By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 20:33 - Nov 20 by Harry_Palmer
And what do you say to the parent of the vaccine injured child? 'Oh well never mind, your child took one for the team'.
Pretty much. Same with any adverse reaction to any drug. It's awful, but it's the way things are and they way things have to be.
What will you say to your unvaccinated kid when they get polio or similar?
[Post edited 20 Nov 2018 20:53]
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 20:30 - Nov 20 by caught-in-limbo
I don't respect or trust the pharmaceutical industry as much as you, and I don't underestimate its influence on other aspects of the medical profession, like peer review.
Well, when you come back to us with a system for generating and testing knowledge which surpasses the peer review process I'll be glad to listen to how it works.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 20:47 - Nov 20 by SpruceMoose
Well, when you come back to us with a system for generating and testing knowledge which surpasses the peer review process I'll be glad to listen to how it works.
You make it sound like the peer review process is the same across the board, it isn't. There are plenty of good suggestions made by respected doctors and journal editors for improvements - just a google search away.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 20:41 - Nov 20 by Harry_Palmer
This is the problem with the vaccine discussions, people such as yourself who lump everybody into either a 'pro' or 'anti' group and don't allow for any in between.
It really is not that simple and there are many layers to this debate. Some Medical doctors and nurses are now warning that the schedule is getting too much too soon for a young developing immune system to cope with ( 56 shots before age 2 in the States ), as just one example.
There's not really anything to be discussed. The evidence of centuries of overwhelming in support of vaccination as effective prevention of disease and the spread of disease. There are very, very, very few grey areas. and those grey areas are usually in discussion over the effectiveness of particular vaccines rather than their safety.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2018 21:28]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 20:43 - Nov 20 by SpruceMoose
"You could just as easily say that a child's health is being risked by giving them a vaccine, we are all different and in rare cases some people react adversely to them."
You could say that. But you'd be being daft taking that approach. I looked up the Vaccine Damage Payment stats. From 2007 to 2017 there were 11 awards made. So, 1.1 cases per year. Contrast this with measles infections rates.
In 2016 alone there were 500 cases of measles in England. Additionally, during the first six months of 2018 there were 41,000 measles cases in Europe, killing 37 people.
I think they're safer with the vaccine.
I don't have the info to hand but I have previously seen figures much larger than you quote below for US payments and of course this is potentially the tip of the iceberg with many cases that either go unreported or aren't 100% proven to the point of being awarded a payout.
But this really is besides the point, which is that there has to be informed consent and the risks either way have to be evaluated. So your assertion that anybody that decides they don't want a particular vaccine for their child should be treated as a criminal is frankly absurd.
0
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:30 - Nov 20 with 1263 views
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 20:43 - Nov 20 by SpruceMoose
"You could just as easily say that a child's health is being risked by giving them a vaccine, we are all different and in rare cases some people react adversely to them."
You could say that. But you'd be being daft taking that approach. I looked up the Vaccine Damage Payment stats. From 2007 to 2017 there were 11 awards made. So, 1.1 cases per year. Contrast this with measles infections rates.
In 2016 alone there were 500 cases of measles in England. Additionally, during the first six months of 2018 there were 41,000 measles cases in Europe, killing 37 people.
I think they're safer with the vaccine.
Similarly, you are 24 times for likely to develop ITP( https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/idiopathic-thrombocytopenic-purpu from contracting measles than you are from having a vaccination. Essentially - if you get measles you have a 1 in a 1000 chance of developing a nasty long-term condition as a result, compared to 1 in 24,000 if you have a jab.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:24 - Nov 20 by BlueBadger
There's not really anything to be discussed. The evidence of centuries of overwhelming in support of vaccination as effective prevention of disease and the spread of disease. There are very, very, very few grey areas. and those grey areas are usually in discussion over the effectiveness of particular vaccines rather than their safety.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2018 21:28]
Not true, they are many. I can tell you are somebody that thinks they know a lot about vaccines but actually knows very little. I would suggest perhaps a little research of your own instead of what you are told to believe. This is as good a place as any to start.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:31 - Nov 20 by Harry_Palmer
Not true, they are many. I can tell you are somebody that thinks they know a lot about vaccines but actually knows very little. I would suggest perhaps a little research of your own instead of what you are told to believe. This is as good a place as any to start.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:03 - Nov 20 by caught-in-limbo
You make it sound like the peer review process is the same across the board, it isn't. There are plenty of good suggestions made by respected doctors and journal editors for improvements - just a google search away.
"Go fill your boots" as they say.
'Not perfect and still has grounds for refinement' is a long shout from 'utterly untrustworthy'. There's lots of publishing gaps where studies that haven't given the results that companies want have never seen print. Ben Goldacre is particularly vocal about campaigning for legislation obliging the publication of ALL clinical trials.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:42 - Nov 20 by Darth_Koont
I don't care about your political views but there should be a science test before you vote.
Doesn't have to be complex, just an admission that science is the best available information that trumps our own opinion.
I think nearly everyone values science for what it is. The mistake that many people make is thinking all scientists practise science. Scientists are as corruptible and coercible as most other professions.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:51 - Nov 20 by caught-in-limbo
I think nearly everyone values science for what it is. The mistake that many people make is thinking all scientists practise science. Scientists are as corruptible and coercible as most other professions.
What you DO get with scientists though, is other scientist immediately seeking to test and replicate unusual and unexpected results. The genuine breakthroughs can be replicated, the freak, flawed and plain falsified results can't. Again, Andrew Wakefield is a prime example of corruption in science. He was in the pay of the MMR vaccines' competitor when he was pushing his flawed and fraudulent results.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:55 - Nov 20 by caught-in-limbo
Well if you do, then his views on vaccination don't influence your opinion of his views on topics not related to vaccination.
Personally, I take the view that if he's going to be so stupid as to deny something which has centuries' worth of evidence displaying its benefits then his other views may be similarly based of inaccurate, incorrect or plain falsified evidence.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:43 - Nov 20 by BlueBadger
'Not perfect and still has grounds for refinement' is a long shout from 'utterly untrustworthy'. There's lots of publishing gaps where studies that haven't given the results that companies want have never seen print. Ben Goldacre is particularly vocal about campaigning for legislation obliging the publication of ALL clinical trials.
I certainly agree with Ben Goldacre's AllTrials campaign. Refining legislation to make this obligatory will certainly expose some pharmaceutical company products as 'utterly untrustworthy'.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:58 - Nov 20 by BlueBadger
What you DO get with scientists though, is other scientist immediately seeking to test and replicate unusual and unexpected results. The genuine breakthroughs can be replicated, the freak, flawed and plain falsified results can't. Again, Andrew Wakefield is a prime example of corruption in science. He was in the pay of the MMR vaccines' competitor when he was pushing his flawed and fraudulent results.
But not all genuine breakthroughs get to see the light of day. There are a lot of costs involved in scientific testing which serve as barriers to entry for smaller companies with breakthrough technology.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 21:45 - Nov 20 by BlueBadger
Anything that encourages genuine critical thought is a good move. Whether it be in taught history, English Lit or the sciences.
Indeed. It seems my daughters are taught source criticism as a staple of anything non-scientific so I'm hopeful the next generation won't be as stupid as ours (and the one above) has been.
Possibly why the Mail has been trying to diversify into a reality gossip site with the hard-core hate more of a complementary side dish.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 22:14 - Nov 20 with 1195 views
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 22:00 - Nov 20 by BlueBadger
Personally, I take the view that if he's going to be so stupid as to deny something which has centuries' worth of evidence displaying its benefits then his other views may be similarly based of inaccurate, incorrect or plain falsified evidence.
Then you don't prefer to judge others' individual opinions on their merit, you base your view on the merit of unrelated opinions.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 22:11 - Nov 20 by caught-in-limbo
But not all genuine breakthroughs get to see the light of day. There are a lot of costs involved in scientific testing which serve as barriers to entry for smaller companies with breakthrough technology.
Breakthrough technology is gold dust. There'll be no lack of backers or support as that's the driving force of the economy nowadays.
There's a lot of technology that would like to be breakthrough but that's a different matter entirely.
Pronouns: He/Him
1
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 22:28 - Nov 20 with 1175 views
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 22:18 - Nov 20 by Darth_Koont
Breakthrough technology is gold dust. There'll be no lack of backers or support as that's the driving force of the economy nowadays.
There's a lot of technology that would like to be breakthrough but that's a different matter entirely.
Yes, it is about money.
Breakthrough discoveries that upset the earning potential of products supplied by pharmaceutical giants for example may never get to see the light of day.
I wonder if some of the parents regret not vaccinating their child. on 22:28 - Nov 20 by caught-in-limbo
Yes, it is about money.
Breakthrough discoveries that upset the earning potential of products supplied by pharmaceutical giants for example may never get to see the light of day.
There are a few areas — I think alternative and natural power has been a little slow but mostly because the investment and the changeover for society runs into the millions, billions and possibly trillions.
But ideas that can be proven on a smaller scale generally get tested and developed if there's value. Hell, we'll start wars to meet the demand for growth and new revenue sources.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
