children by different, disappeared partners. Never married. This isn't someone of model character - would you want your daughter behaving this way? This is risky behavior in terms of contracting HPV, she took the risks, and contracted the disease. As for her objections to the vaccine, they're uninformed and wrong, frankly. If she'd had it when it was available (it's too late once you have cancer), perhaps we would have never heard of her.

Not having her smears read correctly and the information given to her right away, is not WHY she contracted HPV. We will never know why she contracted it - lots of possibilities but her lifestyle was one that encourages contracting it.

FWIW the US CDC estimates 79 million people with HPV virus today. Think of that before you don't vaccinate. Vaccinate all your children, boys and girls.

My god, you should feel so ashamed of yourself for this post.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Hit and Run!

Miss and run, more like it!

Ashbourne hoop

My understanding is that Ms Mhic Mhathúna deleted those comments and appeared in a promotional video for the HSE/Gardasil.

PlaneSpeeking

Carol25 wrote: »

I’m not anti vaccine or pro vaccine. I’m unsure as to who to trust. Clearly the Big Pharmaceutical giants have an agenda and keep rolling out vaccine after vaccine...profit after profit. I also don’t like the way there is ZERO support if someone does genuinely have a bad reaction to a vaccine. I’ve had to sign the forms before vaccinating my sons which basically absolves everyone of any responsibility for what they’re injecting into your baby/child...why is this if they’re so convinced it’s safe?
However I do understand the importance of vaccines and have gotten many over the years due to travel, etc. They play a hugely important part in keeping dangerous incurable diseases eradicated. I’m just not comfortable with some comments on here basically saying ‘so what if it affects some children/people if it protects most’. I don’t think that’s good enough.

You've two choices:

Door A) Medical professionals with years of training
Door Huns on Facebook

xzanti

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You've two choices:

Door A) Medical professionals with years of training
Door Huns on Facebook

I also understand Carol25's point tbh.

On one hand you have the fact that YES, billions have been paid out to families of children damaged by vaccines. That is a fact.

And on the other hand, if someone questions the safety of vaccines they're branded an idiot? If a parent comments that their child was 'different' after their vaccines they're told "no hun, it was just bad timing, don't be an eejit, your child was born that way". How the fcuk do you know that? Do you live with that child?

And YES, my kids ARE VACCINATED. But I don't pooh-pooh someone else's fears and concerns, when it is a FACT that vaccines have in the past done damage.

And the term "huns on Facebook"? Seriously? What a sweeping generalization for anyone who dares to question the safety of something that's being administered to their children. Or have in fact had a bad experience with something.

ancapailldorcha

Depends on how the concern is presented. In my experience, it's usually an anti-vaxxer trying to appear moderate. A similar line is not to question vaccinations but rather the frequency at which they are administered.

Anyone who is genuinely curious would likely be asking their doctor as opposed to random people on the internet who might be spreading nonsense as can be clearly seen in this thread.

dexter_morgan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Depends on how the concern is presented. In my experience, it's usually an anti-vaxxer trying to appear moderate.

I don't see the anti vaxxers here trying to be any bit moderate! They are as obvious as the nose on my face! Or maybe they're just that good?

ancapailldorcha

dexter_morgan wrote: »

I don't see the anti vaxxers here trying to be any bit moderate! They are as obvious as the nose on my face! Or maybe they're just that good?

At present, I agree but I have seen the moderation and "genuine concern" pretence before. It's not hard to spot.

dense

xzanti wrote: »

I also understand Carol25's point tbh.

On one hand you have the fact that YES, billions have been paid out to families of children damaged by vaccines. That is a fact.

And on the other hand, if someone questions the safety of vaccines they're branded an idiot? If a parent comments that their child was 'different' after their vaccines they're told "no hun, it was just bad timing, don't be an eejit, your child was born that way". How the fcuk do you know that? Do you live with that child?

And YES, my kids ARE VACCINATED. But I don't pooh-pooh someone else's fears and concerns, when it is a FACT that vaccines have in the past done damage.

And the term "huns on Facebook"? Seriously? What a sweeping generalization for anyone who dares to question the safety of something that's being administered to their children. Or have in fact had a bad experience with something.

I think that's a balanced point of view.

For those who reckon the scientific research community is infallible, there's an interesting thread here on boards showing just how ropey and invalid the whole area of published scientific research and literature is in general, so it is not surprising that facebook and twitter do contain posts from experts of various shades pretending to know with certainty what the medical profession itself does not.

I have kids and they're vaccinated too.

ancapailldorcha

dense wrote: »

I think that's a balanced point of view.

For those who reckon the scientific research community is infallible, there's an interesting thread here on boards showing just how ropey and invalid the whole area of published scientific research and literature is in general, so it is not surprising that facebook and twitter do contain posts from experts of various shades pretending to know with certainty what the medical profession itself does not.

I have kids and they're vaccinated too.

Completely agree. I'd add that the reproducibility crisis in scientific research is simply going to embolden the nonsense-peddlers rather than achieve any sort of constructive debate.

I should have clarified that anyone who shows concern after seeing the payout mentioned above is someone who should be listened to and engaged with.

VicMackey1

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

At present, I agree but I have seen the moderation and "genuine concern" pretence before. It's not hard to spot.

"I would fully support safe/safer vaccines" type of posts.

dense

Igotadose wrote: »

I'm sad for her and her children she had to die young.

As far as taking her advice on vaccines, remember this: she had 5 children by different, disappeared partners. Never married. This isn't someone of model character - would you want your daughter behaving this way?

No I wouldn't.



But nowadays we will be told we can't blame victims for being responsible for the repercussions of any risky choices they make, so we'll have to tell our daughters they're ok to do whatever they want and whatever becomes of it will be someone else's fault.

VinLieger

B0jangles wrote: »

My god, you should feel so ashamed of yourself for this post.

Typical ireland never speak ill of the dead ehh? Even when whats being said is factually correct?

B0jangles

VinLieger wrote: »

Typical ireland never speak ill of the dead ehh? Even when whats being said is factually correct?

If what the poster claimed is actually true, it demonstrates that the woman in question has sex with at least 5 different people!!!, and that somehow makes her a bad role model for other women.


She did her best to safeguard her own health and to take care of her children. When she found out just how appallingly she had been let down by services she was told she could trust, she fought to the end to keep looking after her children and to expose the failings in the service so that other women wouldn't die like she did.


But this is Ireland, unless you're as pure and unsullied as Mary herself, you're no better than you should be, eh?

xzanti

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I should have clarified that anyone who shows concern after seeing the payout mentioned above is someone who should be listened to and engaged with.

Are you referring to my post?