Anti-vaxxers

Neyite

Orion wrote: »

Not in the slightest. If a child has a valid reason for not getting vaccinated such as being immunocompromised or a known severe allergy to some compenents they should be allowed attend. But for the exact same reasons the precious rugrats who's mammy read Mumsnet should be banned.

It's predominately pro-vax on mumsnet, any anti-vaxxer usually gets their arse handed back to them on a thread. You might be thinking of the other one Netmums where it's all "Ur bubz, Ur rules, hun." Or Nethuns as the mumsnetters like to call them

batgoat

Neyite wrote: »

It's predominately pro-vax on mumsnet, any anti-vaxxer usually gets their arse handed back to them on a thread. You might be thinking of the other one Netmums where it's all "Ur bubz, Ur rules, hun." Or Nethuns as the mumsnetters like to call them

All those sites have become increasingly more extreme in views regardless. Relief that mumsnet is at least pro vaccine...

fxotoole

Encephalopathy wrote: »

She's 100% right, I'm in the same boat as her and thousands more.

I've two children, two fully vaccinated to date, two of them diagnosed with autism. Honestly can't blame the vaccines on the oldest ones problems but the youngest one was severely damaged by them. As a result of that, they will be receiving no more vaccines and if we have any more children, they will not be vaccinated. If that makes me an anti vaxxer, then so be it. I've met quite a lot of parents in person who've turned their backs on vaccines for the same reasons, I've yet to meet someone who turned anti vaxx because the "I heard" reason.

I read in the US they set up a vaccine court in 1986 and to date they've paid out over 4 billion dollars compensation for vaccine injuries and deaths, how is there not a uproar from the taxpayers having to foot that bill (plus all the legal costs)?
Crazy that that the pharmaceutical companies have no liability for the products they created and produce!
4 billion dollars compensation and that's just one country, crazy for something that is safe

Newly registered account with 1 post. You wouldn’t be a Russian troll by any chance, would you?

Encephalopathy

skepticalraptor

This will help explain about the Vaccine payouts, click into his sources, seeing as how anti-vaxxers hate Skeptical Raptor :rolleyes:

There is possibly a one in a million chance of your child being injured by a vaccine. If, and that's a big IF, your child was vaccine-damaged, what do you think the odds are that more than one of your children would be injured? So no need to not vaccinated the rest and endanger everybody else, they are safe.

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.😷

Encephalopathy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Proof?

You want proof or what proof do I have?

Igotadose

Encephalopathy wrote: »

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.😷

No you said one was but offered no proof. If I were you I'd refrain from more children as you appear to have a genetic defect leading to autism disorder in your children.

Dohnjoe

Encephalopathy wrote: »

You want proof or what proof do I have?

I strongly suspect this is a troll account. But do you have evidence that vaccines cause autism. Only from credible medical sources. (not cranks, woo-merchants and "youtube videos")

Encephalopathy

batgoat wrote: »

Vaccines don't cause autism.... I'm amazed there are people who still believe this. General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age but this does not mean it causes autism...

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.
Stanley plotkin(vaccine creator) has just come out and said it hasn't been scientifically proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

"General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age"
Again how do you know this? Are you talking from experience? My oldest child was around six before he showed any signs, there's no two the same.

batgoat

Encephalopathy wrote: »

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.
Stanley plotkin(vaccine creator) has just come out and said it hasn't been scientifically proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

"General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age"
Again how do you know this? Are you talking from experience? My oldest child was around six before he showed any signs, there's no two the same.

Peer reviewed research. How do I know this? In terms of manifestation, starts between twelve and eighteen months. Same time as mmr vaccine is administered. Diagnosis often doesn't occur till around age 3. This is all backed up by research.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/autism/conditioninfo/symptoms-appear

Encephalopathy

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's not taxpayer funded. A certain amount per vaccine used is put into the fund by the vaccine companies. My friends family received over 4 million dollars back in the 90s from it. I don't know if it's still around?

My mistake then, when I seen an excise tax of 75 cent per vaccine from the person who is buying it, for some reason I took that as taxpayers money.

It's still around, as long as there is adverse reactions to vaccines, it has to be.

ancapailldorcha

Encephalopathy wrote: »

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.

Frankly, this is the sort of stupidity and ignorance that makes anti-vaxxers a health threat to global health according to the WHO (Source).

Encephalopathy

Igotadose wrote: »

No you said one was but offered no proof. If I were you I'd refrain from more children as you appear to have a genetic defect leading to autism disorder in your children.

Sorry pal, the child's pediatrician theory was it was was some in our genes too, asked could she do genetic testing, no bother, work away I said.
Next visit I had to ask her if the results were back, yeah all clear, no abnormalities, she said.
Sure you said it's something to do with our genes I said.
Well something's causing it she said.
Yeah that's what we've been telling you.

Obviously you wouldn't believe I've met people with two children with autism, people with three children with autism, went on to have more children and did get them vaccinated, to date they are very healthy children without asd.

Dohnjoe

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Sorry pal, the child's pediatrician theory was it was was some in our genes too...

Anecdotal. No offense, but this being the internet - this could be complete horse****

mzungu

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Obviously you wouldn't believe I've met people with two children with autism, people with three children with autism, went on to have more children and did get them vaccinated, to date they are very healthy children without asd.

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

batgoat

mzungu wrote: »

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

One of the popular claims is that there was less autism historically. But it simply had been identified. Eg the likes of Mozart, Einstein etc were likely candidates for having it.

banie01

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Sorry pal, the child's pediatrician theory was it was was some in our genes too, asked could she do genetic testing, no bother, work away I said.
Next visit I had to ask her if the results were back, yeah all clear, no abnormalities, she said.
Sure you said it's something to do with our genes I said.
Well something's causing it she said.
Yeah that's what we've been telling you.
asd.

There's a genetic screening test for autism now?

Apart from Fragile X syndrome which can manifest itself in similar behaviours to autism, there is no identified genetic test for Autism.
So I'd love to know what markers this doctor tested for and how they could confirm that autism wasn't down to a genetic factor on the parents part?
There is no recognised genetic test for autism diagnosis or screening.
So frankly prove that claim...
Or peddle that particular line of BS somewhere else.

Dravokivich

Encephalopathy wrote: »

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.
Stanley plotkin(vaccine creator) has just come out and said it hasn't been scientifically proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

"General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age"
Again how do you know this? Are you talking from experience? My oldest child was around six before he showed any signs, there's no two the same.

They don't cure cancer either!!!

Encephalopathy

mzungu wrote: »

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

Where?

eagle eye

mzungu wrote:

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

People are calling in anti-vaxers to.provide proof for everything so I think you should do the same to get fair.

batgoat

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Where?

Here's one for you. For a person who claims to know a lot about the subject, you seem to know very little.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2275444

Encephalopathy

banie01 wrote: »

There's a genetic screening test for autism now?

Apart from Fragile X syndrome which can manifest itself in similar behaviours to autism, there is no identified genetic test for Autism.
So I'd love to know what markers this doctor tested for and how they could confirm that autism wasn't down to a genetic factor on the parents part?
There is no recognised genetic test for autism diagnosis or screening.
So frankly prove that claim...
Or peddle that particular line of BS somewhere else.

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

sullivlo

Encephalopathy wrote: »

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

Andrew Wakefield was a doctor once upon a time.

banie01

Encephalopathy wrote: »

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

You should go back and ask her to walk you through the results then, as the information she has provided is patently false.
There is no genetic test for Autism or ASD.
Fragile X can present in a similar fashion but it is a specific chromosomal disorder that is not Autism.

Martina1991

Encephalopathy wrote:

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

It might have been microarray testing that was carried out, which is kind of a screening test to detect some chromosomal abnormalities, but it won't detect all genetic mutations and is not specific for autism.

Gonad

This is a good watch



Sorry link doesn’t work

Guy:Incognito

Encephalopathy wrote: »

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.😷

But linking to forums of people who agree that vaccines are bad would be grand, wouldnt it? Cos those internet people are telling the truth.

rawn

Encephalopathy wrote: »

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.��

if we have any more children, they will not be vaccinated.

What do you think the odds are that more than one will be "damaged"?

I knew you would not like skeptical raptor, which is why I suggested you read the sources rather than the article. Did you?

Dohnjoe

eagle eye wrote: »

People are calling in anti-vaxers to.provide proof for everything so I think you should do the same to get fair.

In fairness the thread is full of evidence/proof that vaccines work. Few or no credible sources to the contrary. It's astonishing that some individuals are still trying so hard to make the tenuous autism/vaccines link when it's been completely refuted.

mzungu

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Where?

eagle eye wrote: »

People are calling in anti-vaxers to.provide proof for everything so I think you should do the same to get fair.

Batgoat posted one above, but here is another one:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/48/4/456/284219

In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated 498 autistic children born from 1979 through 1992 who were identified by computerized health records from 8 health districts [5]. Although a trend toward increasing autism diagnoses by year of birth was confirmed, no change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of MMR vaccine was observed. Further, MMR vaccination rates of autistic children were similar to those of the entire study population. Also, investigators did not observe a clustering of autism diagnoses relative to the time that children received MMR vaccine, nor did they observe a difference in age at autism diagnosis between those vaccinated and not vaccinated or between those vaccinated before or after 18 months of age. These authors also found no differences in autism rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated children when they extended their analysis to include a longer time after MMR exposure or a second dose of MMR [6].

The above is only one of many. There have been numerous studies (some mentioned in the articles posted for you so you can have a read in your free time) that back it up.

waxmoth

I think the sensitivity around the proposed link between MMR vaccine and autism is that it was the first exploration of the general claim of universal safety of vaccines which gained significant publicity. That MMR can cause encephalopathy/brain damage is accepted in the vaccine injury table and the restrictive criteria for onset/recognition of symptoms (not less than 5 or greater than 15 days from vaccination) puts the compensated case figures into context.

Our examination of federal vaccine court decisions over the years reflects this. Children who end up with autistic symptoms or autism have won vaccine injury claims over the years-as long as they highlighted general, widely-accepted brain damage; not autism specifically. But when autism or autistic symptoms are alleged as the primary brain damage, the cases are lost.
That doesn't make sense to families who see autism as a specific form of encephalopathy. But it makes perfect sense to the University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety. He says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy, but not scientifically linked to autism.
"The fact that a person suffers autism and encephalopathy does not mean that the vaccine caused both of them," says Dr. Strom. "Even if it caused the encephalopathy, that may or may not have been the cause of the autism--those are two different questions."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/

The real issue is the regulatory system of drug control and the associated conflict of interest. If safety issues are masked in clinical trials, and compounded by industry obfuscation and denial, then the system is set up for a loss of trust.

FDA staffers play a pivotal role in drug approvals, presenting evidence to the agency's advisory panels and influencing or making approval decisions. They are free to move to jobs in pharma, and many do; in a 2016 study in The BMJ, researchers examined the job histories of 55 FDA staff who had conducted drug reviews over a 9-year period in the hematologyoncology field. They found that 15 of the 26 employees who left the agency later worked or consulted for the biopharmaceutical industry.
FDA's safeguards are supposed to keep the prospect of industry employment from affecting employees' decisions while at the agency, and to discourage them from exploiting relationships with former colleagues after they depart. For example, former high-level employees can't appear before the agency on the precise issues they regulated—sometimes permanently, in other cases for a year or two.
Through web searches and online services such as LinkedIn, however, Science has discovered that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners who worked on 28 drug approvals and then left the agency for new jobs are now employed by or consult for the companies they recently regulated. This can create at least the appearance of conflicts of interest.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/fda-s-revolving-door-companies-often-hire-agency-staffers-who-managed-their-successful