Help support TMP


"That's how you deal with vaccine deniers" Topic


81 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't make fun of others' membernames.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Ætherverse: Upheaval


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

The 4' x 6' Assault Table Top

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian begins to think about terrain for Team Yankee.


Featured Profile Article

First Impressions of the Craft ROBO

I spend my first day with a paper-cutting machine.


2,138 hits since 7 Mar 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP07 Mar 2017 12:07 p.m. PST

I like this, no ifs or buts but unequivocal condemnation

link

link

Nick Bowler07 Mar 2017 1:22 p.m. PST

This is the central policy: link

nazrat07 Mar 2017 2:11 p.m. PST

I wish we had something like that here in the US. The anti-vaxxers are indeed dangerous to our society's long term health.

Who asked this joker07 Mar 2017 2:54 p.m. PST

I heard part of a report on NPR the other day. They were talking about herd immunity of children. Essentially, if enough children are immunized in the community, then those diseases that were eradicated years ago, will never take hold. That means it will be very unlikely that the small amount of non-immunized children will ever get sick. However, if that number falls below 90%, as in less than 90% of the herd are not immunized, then these diseases stand to make a comeback.

So the oddball child not getting immunized is not going to matter. If a significant portion of the population does not get immunized, that is where the trouble begins. Better to keep aiming at the 100% mark and avoid these porblems.

Patrick R07 Mar 2017 3:29 p.m. PST

The real problem is that there are plenty of hucksters who thrive on sustaining any form of doubt and present themselves as a perfectly valid "alternative viewpoint" some in the media are so fond of including on any topic.

Add the very vocal groups that have thrived on social media and it's no wonder that parents with certain concerns are fooled into joining the cult. They are bombarded with highly persuasive arguments, mostly misrepresentations, mistakes or outright fraud and lies.

Some of the major anti vax advocates are making a nice penny from selling vastly overpriced "natural cures" enjoying legal loopholes to avoid oversight from health agencies and when exposed they usually play the "victim of a conspiracy" card.

doug redshirt07 Mar 2017 4:34 p.m. PST

All goes back to people who refuse to believe in science.

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP07 Mar 2017 4:44 p.m. PST

However, if that number falls below 90%, as in less than 90% of the herd are not immunized, then these diseases stand to make a comeback

Like this : link

Winston Smith07 Mar 2017 6:28 p.m. PST

All goes back to people who refuse to believe in science.

Not necessarily.
Their fear is mostly that thimerosal link
is being used as a vaccine preservative.
Big Pharma claims that it has been removed from vaccines. Gee. They've never lied before, have they?
Nor have they lied about toxicity of additives, have they?

It's not a bunch of backwoods hicks who are wary of vaccines. It's Playboy center folds and comedians too!
It's not people who "disbelieve" in science. It's people who know a little too much of possibly inaccurate science. People who get their "science" from Oprah.
Seriously. YOU try to tell Jenny McCarthy that vaccines did not give her son autism. On what basis would you deny it?

I'm not a vaccine denier. But calling those who are deniers fundamentalist hicks and rubes or cultists is inaccurate. They are skeptical of Big Government and Big Pharma (which makes a pretty penny from enforced vaccinations).
Government likes to control. Pharma likes its profits.

Winston Smith07 Mar 2017 6:32 p.m. PST

And don't get me started on "natural cures" and supplements.
Thank, or blame, Senator Orin Hatch for that. He got a LOT of money from "Big Supplements" for exempting them from legislation that medicines must adhere to.
He's President pro tempore of the Senate by the way. Fourth in line of succession. grin

Bowman08 Mar 2017 4:36 a.m. PST

YOU try to tell Jenny McCarthy that vaccines did not give her son autism. On what basis would you deny it?

Science.

They are skeptical of Big Government and Big Pharma (which makes a pretty penny from enforced vaccinations)

What's a "pretty penny"? 1.8% of expected revenues? There are bigger profit margins in almost everything else, including "natural" supplements.

link

It's a loss leader for physicians to give vaccinations due to time and labour.

link

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2017 6:33 a.m. PST

Rarely will I comment on such as this, but….

Vaccines in and of themselves are beneficial.

BUT, the trend started years ago for 'cocktail'
vaccinations in children 3 years and under MAY be
the culprit in the allegedly rising autism rate
('allegedly' since CDC's numbers over time seem
to conflict).

There's absolutely no reason for the 'cocktail'
approach other than saving OV time, which could also
be accomplished by using the thousands of retired
nursing folks to administer those as individual
inoculations.

Patrick R08 Mar 2017 6:50 a.m. PST

Here is my question, how do you explain "big" private health insurance away ? You know, the bean counters who relish in denying you so much as a band aid and compile ginormous amounts of patient data to calculate every possible risk imaginable and maximize revenue and cut down on every cost.

Wouldn't they be the first to take a sledgehammer to the kneecaps of the people who came up with a conspiracy to poison people through vaccines ?

And nobody world-wide has done any independent research with vaccines, not a single health agency on the planet ever raised any doubts, somehow all this information about the evils of Big Pharma being posted on social media only remain the domain of concerned mommies and people who think that there is such a thing as a "safe natural" molecule of formaldehyde as opposed to an evil man-made molecule of formaldehyde which can be found in vaccines.

Oh wait we did have a brave whistleblower, a knight in shining armour who discovered the evils of vaccines and was ruthlessly attacked by Big Pharma. The concerned mommies all rallied to his cause, anyone scientifically literate could smell a scam from a mile away. We have documented evidence (his own papers and verified communication with certain parties) that he was trying to influence people into ending the use of the more cost effective MMR vaccine in favour of the more expensive single shot Measles vaccine. He tried to be big pharma, make a fast buck overcharging a bad product, he tried to lie and influence people and he was found out !

Funny enough we find that certain activist organizations actively discourage people from using the Thimerosal argument because it's been so thoroughly debunked, it would only cause people to laugh rather than be sympathetic to the great crusade against Big Pharma.

And the funniest part is that they funded actual research to find a link between vaccines and autism and even the researchers they hired who may have been sympathetic to the cause reviewed the facts and could only conclude there was no link to be found.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2017 7:04 a.m. PST

BUT, the trend started years ago for 'cocktail'
vaccinations in children 3 years and under MAY be
the culprit in the allegedly rising autism rate
('allegedly' since CDC's numbers over time seem
to conflict).

Not allegedly, but false.

There is not a shred of evidence that "cocktail" vaccinations have any negative effect.


Not necessarily.
Their fear is mostly that thimerosal link
is being used as a vaccine preservative.
Big Pharma claims that it has been removed from vaccines. Gee. They've never lied before, have they?
Nor have they lied about toxicity of additives, have they?

You get much much more cyanide in you by eating an apple then mercury from any vaccine. So stay away from the fresh produce aisle! It's the dose that makes the poison. I'm sure "layboy center folds " use botox in her face, the most acutely toxic substance known to man. Lethal dose in the nanograms.

You can take hundreds of vaccines a year with thimerosal and not get any closer to getting a toxic effect from it.

Thimerosal is still used in developing worlds as it's still a very good preservative. Also some in the west still get thimerosal-preserved vaccines as some are allergic to the newer preservatives.

Winston Smith08 Mar 2017 7:32 a.m. PST

YOU try to tell Jenny McCarthy that vaccines did not give her son autism. On what basis would you deny it?

Science.

"There there, little lady. Don't you fret your silly head over this. I'm a scientist and I know more about these things than you do. Where did you get your degree? Well, I got me a PhD!"

Yup. That should work.

Patrick R08 Mar 2017 7:39 a.m. PST

To paraphrase the Joker "Mention somebody is a cretin, nobody bats an eye, mention they are autistic and everybody freaks out."

Autism is the aids of our age. It's the new plague, leprosy and smallpox rolled into one, only much worse. So bad that parents watch their newborn infants drown in the fluid produced in the lungs by an infection that could have been stopped by a simple vaccine, but console themselves by saying "At least it wasn't autism."

That's how many people see it. It's nothing more than a label used to describe a certain portion of the human population which falls within the range of normal average human variety.

Just because something acquires a name and a definition doesn't mean it's something new. Many of the people who register as autistic were described in other terms anything from old school "cretinism and lunacy" to shy, quiet, fussy obsessive or even rebellious or unteachable.

Biology is a complex thing, with many variables, so a definition of something like autism is not water tight, Autism is mostly genetic, but it comes in different doses, some people are strongly affected, others have the markers in their DNA but would never be diagnosed as such. It's not some weird new condition, it's been part of humanity as long was have existed.

Mostly due to the negative and one-sided portrayal of autism in the media most people get crazy when their kids are diagnosed, whereas the odds are that in most cases they will live perfectly normal lives.

Another problem is that now we have a label and a definition doctors can make a diagnosis and as the definition is changed as the understanding of the disease improves more people are diagnosed. It's not an epidemic, it's better diagnosis, and when more people are diagnosed it's simply a sign that autism is more common and well within the human range than many seem to fear.

Patrick R08 Mar 2017 7:54 a.m. PST

What if Jesus, Buddha, Zeus, Crom and Mickey Mouse descended from the heavens and beamed the undeniable, absolute, incontrovertible universal truth directly into McCarthy's brain, what's to stop her from deciding to think something else ? She could stand there and say it's a lie and start to believe her own version in such an extreme sincere way she starts to shake violently, her muscles tighten up to straining point, her teeth clench so hard they start to shatter, she believes so sincerely that she breaks her own bones under the strain …

Means nothing folks, facts are facts, you either accept them or live in denial. There is nothing that prevents you from being willfully obtuse and obstructive. And only two things can happen, either they never interfere with your life or it takes you to a bad ending, the rest of your life in pain and agony or simply an early grave.

She'll keep on believing that vaccines are evil, autism can be cured, botox is harmless and that a nicotine addiction is just fun, cancer only happens to evil, ugly common people not a super-intelligent anti-establishment rebel awesome autism curing mom like her.

Ed's assumption is that a cocktail of vaccines is bad, I don't think he's actually done any real research on the subject (actual medical research, not Google university) but as we all do when dealing with a subject we know nothing about is use or own beliefs and assumptions to draw a conclusion. "Too much of anything is a bad thing." sounds pretty solid.

I used to assume a lot of things until they were challenged by more reliable information than what I had before. But some people go out of their way to set their minds and spend the rest of their lives trying to avoid having to change one single idea.

The problem is that some people know they can profit from lies and untruths, Wakefield was exposed as a fraud and as any good fraud he simply looked for a bunch of other marks to mooch off. He crowned himself the martyr of the vaccine truth movement and is now adored by millions of concerned mommies telling them not to vaccinate their kids.

McCarthy was so shocked that her perfect kid, in her perfect life could be autistic that she decided that he could be "cured" and that vaccines were the cause because she would rather thrust her pretty face headfirst in a woodchipper than accept that her gorgeous perfect genes might cause her kid to be autistic.

Terrement08 Mar 2017 9:17 a.m. PST

However, if that number falls below 90%, as in less than 90% of the herd are not immunized, then these diseases stand to make a comeback.

What is the percentage in the untraceable immigrant flood that have come in? We shooting them up before turning them loose to disappear?

Patrick R08 Mar 2017 9:55 a.m. PST

Given that many countries follow Unicef and WHO programs and have introduced wide-scale immunization, the odds are that many are probably fully immunized to begin with.

I know it's shocking but there are far more democracies in the world than dictatorships, the vast majority of people no longer live in extreme poverty, mass starvation is now the exception rather than the norm and we have spare capacity to feed a few billion more through proper use of the land that is currently under-used, a majority of people have access to electricity, the average number of children in most countries has dropped from half a dozen or more to 2.5 in countries like Bangladesh and last time I checked the city of Bamako had over 400 cell phone stores. Many third world nations have better immunization programs than the US, which has been the butt of the joke that it needs "intervention" to bring health care up to spec.

Many of these changes have happened in the last decade or two, sadly most people still believe that the world remains like it was in 1900 at best, where 95%+ of the world population lived in extreme poverty, families had upwards of 8-9 children of which only a few survived into adulthood, disease and hunger were endemic to many areas and most places had no access to clean water let alone electricity or anything resembling modern tools and machinery.

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2017 10:52 a.m. PST

Patrick R/Gunfreak – right, guys. I AM NOT in any way
a research scientist – but my wife worked for YEARS
in a peds research facility at a world-renowned research
and treatment hospital. She trained in school as a
research nurse.

She left because, according to her, the research results
which gave the 'wrong message,' medically speaking,
went unpublished.

Our grandchildren have all been vaccinated – she insisted
on that, of course, but she also went and found a
peds office which would do the inoculations as singles
and gladly paid the difference.

That's all I know, except she'll talk your ears off about
the 'quality' of 'research' funded by certain sources.

KTravlos08 Mar 2017 1:00 p.m. PST

I have no problem with people making such choices. But the magnitude of the threat presented to the rest of us is too high. They must be given their own country where they can live as they wish to live, but borders should separate them from us. It is the simple and humane solution. To each their own.

Personal logo Jlundberg Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2017 3:56 p.m. PST

Side note- a possible link to vitamin D deficiency and autism link

Patrick R08 Mar 2017 5:24 p.m. PST

Ah Mercola, if you look up fraud, you're likely to find his mugshot. A textbook example of a huckster who does everything to discredit current medicine and fortuitously just happens to sell a natural healthy alternative. (At premium prices and with massive markups) funny how he rants against big pharma and their money but lives in a mansion even highly paid doctors would struggle to afford. Notice how every medically induced "problem" he "discovers" can easily be resolved by buying his products. He's clearly a visionary genius, why doesn't he have a Nobel Prize yet ? Conspiracy, Gallileo, evil pharma, yadda, yadda …

Bowman08 Mar 2017 6:05 p.m. PST

"There there, little lady. Don't you fret your silly head over this. I'm a scientist and I know more about these things than you do. Where did you get your degree? Well, I got me a PhD!"
Yup. That should work.

While you do condescension very well, that's not how I'd answer this. You asked,

"YOU try to tell Jenny McCarthy that vaccines did not give her son autism. On what basis would you deny it?"

I would deny it by stating that vaccines didn't give her son autism as there is absolutely no evidence at all of any connection between the two. Science would be the basis for this, the same way it is the basis that the Sun doesn't fly around the Earth. How else would we do this, besides presenting the evidence as best as one could?

It's not science's fault if she ignores the evidence and clings to a anti-vaxx cult. Before the vaccine nonsense, her kid was an Indigo Child, or a Crystalline Child or a Rainbow child, etc.

Oh and Mercola is a thoroughly exposed quack.

Bowman08 Mar 2017 6:16 p.m. PST

Our grandchildren have all been vaccinated – she insisted
on that, of course, but she also went and found a
peds office which would do the inoculations as singles
and gladly paid the difference.

Ed, I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the MMR vaccine is any more harmful, or less effective than giving the Mumps, Measles and Rubella vaccines separately.

Also, there is no such thing as "overwhelming the immune system" by exposing it to more antigens. That is a myth. Ask your wife how many millions of antigens were your grandchildren exposed to before they got their vaccines?

Terrement08 Mar 2017 6:48 p.m. PST

Given that many countries follow Unicef and WHO programs and have introduced wide-scale immunization, the odds are that many are probably fully immunized to begin with.

Which doesn't explain why diseases we had eradicated is now showing up in communities where the recent immigrants have populated.

Measles

"In 2014, the United States experienced a record number of measles cases, with 667 cases from 27 states reported to CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD); this is the greatest number of cases since measles elimination was documented in the U.S. in 2000," the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports. (emphasis added)

It's not been much better since then. "From January 2 to May 21, 2016, 19 people from 9 states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Texas) were reported to have measles. In 2015, 189 people from 24 states and the District of Columbia were reported to have measles," the CDC adds.

"The majority of people who got measles were unvaccinated," the CDC notes, adding that "[m]easles is still common in many parts of the world including some countries in Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa."

In 2015, a woman in Washington State died of measles, the first death from measles in the United States since 2003.

Refugees are not required to have vaccines, including the critical MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella: "Refugees, unlike most immigrant populations, are not required to have any vaccinations [including the critical MMR vaccine] before arrival in the United States," the CDC reports.


link

The returning diseases are;

1. Tuberculosis
2. Measles
3. Whooping Cough
4. Mumps
5. Scarlet Fever
6. Bubonic Plague

Terrement08 Mar 2017 6:50 p.m. PST

And of course, if science says it is good, then it is good

link

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP08 Mar 2017 6:58 p.m. PST

Bowman, you did read the part about my wife working
in a peds research/treatment hospital? And quitting
because of the 'wrong' results not being published ?

Now one more time – she is NOT ANTI VACCINE. ALL of
our grandkids have been vaccinated, but with SEPARATE
SHOTS.

You'd have to ask her why she's adamant about it and
maybe for similar reasons why I think Congress is just
a bunch of failed lawyers and scoundrels (I worked
for a very short while in wiretap surveillance).

Mithmee08 Mar 2017 11:38 p.m. PST

To give a proper answer to this would mean that it would need to move over to the Blus Fez.

Prime minister says parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated are creating health risk

That is nothing but Bleeped text and shows that the government only cares about controlling others and forcing individuals to do what the government wants.

There are reasons why the diseases that Terrement has listed above are coming back but to state them would mean doing it over on the Blue Fez.

The government states by not getting the shots your child is a health risk.

Well just how can they be a health risk?

If they don't have the disease they most surely will not be able to inflect others plus and the chances of them actually getting one of these diseases is very slim.

Plus just because you got the vaccine does not mean that you will never get the disease.

link

link

Because you still can.

Mithmee08 Mar 2017 11:51 p.m. PST

I have no problem with people making such choices. But the magnitude of the threat presented to the rest of us is too high.

What threat?

If 80%-90% of the children have gotten their shots just were is the threat?

Take the 1918 Influenza – Spanish Flu, Pandemic

No vaccine at all and you could have been a very healthy 24 year male in the morning and be dead by night fall.

link

Diseases will either kill you or make you stronger and we have been forcing more and more vaccines onto everyone and all we have been creating are super bugs because the one thing about diseases is that like humans they adapt/change.

Oh and the 1918-1920 Spanish Flu had it beginnings in World War I trenches. Then the war ended and everyone went back home.

Cacique Caribe09 Mar 2017 12:16 a.m. PST

@terrement: "And of course, if science says it is good, then it is good"

If you dare question their current consensus you'll be told you are anti-science or even a "science hater".

Dan

Patrick R09 Mar 2017 3:34 a.m. PST

1) Thaliomide, until Thaliomide, procedures for testing new drugs pretty much were up to the producer with certain minimal requirements (make sure people simply don't drop dead if they take a pill.) Testing is very expensive and even if you test a drug on a certain test group of x-number of subjects you probably will miss certain side effects. Increase the sample size you say ? Sure, this is still no guarantee you catch all effects. If you try with 10K test subjects you might miss the one in 250k side effect, even if you double it to 20K you might still miss the blip in the data. Not to mention the fact that some drugs test fine, but go wrong when mixed with something else, the obvious one is alcohol, but some drugs have been found to react badly when exposed to too much sunlight or certain aerosol chemicals. At some point the effort isn't worth the result if you have a painkiller that is tested against every possible interference, but costs more than the average house for a single pill. As said Thaliomide was developed and sold in an age where testing was not up to spec and anyone (distillers in this case) could license a drug and sell it, no prior experience required … We have improved things since. You may claim "the system failed" yes it did, and changes were made and testing improves all the time. One may claim the system is still a failure, but then one would be disingenuous for arbitrarily refusing to recognize the changes and that even with most sensible precautions, nothing is 100% safe.

2) The threat of non-vaccination is major. We no longer have a collective memory of the ravages of diseases. It wasn't a case of catching smallpox and emerging better for it, infectious diseases most often killed or crippled people. People may survive a disease but in most cases they paid the price, disfigurement, blindness, lameness, deafness, mental damage were all rife. Polio is a textbook example of an infectious disease that did very nasty things. Mortality rate was high as it destroyed muscles, including the hearts and lungs. Doctors couldn't stop the disease but they were able to give some improved care that allowed more people to survive like the iron lung. The good thing about most infectious diseases is that once you catch them, you are immune as your body can learn to recognize the virus and defuse it with antibodies. The problem is that it takes valuable time for us to build up an immunity and in that gap a virus can do irreparable damage. Vaccines spare you the risk of damage by exposing you to a less virulent strain and helps you acquire immunity without all the side effects like for instance death ..

Now for vaccines to be effective you need to get maximum coverage because some people can't benefit from vaccines, such as very young children, the immunocompromised and those suffering from various conditions that prevent them from taking vaccines. Also, not all vaccines are created equal, some work 99%, others are less effective or only last a certain while. So even if you are vaccinated you might still be at risk. If enough people are immunized then herd immunity helps to reduce the risk of infection to a bare minimum. If enough people forego vaccination, then risks increase.

The flu is a special case because it mutates very quickly and varies according to the strain. So predicting the dangers of flu is often a crapshoot, if one strain is expected, but another starts to spread rapidly vaccines may not protect people and if it is a particularly virulent strain, then many may get sick and die.

Something like measles is now believed to be a harmless childhood disease, but there were reasons why those infected used to be put in quarantine and warnings were posted on the front door. You can still see it some old cartoons, it may seem funny, but measles can cause seizures, permanent deafness, brain damage, coma or even death …

As for superbugs (mostly bacteria) they are not caused by vaccines, but caused by the improper use of antibiotics. Antibiotics kill most bacteria in most cases, but if you take an insufficient dose (as many are wont to do as soon as they feel better) chances are the bacteria survive and acquire immunity, do this enough and resistant strains will start to appear and dominate. Viruses can be dealt with vaccines, the war with bacteria is an ongoing one, people are now rushing to find new antibiotics or look into things like bacteriophages, viruses that attack specific bacteria against which they can't devolop immunity because if they do develop resistance the virus will also adapt.

Patrick R09 Mar 2017 4:01 a.m. PST

As for MMR jabs and multi-dose vaccines. We are exposed to pathogens every single day. Every day your body is a war with infection, to keep it on this page's topic, every single day your immune system undergoes dozens possibly even hundreds of D-Day invasions and is able to fend off the majority of them.

When you do catch a cold it's not because you are exposed only once every few weeks or months and it automatically infects you, no, your body probably successfully took out hundreds of colds, but one did get through.

Fortunately not all disease are equally infectious. Some can only infect a person if they are overwhelmed by it over a long period as for instance Leprosy, which is a terrible disease until you realize that the infection rate is among the lowest known. You really need to be in permanently exposed for long periods and then only if your own immunity is weakened at some point does leprosy have a chance of affecting you as it eventually did to Father Damian on Hawaii, but specialist have concluded that he would have avoided the disease if he had taken better precautions, leading some to believe he may have developed a martyr complex and allowed himself to be infected.

If a normal healthy person can fight off several infections on a daily basis, how would three or so reduced strains cause any problems, barring specific medical conditions ?

And that's what the anti vaxxers have been touting for years, abusing truisms and common beliefs such as

"diseases only make you stronger."

No, you get sick, and you may suffer serious consequences or even die. The only benefit is that you acquire immunity, but the risk is huge, it can destroy your health permanently.

"Natural is always better than man-made."

Cobra bites are 100% natural, so is Anthrax or nightshade.

"Chemicals are evil"

Everything is chemicals, everything in nature is made of atoms and molecules, there is no such thing as a natural molecule or an artificial one, both are identical.

"Every remedy can be found in nature."

Nope, nature is incredibly diverse to the point that it produces certain beneficial chemical compounds, but on the balance it does more harm than good. The whole notion that nature is an active beneficial force is fanciful anthropomorphic projection, nothing more. In fact some natural remedies have so many side effects that the drug derived from it is safer by several magnitudes. A painkiller with little or no side effects can be better than chewing on a plant that will most certainly reduce the pain but also give you explosive diarrhea and make you throw up the soles of your feet …

KTravlos09 Mar 2017 5:08 a.m. PST

there is no point talking to them. Borders are the only thing that can resolve these differences. We must at some point give up living in a common community with such people. They can have their own country, and we ours.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP09 Mar 2017 6:14 a.m. PST

Mithmee has disqualified himself from this discussion like all discussions he "joins"

Winston Smith09 Mar 2017 6:35 a.m. PST

This was entirely predictable.
Some are totally in favor of "the government knows best."
If you question 1% of the data and conclusions, you are "anti-science" and disqualified from discussion.

And this on a site allegedly dedicated to playing games with Miniatures.
This discussion is not even remotely relevant to miniature wargaming.

Hafen von Schlockenberg09 Mar 2017 7:55 a.m. PST

Well,again, this is the Science board,on TMP Plus.

Which I'm told people asked for.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP09 Mar 2017 8:42 a.m. PST

If you question 1% of the data and conclusions, you are "anti-science" and disqualified from discussion.

Mithmee didn't question 1% of the data, he went paranoid militia hiding in the woods. And made insane assertions without any proof

Mithmee09 Mar 2017 9:14 a.m. PST

Mithmee has disqualified himself from this discussion like all discussions he "joins"

Mithmee didn't question 1% of the data, he went paranoid militia hiding in the woods. And made insane assertions without any proof

Did I?

Where is the threat if ten children out of 10000 do not get the vaccine?

First in order to get a disease you need to be exposed to it.

Because if you never are exposed to it you can never get it in the first place.

What the Government is doing is using "SHOCK" tactics and than extortion or deny benefits.

Plus you can still get your child all of the vaccines out there and they can still get the diseases that they just got the shots for.

Sure the vaccines help but when governments start to use Mafia like tactics they start to become evil.

So I would still like to know just where is the threat because in reality there really is no threat.

Terrement09 Mar 2017 9:18 a.m. PST

You may claim "the system failed" yes it did, and changes were made and testing improves all the time

How many years and how many examples in real life use did it take?

KTravlos09 Mar 2017 9:45 a.m. PST

why is this discussion going on? There is no middle point. What one side things right and proper the other things evil and tyrranical. People such as these cannot share soceity let along a goverment. Let us seprate. Borders between us.

Patrick R09 Mar 2017 11:04 a.m. PST

Where is the threat if ten children out of 10000 do not get the vaccine?

The threat of ten is low, not inexistant, but increase it to a few dozen in an area where there is a lot of interaction between people like towns and cities the odds go up that the unvaccinated will catch the disease and could spread it to the immunocompromised or these that can't get a vaccine at that time. As said before

First in order to get a disease you need to be exposed to it.

Some diseases are endemic in the population like Measles, many people are immune to measles or have been vaccinated and can't get sick. But children have yet to acquire immunity, which is why measles is considered a "childhood disease" as they have not yet been exposed to it. Measles is not the absolute worst of illnesses but it can lead to very serious complications, including bronchitis, pneumonia or in certain cases encephalitis, seizures, heart complications etc.

We know from the historical record that measles introduced in populations that lacked the immunity were nearly wiped out by the disease.

Because if you never are exposed to it you can never get it in the first place.

No, populations acquire immunity over time, outbreaks happen when too few people have been exposed to keep herd immunity intact. Measles and many other diseases were quite recurrent in Europe for centuries going in cycles.

Plus you can still get your child all of the vaccines out there and they can still get the diseases that they just got the shots for.

Yes, but that's only a minority and if you do have concerns you can do tests to establish if a vaccine is effective as there might alternative vaccines that could help. If not those people will have to take certain precautions, like staying away from people who refuse to vaccinate.

Sure the vaccines help but when governments start to use Mafia like tactics they start to become evil.

As opposed to having children's graveyards, polio wards with rows of people in iron lungs, a flourishing industry for braces to aid in walking, tuberculosis hospitals and the need to segregate those with leprosy from the rest of society.

Those things are long out of living memory, so much so that we can handwave diseases away as nothing more than a nuisance and the highly successful methods used to make sure these diseases were nothing but a memory can now be seen as evil … And because you can always explain the craziest beliefs with some all-encompassing conspiracy …

So I would still like to know just where is the threat because in reality there really is no threat.

You're incredibly lucky to live in a world where those completely useless scientists who are only out to get you came up with such effective methods of halting the spread of disease that we no longer fear them, we no longer share the common knowledge of a high percentage of your children and the people you know die of some infectious disease going round, not once, not twice but many times in any lifetime.

If plagues and diseases have allies it's people who think they have the world figured out and are lucky to live in relative isolation of the consequences of their beliefs.

Sadly there are anti-vaxxers and disease deniers who have to deal with reality, some decide to delude themselves further and invoke conspiracy upon conspiracy, others will admit they were simply wrong and that a simple vaccine might have saved a loved one …

Bowman09 Mar 2017 11:33 a.m. PST

Bowman, you did read the part about my wife working
in a peds research/treatment hospital? And quitting
because of the 'wrong' results not being published ?

Yes I did, Ed, but since you didn't mention the research hospital, or what research they did, or what the "wrong" results were and what findings were actually suppressed there is no way I can comment on this.

I do know that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of research institutes and university hospitals doing research on the MMR vaccines and there is no evidence anywhere that supports that there is any harm or lack of efficacy in doing the MMR vaccine in one single shot. The are also "meta-studies" which look at the accumulation of research and determine the trends in the findings. Surely, if there was malfeasance at your wife's hospital, this would have come out at the other research facilities.

The MMR is from attenuated virus shells and the reaction is to antigens of the outside core. How many antigens are we talking about? Let's assume 100 different antigens per virus. So you are reacting to 300 antigens in total. A normal kid will come in contact with millions of different antigens from all sources per day. How is a vaccine going to "overwhelm" anything.

And finally, I have taken immunology courses. There is no such thing as "overwhelming" the immune system. It is a myth.

link

link

link

link

Bowman09 Mar 2017 11:52 a.m. PST

@terrement: "And of course, if science says it is good, then it is good"

If you dare question their current consensus you'll be told you are anti-science or even a "science hater".

"Science hater"? Who said that? Straw man argument……again.

The first part of JJ's comment about immigrants not being required to be immunized to be allowed into the country actually is a good argument for mandatory immunization.

The second part (the portion you quote) involves a bit of hand waving on your part. "Science" never said thalidomide was good. Where do you and JJ get that from? Thalidomide was an effective anticonvulsant and anti-nausea medication. Within a few years, scientists noticed side affects that took a long time to develop, and that were traceable to the use of thalidomide. It was then removed from the markets starting in 1962. The entire episode was 2 years from introduction to removal. What would have happened if scientists were not studying the effects and acted promptly?

Because of the thalidomide problem, mass use medications like vaccines are studied extensively. That's how we know there is no link to autism or threats in "overwhelming" the immune system.

Mithmee09 Mar 2017 2:23 p.m. PST

As opposed to having children's graveyards, polio wards with rows of people in iron lungs, a flourishing industry for braces to aid in walking, tuberculosis hospitals and the need to segregate those with leprosy from the rest of society.

Those things are long out of living memory

Only to those who don't know their history.

Which for the majority of the population is around 80% – 90%.

Thing is we are letting in individuals from other areas of the world and guess what…

They are bring these diseases back.

But the thing is…

We have gotten better at fighting them.

But no matter what who do…

You are still going to end up dead, because that is the end result from the moment you are born.

But no one here has let stated a good reason why a child who does not have all of their vaccines is a threat.

Skeptic09 Mar 2017 3:00 p.m. PST

The Wakefield fraud:

link

Patrick R09 Mar 2017 4:14 p.m. PST

One good example, a person who is being treated for Leukemia, gets a get well card from an unvaccinated kid, who started to cough that same day. Kid has the measles, but is lucky to have no lasting complications. The patient gets the measles through the card but without a working immune system they get pneumonia and die.

And the risk goes up as more concerned mommies figure that snowflake should not catch autism from vaccines, They can spread diseases to the other unvaccinated kids who have playdates together or to those who haveno immunity for the reasons mentioned above.

Patrick R09 Mar 2017 4:22 p.m. PST

Perhaps the scope of the Wakefield fraud wiil be clear if illustrated link

Bowman09 Mar 2017 6:44 p.m. PST

But no one here has let stated a good reason why a child who does not have all of their vaccines is a threat.

You can't figure this out yourself? An unimmunized person can harbour the disease and get themselves sick and infect other non-immunized people. Many like the elderly, the very young, the immunocompromised, those on chemotherapy, and the very sick cannot or should not be immunized and are at risk.

How much of a risk depends on a lot of factors like vaccine coverage, vaccine efficacy, the disease reproduction number, etc. From that you can calculate the % of those that need to be immunized to protect the community from that specific disease. Its different for each disease.

link

Mithmee09 Mar 2017 6:59 p.m. PST

You do know that the total number of measles cases since 2010 is under 1500. Oh and I would bet that most of these were individuals who were visting the states.

So the anyone actually catching the measles is really small.

link

So nice try with your attempt about a child getting measles from a card.

Since it really does not have a long time span of life, less than two hours.

link

There is what the "Government" says and than there are the "Real Facts".

Patrick R10 Mar 2017 3:20 a.m. PST

"ooh ! I spotted a tiny mistake ! Your argument is invalid !"

You're joking right ?

Of course a single kid is by any objective standards a minor hazard, just like a rickety ladder or a damaged manhole is a negligible threat if you put it against say, the entire population of the North American continent.

But in putting in a loaded question, you conveniently skip the part where should the anti-vax movement gain more traction, possibly even get politics involved and make them revoke mandatory vaccinations, the risk will increase, the main victims will be found among the unvaccinated and those who have no protection against certain diseases. Outbreaks of diseases will get worse and people will die needlessly because some people feel that their personal freedom trumps any form of common responsibility towards making the society we live in better and safer for everyone inside it.

Pages: 1 2