Anti-vaxxers

mzungu

Taken from Vaxopedia. Link: https://vaxopedia.org/2018/05/23/why-do-some-vaccines-need-boosters/

Why Do Some Vaccines Need Boosters?
Vaccines work.

They aren’t perfect though, which is why some vaccines need booster doses to help them provide long lasting protection.

Why Do Some Vaccines Need Boosters?
To be clear, just because you get more than one dose of a vaccine, that doesn’t make it a booster dose.

For example, infants get multiple doses of the DTaP, polio, Hib, hepatitis B, Prevnar, and rotavirus vaccines, but those are part of the primary series for those vaccines. They aren’t boosters.

“A “classical” prime-boost immunization schedule is, thus, to allow 4 to 6 months to elapse between priming and booster doses, hence the generic “0-1-6 month” (prime-prime-boost) schedule. Secondary antigen exposure thus results in the production of higher-affinity antibodies than primary responses.”

Classic booster doses are the:

4th and 5th dose of DTaP
2nd dose of hepatitis A
3rd dose of hepatitis B
4th dose of Hib
3rd dose of HPV
4th dose of Prevnar
4th dose of polio
2nd dose of meningococcal vaccines
most Tdap doses (if you are not due for a Tdap booster and are getting a dose because you are pregnant, than that probably wouldn’t be considered a booster dose)
2nd dose of Varivax (chicken pox vaccine)
But why do we need these booster doses?

While one or more doses of the primary series of the vaccine leads to the production of plasma cells and protective antibodies, the booster dose then causes a secondary immune response and the production of more long-lived plasma cells. That’s how we get higher levels of protective antibodies that will last longer.

Which Vaccines Don’t Need Boosters?
In general, live vaccines don’t need booster doses.

So why do we get a second dose of MMR?

This isn’t a classic booster dose. It protects the small percentage of people who don’t respond to the first dose.

Some folks may need a booster dose of the MMR vaccine in certain circumstances though, specifically if they are caught up in a mumps outbreak.

kylith

mulbot wrote: »

So if you've not had boosters then are you potentially capable of spreading whooping cough?

Nope. It was more of a 'to be sure, to be sure' thing. It was suggested, but not recommended, if you get my meaning.

Akrasia wrote: »

Its the same with dogs by the way. If your dog got the 7 in one and the booster as a puppy, then they are covered for life too. Annual pet vaccines are a waste of money and unnecessary risk to the animals

Yeah, it's bloody annoying, but try getting your dog into kennels if they're not up to date.

eagle eye

Tired Gardener wrote:

We are in a strange mixture of highly advanced knowledge, and willful ignorance.

Just quoting the start of your post.
I'm not an anti-vaxer.
I do understand why some people go this way though. There are plenty of reasons in lots of countries not to trust a government. There are plenty of reasons not to trust major pharmaceutical firms also.
Some people get stuck with this lack of trust and cannot get over it. Some may have had a personal experience in their family or with a close friend where a wonder drug turned out to be a bad thing. It's perfectly understandable for people who experienced something like that to be skeptical.
It's up to the rest of us to try and change their minds. It's up to doctors, nurses and other medical experts to educate everybody. We can't just expect everybody to fall into line. This has never happened anywhere, ever on any subject or issue.

Capt'n Midnight

Mumps on the rise here again

New figures have shown that 381 people have been diagnosed with the mumps so far this year.

Q. Do I know anyone who is deaf in one ear and has permanent hearing loss in the other because of mumps ?

A. Yes

Ditto for scarlet fever. For meningitis, blindness due to complications.



Childhood diseases haven't gone away. Modern medicine has suppressed them.

Until there is global eradication they could come back, like they are doing now.

Faugheen

eagle eye wrote: »

Just quoting the start of your post.
I'm not an anti-vaxer.
I do understand why some people go this way though. There are plenty of reasons in lots of countries not to trust a government. There are plenty of reasons not to trust major pharmaceutical firms also.
Some people get stuck with this lack of trust and cannot get over it. Some may have had a personal experience in their family or with a close friend where a wonder drug turned out to be a bad thing. It's perfectly understandable for people who experienced something like that to be skeptical.
It's up to the rest of us to try and change their minds. It's up to doctors, nurses and other medical experts to educate everybody. We can't just expect everybody to fall into line. This has never happened anywhere, ever on any subject or issue.

People choose to ignore their doctors, nurses and medical experts because they know what's best for their little Johnny or little Mary.

Let's try not make excuses here. Someone earlier said they didn't get MMR because of a family history of an allergic reaction to something in the vaccine. That's acceptable.

When people with absolutely no reason or suggestion to back up their 'belief' or 'gut feeling' decide not to vaccinate their child then they not only but their kids in massive risk, but they put mine at risk too.

So yeah, f*ck 'em.

eagle eye

Faugheen wrote:

So yeah, f*ck 'em.

You really have no clue how the world works. You look at things through your own little goggles. Your mind is such, based on your last post, that you could have easily been an anti-vaxer.

Lirange

If you’re 50 or older I definitely advise availing of the recently available Shingles vacc. If you have seen people suffer through it you’ll appreciate why!

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

You really have no clue how the world works. You look at things through your own little goggles. Your mind is such, based on your last post, that you could have easily been an anti-vaxer.

The antivax people who have participated in this thread have often been engaged with, in incredibly friendly terms. Their concerns were addressed but it makes absolutely no difference. I think it's fair to say, they're irresponsible and are endangering lives. Preventable illnesses are becoming more common because of the propaganda of the more active anti-vaxxers. I have very little time for them as they simply refuse to face reality. People die as a result of their nonsense.

You're attempting to be a devil's advocate where one side refuse to recognise that they're endlessly promoting charlatans.

Faugheen

eagle eye wrote: »

You really have no clue how the world works. You look at things through your own little goggles. Your mind is such, based on your last post, that you could have easily been an anti-vaxer.

I know that vaccines helped prevent me and my family and friends from picking up potentially deadly diseases to the point that said diseases were practically wiped out.

Now, with a fall in uptake, suddenly outbreaks of these diseases are becoming more commonplace.

I know exactly how the world works, thank you very much. You defending anti-vaxxers (by choosing to argue a toss with me and other pro-vaxxer's, that's what you're doing) which leads me to believe you're not quite the devil's advocate you're trying to portray yourself as.

Igotadose

There's no place for devil's advocacy in this discussion, because there's no reason to be having a discussion. Vaccines work. There's no reason not to take them. Period full stop. Emotional arguments are just opinions. Opinions aren't facts nor are there alternative facts. Facts are facts.

Orion

Igotadose wrote: »

Amazon's dropping anti-vax "documentaries." https://thehill.com/policy/technology/432301-amazon-pulls-anti-vaccine-documentaries

Yet they still sell Wakefield's lies with a foreword by that foremost expert on pharmaceuticals Jenny McCarthy.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Callous-Disregard-Autism-Vaccines-Tragedy/dp/1616083239

Orion

rm75 wrote: »

That KOC woman TD from FG is banging on about anti vacine articles on FB.
She's like the annoying mother you had in school always sticking her nose into things.

Imagine a qualified pharmacist having an opinion on pharmaceuticals. Cheek of her. :rolleyes:

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

You're attempting to be a devil's advocate where one side refuse to recognise that they're endlessly promoting charlatans.

No. I don't believe in name calling, it gets you nowhere. You need to be persuasive, name calling only drives the divide wider.
Like it's pretty simple, there are idiots out there who promote not vaccinating and they have followers. Those followers are what you target. You do that by being reasonable, by selling them your idea. They will tell you where to go at first but if you remain calm and nice they will listen.
There will always be those that will not vaccinate no matter what you do but their numbers will dwindle if you keep up the dignified nice approach.

Faugheen wrote:

I know exactly how the world works, thank you very much. You defending anti-vaxxers (by choosing to argue a toss with me and other pro-vaxxer's, that's what you're doing) which leads me to believe you're not quite the devil's advocate you're trying to portray yourself as.

Well here you are again with a little conspiracy theory suggesting that I might be an anti-vaxer in disguise. As I said you could easily have been one of them based on your posting. You act just like them. Only difference is you do vaccinate. Same level of detail intelligence I think, same conspiracy theory nonsense.

Igotadose

eagle eye wrote: »

They will tell you where to go at first but if you remain calm and nice they will listen.

Seriously, do you follow anti-vaxxers much? They're a pack of jackals, especially the prominent ones.

Now, maybe the undecided (if they truly are undecided, which is puzzling but I guess there probably are a few), could be swayed. Frankly I don't think anything posted on an Irish message board will convince anyone here who isn't convinced already.

Essien

eagle eye wrote: »

Those followers are what you target. You do that by being reasonable, by selling them your idea. They will tell you where to go at first but if you remain calm and nice they will listen.

In my experience, this is simply untrue.

No matter how calm, fair, reasonable and well backed up the argument, the vast majority of anti-vaxxers will simply reject it.

For the most part, even participating in the argument is a fools errand. One side is driven by reasonable, fact based logic. The other is driven by emotion and unsupported beliefs.

You might as well be speaking 2 different languages.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

No. I don't believe in name calling, it gets you nowhere. You need to be persuasive, name calling only drives the divide wider.
Like it's pretty simple, there are idiots out there who promote not vaccinating and they have followers. Those followers are what you target. You do that by being reasonable, by selling them your idea. They will tell you where to go at first but if you remain calm and nice they will listen.
There will always be those that will not vaccinate no matter what you do but their numbers will dwindle if you keep up the dignified nice approach.


Well here you are again with a little conspiracy theory suggesting that I might be an anti-vaxer in disguise. As I said you could easily have been one of them based on your posting. You act just like them. Only difference is you do vaccinate. Same level of detail intelligence I think, same conspiracy theory nonsense.

You clearly haven't followed any of the discussions on this thread so.

mzungu

eagle eye wrote: »

No. I don't believe in name calling, it gets you nowhere. You need to be persuasive, name calling only drives the divide wider.
Like it's pretty simple, there are idiots out there who promote not vaccinating and they have followers. Those followers are what you target. You do that by being reasonable, by selling them your idea. They will tell you where to go at first but if you remain calm and nice they will listen.
There will always be those that will not vaccinate no matter what you do but their numbers will dwindle if you keep up the dignified nice approach.


Well here you are again with a little conspiracy theory suggesting that I might be an anti-vaxer in disguise. As I said you could easily have been one of them based on your posting. You act just like them. Only difference is you do vaccinate. Same level of detail intelligence I think, same conspiracy theory nonsense.

The thing is, all throughout this thread (and others I have read online), the format is the same. Anti-vaxxers will post the same conspiracy theory documentaries usually hosted and/or funded by proven liars, quacks and frauds. Everything in them can be debunked quite easily because they deal in emotion and have little in the way of fact. When they are debunked using peer reviewed papers and such, this falls on deaf ears and it goes back to the same old emotional arguments. E.g. my son/daughter was never the same after their vaccination. Now look at what this person wrote about vaccinations and then a link to a blog is given etc.

Only a few weeks ago we had a poster claiming moral outrage at something Dr. Stanley Plotkin apparently said under oath. When asked to elaborate, the lazy "argument via YouTube" was trotted out where they expected other posters to trawl through it to find what he supposedly said. In the end, what he said was so mundane and uncontroversial it was obvious that professional anti-vaxxers were trying desperately to manufacture outrage over nothing. Their acolytes then vomit up the same spiel in here (and other forums) hoping it will gain traction.

A few posts above we have a poster citing an Andrew Wakefield documentary as evidence. Despite the fact the man is a proven fraud. Why is it all anti-vaxxer "evidence" comes from proven quacks, liars and those that will gain financially from it?

What will happen is that these posters usually drop off the radar and another one comes in with the same or similar blog links and "argument via Youtube" and the cycle repeats itself.

fishermantolka

The Anti Vaxxers are really off the wall I think they enjoy hearing that people have died as a result of their carry on.. There is something sick about that.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

You clearly haven't followed any of the discussions on this thread so.

What are you referring to?
Online discussion is a waste of time as regards this subject. You have to go out and sell the truth face to face.

Dohnjoe

eagle eye wrote: »

What are you referring to?
Online discussion is a waste of time as regards this subject. You have to go out and sell the truth face to face.

Most of the anti-vax stuff seems to be online, whether it's Youtube, social media, etc - it only makes sense to tackle it online

Note that the denial problem was nowhere near as big before the widespread use of the internet

Martina1991

eagle eye wrote:

What are you referring to? Online discussion is a waste of time as regards this subject. You have to go out and sell the truth face to face.

People get their majority of information online. Thats how this anti vaxx nonsense has spread.

There's no one on a soap box in the town square shouting at people "face to face".

eagle eye

Dohnjoe wrote:

Note that the denial problem was nowhere near as big before the widespread use of the internet

Martina1991 wrote:

There's no one on a soap box in the town square shouting at people "face to face".

Social media is the voice of the stupid. There are so many of them that they have power together.
As I'm saying you haven't hope of changing their minds online. You have to meet them face to face and explain things to them.

francois

They are becoming more and more agressive as they have no real scientific basis to counter decades of longitudinal studies and literally millions of lives saved.
Good article on those fighting back against the ignorant

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/27/facebook-anti-vaxx-harassment-campaigns-doctors-fight-back

TheRepentent

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Note that the denial problem was nowhere near as big before the widespread use of the internet

The stupidity was self contained.

rm75

Orion wrote: »

Imagine a qualified pharmacist having an opinion on pharmaceuticals. Cheek of her. :rolleyes:

Yes no conflict of interest right enough, good lad.
I dont think the pharmaceutical industry here is in any position to lecture people given their ongoing gouging of Irish customers and preference for supplying expensive prescriptions over far cheaper and equally effective generic drugs.

rawn

rm75 wrote: »

Orion wrote: »

Imagine a qualified pharmacist having an opinion on pharmaceuticals. Cheek of her. :rolleyes:

Yes no conflict of interest right enough, good lad.
I dont think the pharmaceutical industry here is in any position to lecture people given their ongoing gouging of Irish customers and preference for supplying expensive prescriptions over far cheaper and equally effective generic drugs.

What? Everytime I collect my prescription in offered cheaper generics, how are they gauging anyone??

rm75

rawn wrote: »

What? Everytime I collect my prescription in offered cheaper generics, how are they gauging anyone??

You clearly haven't compared the cost of medication here with other countries. The troika requested our govt deal with the issue but they were unwilling to take on the pharmaceutical industry.


https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lawyers-win-again-as-troika-admits-defeat-31221017.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/protecting-innovation-in-pharma-is-in-ireland-s-interests-1.3577483

There's no "innovation" in the pharmaceutical industry here of course, but manufacturers benefit from massive tax advantages.

Orion

rm75 wrote: »

Yes no conflict of interest right enough, good lad.
I dont think the pharmaceutical industry here is in any position to lecture people given their ongoing gouging of Irish customers and preference for supplying expensive prescriptions over far cheaper and equally effective generic drugs.

Ah yeah. Forgot she's a big pharma shill. :rolleyes:

rm75

Orion wrote: »

Ah yeah. Forgot she's a big pharma shill. :rolleyes:

She or her family run a chain of pharmacies, one can point out the conflict of interest in her position without being some sort of anti vaccine nutter. If you want to pretend that's not the case it's pointless engaging further really. Roll your eyes all you like.

Dohnjoe

rm75 wrote: »

She or her family run a chain of pharmacies, one can point out the conflict of interest in her position without being some sort of anti vaccine nutter.

What are you claiming here, and what's the evidence?

Or is it just a tenuous link