# Immunisation, right or wrong?



## sptrawler (24 May 2013)

It seems to have become topical again, do you immunise your children, or not.
I had all our children immunised and all our children have taken it on board and immunised the grandchildren.

In todays world, where travel to countries that still have issues with deseases like polio, is common place.
I wonder, how many young adults are exposing themselves to deseases, that they are not immune to?
The really weird thing is, they might not even know they could become infected.


----------



## johenmo (26 May 2013)

Yes.  Immunisation has eradicated smallpox and greatly reduced the incidence of many formerly debilitating or lethal diseases/conditions.  Think polio, diptheria, whooping cough,Measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, TB, meningococcal disease and now Hep B.T here is a risk with (some) vaccines, esp. if it is a live vaccine.

Our kids were immunised.  Unless there is a medical reason (e.g. condition) that would render the person high risk then it should be compulsory. Anything else is negligence in this era of quick international travel.


----------



## sptrawler (26 May 2013)

johenmo said:


> Yes.  Immunisation has eradicated smallpox and greatly reduced the incidence of many formerly debilitating or lethal diseases/conditions.  Think polio, diptheria, whooping cough,Measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, TB, meningococcal disease and now Hep B.T here is a risk with (some) vaccines, esp. if it is a live vaccine.
> 
> Our kids were immunised.  Unless there is a medical reason (e.g. condition) that would render the person high risk then it should be compulsory. Anything else is negligence in this era of quick international travel.




I agree with you, I jut can't understand the basis for not immunising. They say 1 in 10,000 have a bad reaction, but they fail to say the probabilty of getting the desease without immunisation.
As per usual, getting balanced information is near on impossible.


----------



## Some Dude (26 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> As per usual, getting balanced information is near on impossible.




What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?


----------



## sails (26 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?




That sounds like one of those boring schoolteacher questions they set out for assignments.

Anyway, why do you need to have it spelled out?  I had no problem understanding what Sptrawler meant.


----------



## sptrawler (26 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?




I suppose balanced information, would be not only telling parents the chances of a bad reaction. 
But also telling parents the risk to their children, if later in life they visit countries that deseases are still widespread.
What would you think is balanced information?


----------



## Some Dude (26 May 2013)

sails said:


> That sounds like one of those boring schoolteacher questions they set out for assignments.
> 
> Anyway, why do you need to have it spelled out?  I had no problem understanding what Sptrawler meant.




And that sounds like one of those "I can't be bothered putting any thought into it, can't you simply just agree with us and then we will let you hang out with the cool kids" type answers.


----------



## Some Dude (26 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I suppose balanced information, would be not only telling parents the chances of a bad reaction.
> But also telling parents the risk to their children, if later in life they visit countries that deseases are still widespread.
> What would you think is balanced information?




I am not sure. Vaccination seems to be such an overwhelmingly positive thing that it made me wonder how one would be able to categorise information against it as balanced. I remember when my wife was getting pain relief for having one of our kids and the doctor was saying "blah blah blah 1 in 200 chance of something going wrong" (Warning: made that stat up) and I pondered the odds for a moment and wondered how many people said "Ahh no thanks" while their wife was screaming away in pain.

But your right in the sense that at least being given the actual statistical odds would be helpful but I also think that people would simply contest those numbers, leading to the question being shuffled down the information chain.

Still pondering, will add more once I have thought about it some more.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?



I'd say it's information which states the benefits and risks of immunising whilst also stating the benefits and risks of not immunising.

All too often we see an argument against some practice pointing to risks but without mentioning what other risks are created by not doing it.

So far as I'm aware, there is a risk associated with immunisation but that is lower than the risks associated with not being immunised. Only presenting one side of the story would distort decision making.


----------



## Some Dude (26 May 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd say it's information which states the benefits and risks of immunising whilst also stating the benefits and risks of not immunising.
> 
> All too often we see an argument against some practice pointing to risks but without mentioning what other risks are created by not doing it.
> 
> So far as I'm aware, there is a risk associated with immunisation but that is lower than the risks associated with not being immunised. Only presenting one side of the story would distort decision making.




Do you think there are things, statistical levels, etc. whereby it no longer becomes something that would, should, (something) be considered as balanced if it was being labelled as such? I'm thinking about if the principle was applied to everything, not just vaccinations. i.e. eveything you open a plastic bottle, drive a car, drink tap water, etc.

While I understand it is beneficial to know some of that information, having it spelled out like that can often ignite a fear or irrational reaction that wasn't there before. I'm not saying that is an argument for not doing it, just pondering the general principle involved and thresh-holds that we apply for other things.


----------



## sptrawler (26 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Do you think there are things, statistical levels, etc. whereby it no longer becomes something that would, should, (something) be considered as balanced if it was being labelled as such? I'm thinking about if the principle was applied to everything, not just vaccinations. i.e. eveything you open a plastic bottle, drive a car, drink tap water, etc.
> 
> While I understand it is beneficial to know some of that information, having it spelled out like that can often ignite a fear or irrational reaction that wasn't there before. I'm not saying that is an argument for not doing it, just pondering the general principle involved and thresh-holds that we apply for other things.




I suppose a young person who comes back from a backpacking holiday around the world, then finds out he/she has contracted one of the nasty diseases, will ask the question.
I suppose the parent defering the decission is leaving the child with the consequences, not intentionally but unintentionally.


----------



## Some Dude (26 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I suppose a young person who comes back from a backpacking holiday around the world, then finds out he/she has contracted one of the nasty diseases, will ask the question.




It would be interesting if people travelling also got the statistical information indicating how many people who went overseas contracted something.

I heard (completely disconnected story source so no idea about whether it happened) about some parents who decided not to get their children immunised because they believed in herd immunity and developing immunity naturally from the community. They then went over to India and the children contracted Polio.

In those types of cases I can see what you mean. All of the pertinent odds would make for a better choice instead of simply ignoring what people don't usually think about.


----------



## sptrawler (26 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> It would be interesting if people travelling also got the statistical information indicating how many people who went overseas contracted something.
> 
> I heard (completely disconnected story source so no idea about whether it happened) about some parents who decided not to get their children immunised because they believed in herd immunity and developing immunity naturally from the community. They then went over to India and the children contracted Polio.
> 
> In those types of cases I can see what you mean. All of the pertinent odds would make for a better choice instead of simply ignoring what people don't usually think about.




They say polio is making a comeback.
http://globalbiodefense.com/2012/05/23/who-to-declare-polio-resurgence-a-global-health-emergency/

Hope the parents concerned about vacine reaction, can cope with the real deal.

What worries me more, is young people who take it for granted they are immunised and travel thinking they are immune. Unless of course the parents fully informed them, which one would think they would.


----------



## johenmo (27 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> They say polio is making a comeback.
> 
> What worries me more, is young people who take it for granted they are immunised and travel thinking they are immune. Unless of course the parents fully informed them, which one would think they would.




SBS last night.  Measles making a comeback in UK (Liverpool was mentioned).  600 cases in one year - 12 deaths in that year (about 10 years ago?).  Showed a young adult in hospital with breathing difficulties.  So it's not just overseas travel.  Death rate dropped from 30% to 2% with smallpox in one example.

I am for immunity because of the terrible deaths and death rates that result from diseases. But I wonder about this & development of allergies/asthma etc especially when the vaccination has viruses from non-human sources (e.g. monkeys). I wonder of there is a statistically significant link?


----------



## bellenuit (27 May 2013)

*This is how far the anti-vaccination movement will go.*

http://www.mamamia.com.au/health-wellbeing/australian-vaccination-network-bullying-tactics/


----------



## matty77 (28 May 2013)

I would encourage anyone who is thinking to not immunize your child to go to a hospital and watch what a 6 month old baby has to go through with whooping cough, then just think if your child gets it you only have yourself to blame.


----------



## sails (28 May 2013)

matty77 said:


> I would encourage anyone who is thinking to not immunize your child to go to a hospital and watch what a 6 month old baby has to go through with whooping cough, then just think if your child gets it you only have yourself to blame.





I agree Matty.  My son got whooping cough a few days after his vaccination - it was going around at the time and obviously he contracted it before the vaccination could give him immunity.

It was terrible to see a little six month old heaving his lungs out, blue in the face and vomiting  during these frequent coughing spasms with the awful whooping sound as he was desperately trying to get oxygen.  He somehow made it through.  We were living in England at the time out in the country and doctor's didn't want him in their surgery.

It is a sight I will never forget - and it went on for weeks.


----------



## sptrawler (28 May 2013)

I read today, they are talking about banning children that haven't been immunised, from attending child care facilities. 
That puts a whole new bent on it.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I read today, they are talking about banning children that haven't been immunised, from attending child care facilities.



They should have every right to do this.


----------



## jbocker (29 May 2013)

matty77 said:


> I would encourage anyone who is thinking to not immunize your child to go to a hospital and watch what a 6 month old baby has to go through with whooping cough, then just think if your child gets it you only have yourself to blame.




Had whooping cough myself in my late 30s. Felt like someone was sitting on my chest and couldnt get a real lungful of air and would 'whoop' to breath after a coughing fit. So debilitating and remember being thankful that i could at least gag and slag some of it out (sometimes vomitting). I felt incredibly sad knowing a baby couldnt do that. Went on for weeks. 
Shortly after I recovered there was an advertising campaign on TV/radio - could hear a baby 'whoop'. It took some effort to stop getting very tearful whenever i heard it.

I would recommend immunizing. Highly.


----------



## Julia (29 May 2013)

I've also had it as an adult despite being vaccinated as a child.  Just completely debilitating and exhausting.
I cannot understand people who refuse to have their children vaccinated.


----------



## qldfrog (29 May 2013)

I am afraid this is just the result of a dummerisation of western society, collapse of education/culture on the mainstream replaced by rubbish such as reality shows and people caring more about the kardashians (had to google it... )
than their actual live, look at the US....
so easy to read the latest tweets and not even think about what TB, polio can mean...
Most of these people live in their golden suburbs cages,  and have a rude shock when reaity hits whether it will come from TB brought by a pakistani visitor, a bomb blown in a sydney street by islamist fanatic who resent miniskirts, or a violent rape/aggression by someone who did not share the golden youth.
No surprise the ADF has some issues with returning soldiers after a stint in Irak or Afghanistan.
It must be an incredible shock but as the nanny country does not want people (alias voters/consumers0 to think, I do not expect much changes
I have to have a pool fence around my pool while I have three dams and a river thru my block, but dumwits can send their children  to my son's school not immunised....
I really pity the few who can not genuinely be immunised (allergic reaction is what i have in mind) and will so die as the group protection disappears.
maybe we should advertise these deaths on national TV, between MKR shows...
end of my rant.


----------



## Okiishi (30 May 2013)

Right. Without a doubt. Parents who refuse to immunise their kids are as bad as climate change skeptics.


----------



## matty77 (31 May 2013)

At least there is scientific proof about immunization, I am still waiting for solid scientific proof about [SUB]global warming[/SUB] edit that climate change (since they don't say global warning anymore since its actually cooling down the last few years)


----------



## Ladybyrd (31 May 2013)

jbocker said:


> Had whooping cough myself in my late 30s. Felt like someone was sitting on my chest and couldnt get a real lungful of air and would 'whoop' to breath after a coughing fit. So debilitating and remember being thankful that i could at least gag and slag some of it out (sometimes vomitting). I felt incredibly sad knowing a baby couldnt do that. Went on for weeks.
> I would recommend immunizing. Highly.




I agree! My daughter was 13 and I was in my 40's. We had both been immunised when we developed whooping cough. We both felt like we were going to suffocate and yet we had a much milder case because we had some resistance. To see a little baby who doesn't understand struggling for every breath just rips your heart out.


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2013)

It is good to see Kev isn't the only one who can do back flips.lol
Bob Brown might be getting long in the tooth, but shows he is just as athletic as Kev.

http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/bob-brown-distances-himself-from-avn

Extract

“It is true that in the 1990s I endorsed the right of true conscientious objectors against compulsory vaccination”, Bob Brown writes. “However, my view then, as now, was that vaccination is in the interests of public health and should be promoted”. 

“My endorsement for conscientious objection does not extend to orchestrated campaigning against public vaccination and I have grown very concerned that upholding the right of conscientious objection has now become part of the campaign against public vaccination,” Brown wrote. 

Doesn't it warm your heart how the believers are abandoned so readily.

Makes you wonder if their is any shame in politics.
Funny how it has taken nearly 20 years to clarify that, if the article is accurate.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 July 2013)

A Chinese friend recently found out he had whooping cough.  He was fairly sure he wasn't vacinated when a child.

He was so glad that his kids are all fully vaccinated.

I think the problem none of the anti vacinate people have ever met someone with one of the diseases.

I used to work with a guy who'd had polio when he was younger.  He had to use crutchs to walk around, and it left him with trouble breathing at times.

To me the risks of not vacinating are far more than might be from vacinating.  It's one of the reasons the avg life expectancy these days is in the 80s instead of the mid 40s a century ago.

Maybe the Govt should get parents to sign a waver so that any medical costs associated with not vacinating their child will not be covered by medicare.  A few parents on ACA or Today 2 Nite bemoaning near bankruptcy to save their child from a vacinatable disease might prompt other to think twice.  I don't see why the majority who make the decision to vacinate, which will save the health budget billions, should have to pay when it all goes wrong for those who consciously choose not to vacinate their children.


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> A Chinese friend recently found out he had whooping cough.  He was fairly sure he wasn't vacinated when a child.
> 
> He was so glad that his kids are all fully vaccinated.
> 
> ...




You are spot on Syd, for effective herd immunity, it requires around 80% immunisation. I think I read, we are begining to fall under that, which will see the re emergence of some deseases.


----------



## boofhead (21 July 2013)

Required immusation for the herd protection to work differs for each disease. For some I've seen closer to 94%.

I look forward to the day where we don't need to immunise against many things we do now because they are erradicated. Instead we immunise to reduce likelyhood of getting cancers (and we've started).


----------



## matty77 (21 July 2013)

Did anyone see the show on Four Corners (I think) about our fellow Chiropractors Association and how they don't support immunization. They have a neutral stand which IMHO is just as bad.

Got a cold, go to the Chiro.
Oh got Cancer? go to Chiro.

Immunization.... nah go to the Chiro, they'll fix ya right up.

Who needs Doctors, we have Chiros nowdays.....

I have a friend, she is super intelligent and great person - she is a Chiro and pregnant. God I hope she immunizes her baby but I can see it a mile away that she wont. In fact she has refused all scans during her pregnancy as it might harm the baby. Even intelligence doesn't mean you will have common sense..


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2013)

matty77 said:


> Did anyone see the show on Four Corners (I think) about our fellow Chiropractors Association and how they don't support immunization. They have a neutral stand which IMHO is just as bad.
> 
> Got a cold, go to the Chiro.
> Oh got Cancer? go to Chiro.
> ...




What would a chiropractor now about immunisation? Bit like asking your mechanic to check your prostate, that is unless your mechanic is Asian with very small hands, of course.


----------



## boofhead (21 July 2013)

matty77 said:


> Did anyone see the show on Four Corners (I think) about our fellow Chiropractors Association and how they don't support immunization.




It was probably Catalyst. I think they covered it well. The chiropractors seemed to show splits. Some prefer the profession to stick to what it knows best - muscular/skeletal work. The Catalyst story covered someone in a chiropractor teaching department of university making some claims about immunisation on her personal site. When contacted by Catalyst about the claims the site removed the information.

Why does the government not step up immunisations by doing them more widespread for no cost to the patient? In some places municipal council manage it for school children. Some vaccinations need topups later in life like for tetanus.


----------



## Julia (21 July 2013)

boofhead said:


> Why does the government not step up immunisations by doing them more widespread for no cost to the patient? In some places municipal council manage it for school children. Some vaccinations need topups later in life like for tetanus.



Unless there has been some very recent change, which I doubt, vaccinations are all government funded.
They are available through all doctors and various other organisations.  There is no impediment to vaccination other than some misguided belief by some parents.


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Unless there has been some very recent change, which I doubt, vaccinations are all government funded.
> They are available through all doctors and various other organisations.  There is no impediment to vaccination other than some misguided belief by some parents.




From what I remember from our four kids and now our five grandkids under five, you are spot on.


----------



## medicowallet (21 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Unless there has been some very recent change, which I doubt, vaccinations are all government funded.
> They are available through all doctors and various other organisations.  There is no impediment to vaccination other than some misguided belief by some parents.




The childhood immunisation schedule covers most things for most people.

Certain vaccinations are only available for at risk groups (eg indigenous Australians) and/or the number of doses differs.

When the effect wears off, eg pertussis, there is charge to the patient, be it the cost of the vaccine (approx $20 the last time I had it), plus the dreaded GP charge.

An effective immunisation register, with immunisation clinics might increase vaccination rates, as opposed to the current system.


As for immunisation, in a world with such mobility of its population, it is almost a no-brainer.   I am also view the people who rely on the goodwill of others to vaccinate their children, so they don't have to, poorly.   However, the so-called do-gooders do some funny things.

MW


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2013)

medicowallet said:


> The childhood immunisation schedule covers most things for most people.
> 
> Certain vaccinations are only available for at risk groups (eg indigenous Australians) and/or the number of doses differs.
> 
> ...




But as a generalisation, Julia you are right, most major centres and cities have free clinics for immunisation.


----------



## medicowallet (22 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> But as a generalisation, Julia you are right, most major centres and cities have free clinics for immunisation.




In general, but as the poster that Julia replied to stated, top ups are often charged for.  It is here where a register would make it easier.

People have no idea what they got and when.

MW


----------



## cynic (22 July 2013)

One Spring I happened to mention to my GP that I'd recently been subjected to significant peer pressure from well meaning friends and relatives in relation to influenza vaccinations. Upon hearing this my GP recommended that I reply with the simple question "Will you be financing my respite care for the remainder of my life when it all goes wrong?" and that upon receipt of the likely negative response, to follow up with the retort "Then shut the !@#$ up!"

As you can probably surmise from this post , I've experienced adverse health outcomes from past vaccinations and get very annoyed at the naive "one size fits all" assumptions regarding safety and efficacy of popular medical practices.


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

cynic said:


> One Spring I happened to mention to my GP that I'd recently been subjected to significant peer pressure from well meaning friends and relatives in relation to influenza vaccinations. Upon hearing this my GP recommended that I reply with the simple question "Will you be financing my respite care for the remainder of my life when it all goes wrong?" and that upon receipt of the likely negative response, to follow up with the retort "Then shut the !@#$ up!"
> 
> As you can probably surmise from this post , I've experienced adverse health outcomes from past vaccinations and get very annoyed at the naive "one size fits all" assumptions regarding safety and efficacy of popular medical practices.




I don't have the infuenza shot either, I had it once and to me it seemed cause me to get the flu. It may have been coincidence, but I've never bothered again.
I think regarding this thread, we were talking about child vaccination generaly.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 July 2013)

cynic said:


> One Spring I happened to mention to my GP that I'd recently been subjected to significant peer pressure from well meaning friends and relatives in relation to influenza vaccinations. Upon hearing this my GP recommended that I reply with the simple question "Will you be financing my respite care for the remainder of my life when it all goes wrong?" and that upon receipt of the likely negative response, to follow up with the retort "Then shut the !@#$ up!"
> 
> As you can probably surmise from this post , I've experienced adverse health outcomes from past vaccinations and get very annoyed at the naive "one size fits all" assumptions regarding safety and efficacy of popular medical practices.




I think there's a difference between a vaccination that gives long term to life time immunity compared to the flu vaccination that provides at best a years worth of protection IF they pick the right strain.

I've never bothered to get the flu vac because at best you seem to get a few days of feeling not hot, to sometimes getting as bad as the flu.  It's nigh on 10 years since I got the flu so so seems to have been an OK decision, at least on a personal level.

On a whole different level are the people with obvious cold / fly symptoms who think it's Ok to get on public transport and head to work.  I'd love to see the Govt bring in legislation mandating employers send staff home who have obvious cold / fly symptoms.  Have the decency to stay home and limit your infection of others!


----------



## Julia (22 July 2013)

I've never had the flu vaccine either and never get flu, or even ordinary colds.

It's a whole different and much less important question than immunisation from dreadful childhood diseases like polio, diptheria, whooping cough etc.

And if you have to pay for a top-up every ten years or so, I don't know why anyone would balk at that for the protection it affords.

It's not difficult to keep a diary note of when, for example, a tetanus booster is required.


----------



## cynic (23 July 2013)

As it happens the very last immunisation that I ever received was, in fact, a tetanus shot. That same evening I experienced intense muscle aches across most of my torso. By the following day I had a fever and spent most of the subsequent four days in bed with my body quivering and teeth chattering.

Despite having had the Sabin vaccine administered several times throughout my childhood and teeenage years, I have tested positive for the presence of either the Polio, Echo or Coxsackie enteroviruses (apparently the test is unable to differentiate between these three infections). Around the same time that these results were received, my GP measured an approximately 3kg decline in my active tissue (i.e. muscle) mass. Given that I've never physically travelled outside of Australia, I think the implications of these observations, and the reasons for my intense anger at societial attitudes, will be clear.

I've no doubt that the many members of society, whom do not share my rare and unusual genetic characteristics, will have benefited enormously from immunisations. As such, I would not want to see the practice prohibited, but I reiterate my strong objection to the reckless assumptions being made by the medical profession and society at large, regarding safety and efficacy for anyone and everyone. 

A little more care in the genetic screening and assessment of candidates for such treatments, combined with a lot more respect for the rights of parents/guardians to make informed choices regarding the care of their children, would go a long way towards alleviating my concerns. Had such practices been in place half a century ago, I may well have been spared much physical and emotional torment.


----------



## sydboy007 (23 July 2013)

cynic said:


> A little more care in the genetic screening and assessment of candidates for such treatments, combined with a lot more respect for the rights of parents/guardians to make informed choices regarding the care of their children, would go a long way towards alleviating my concerns. Had such practices been in place half a century ago, I may well have been spared much physical and emotional torment.




I'm sorry to hear you've had such an adverse reaction to immunisation

Have you done any research on how widespread this issue is?  

Is there a way to screen people prior to immunisation for this kind of issue?

If screening is possible, what would the costs be?

Are the risks of not being vacinnated lower / higher than the risks of having a response similar to yours?

As with all things in life, nothing is 100% safe.  It's usually about what we believe is the safer path at the time.


----------



## boofhead (23 July 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-23244628 is worth a read for outbreaks that are happening in 1st world places. The article mentions 95% immunisation rate for measles is needed for herd immunity.


----------



## cynic (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm sorry to hear you've had such an adverse reaction to immunisation
> 
> Have you done any research on how widespread this issue is?
> 
> ...




What would be the better choice for someone with children of my genetic background, I wonder?

(i) the certainty of disease infection via a direct pharmacological assault on the child's immune system, or 

(ii) the uncertain efficacy of the child's natural immune response to infections, if and when, encountered.

My GP is a lot more thorough than any I'd encountered previously, however, given that he was able to quickly identify contra indicators during my initial consultation, I fail to understand how other medical practitioners can be so readily dismissive of their duty of care.

Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath actually mean anything these days? Or is it just another one of those "guidelines" that can be readily dismissed in favour of pragmatic considerations (i.e. "perceived" benefits for a majority outweighing the devastating consequences to a minority) ?

@Sptrawler : My apologies for having distracted your thread from the intended topic.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 July 2013)

cynic said:


> What would be the better choice for someone with children of my genetic background, I wonder?
> 
> (i) the certainty of disease infection via a direct pharmacological assault on the child's immune system, or
> 
> ...




Would you be willing to share what those contra indicators were?  The information may help others on this forum.

Did the GP provide and idea of how reliable the contra indicators are?

In your case I'd say you'd have to weigh up the risks yourself in terms of having your children vacinated.  have you determiend if they too have the contra indicators?

It is hard to deny the benefits that immunisation has give the vast majority though.


----------



## cynic (24 July 2013)

I've got an even better idea! 

I'll just courier hair, tissue, blood and bodily secretion specimens to one of the moderators so that  they can independently verify my pathological and genealogical background. Then said moderator can report back to this thread with the findings. That way everyone will be able to appreciate the importance of exercising greater care in their approach to popular medical procedures!

If my personal disclosures thus far are insufficient to alert people to the need for greater discernment, then I fail to understand how full disclosure of my inherent genetic characteristics will alter their viewpoint!


----------



## sydboy007 (27 July 2013)

cynic said:


> I've got an even better idea!
> 
> I'll just courier hair, tissue, blood and bodily secretion specimens to one of the moderators so that  they can independently verify my pathological and genealogical background. Then said moderator can report back to this thread with the findings. That way everyone will be able to appreciate the importance of exercising greater care in their approach to popular medical procedures!
> 
> If my personal disclosures thus far are insufficient to alert people to the need for greater discernment, then I fail to understand how full disclosure of my inherent genetic characteristics will alter their viewpoint!




I'm not questioning your truthfulness.

I was just thinking that if someone is worried about a similar issue that they could give their doctor some specifics.

Sometimes you need to show the medical profession a bit of prior knowledge so they take you seriously.

Telling a doctor you'd like to be genetically screened to see if certain vaccines might have an adverse effect on you or a family member may be met with a lack of knowledge.

To give you a personal example I've been doing shift work for the last 20 years and finding it more and more difficult as I get older.  About 4 years ago I read an article about a newish drug call modanafil.  It basically blocks the receptors in your brain that detect the chemicals that build up while you are awake and make you feel sleepy.

I have a good GP - she actually listens to me - and went to see her for a prescription.  She hadn't heard of the drug before - it's primary use is for people with narcolepsy.  I gave her the run down on how it works and some of the main side effects.  It helped she could tell I'd done my research on it.  She gave me a script for 2 month supply as a trial to see if I'd have any of the documented side effects.  Aside from the odd mild headache it's worked a treat for me.  It's a private script though, so works out around $3 a tablet.  Same price as a coffee but lasts for about 10 hours.   Now I no longer stress out when I have trouble sleeping, which means I've been sleeping better since getting the medication.


----------



## cynic (27 July 2013)

SPTrawler, please accept my apologies for once again having diverted this thread away from the original theme.

Regretfully, the persistent efforts of a certain poster to elicit further information have given rise to my intense desire for a more emphatic response. Given that the content of this post will be intentionally provocative and offensive, the moderators, should it be deemed necessary, have my advance consent to having this post moved to a more appropriate thread ("Religion is crazy!" might be a suitable candidate).

People seem to display a wide variety of personality traits and behaviours, some delightful, some less so.
There are a few behaviours and attitudes that I have nothing but utter contempt for:

(i) The use of feigned altruism in concealment of ulterior motives
(ii) The presumption of infallibility
(iii) The presumption of the right to make decisions on anothers behalf.

Sydboy007,firstly, thankyou for so kindly providing an excellent example of one of the many perils of internet supported, medical self diagnosis!
Secondly, in reading and responding to several of your posts this past week, the presence of the three aforementioned behaviours is evident. If you are truly as intelligent as you like to believe, then you should already be well aware that polite words and feigned altruism are insufficient to conceal your truly hostile motivations. Of course, you were so caught up in your elitist fantasy, that you couldn't even recognise just how woefully inept your repeated attempts at deceit were! I now suspect that you may have even been sufficiently self deluded to believe that your posts were clever!



sydboy007 said:


> I'm not questioning your truthfulness.
> ...



You must think I'm really stupid! During this past week you posted the following sentiments to another of the general chat threads:


sydboy007 said:


> I hear ya.  I just can't let something so blatantly incorrect stand.
> 
> If we don't challenge it and show it to be the false propaganda it is, then it unfortunately becomes accepted as fact which does no one any good.
> 
> My hope is if people see certain people are factually wrong with their claims most of the time, they'll start to ignore what they say.




Isn't it truly amazing how easily such an ill-conceived philosophy can backfire!


----------



## sydboy007 (27 July 2013)

Seems the countries that have more experience with a lot of preventable diseases are much more willing to vaccinate than Australia.

Australia compares unfavourably to many countries on immunisation.
Immunisation coverage in Australia is 94 per cent for measles and 92 per cent for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib, which causes infant meningitis.

This puts it behind countries such as Bangladesh, which has comparable coverage rates of between 96-99 per cent, Eritrea with 99 per cent and Rwanda, which has rates between 93-98 per cent.

While Australia's vaccination rate for measles is higher than the global average of 85 per cent, it is below the east Asia-Pacific average of 95 per cent.
-----------

Then I found this study for Australia used by anti immunisation groups.

For the years 2008-2010, there were a total of 9333 cases of whooping cough reported in children aged 0-4 years. Among them were 754 who were either too young or otherwise not eligible to have been vaccinated, and 1497 for whom vaccine status was not known.

Of the remaining 7082 cases whose vaccine status was known, and who were eligible to have received the vaccine, 5296 (75%) were fully vaccinated for their age. A further 986 (14%) were partly vaccinated. Only 800 (11%) were un-vaccinated.

-------------------------

problem is their figures seem to be way out.

Australia recorded 38,000 cases in 2011, the highest number since records began in 1991 and most states are only now recovering from a major epidemic that began in 2008.

So if immunisation programs have been successful, why is whooping cough still a problem?

The short answer, according to immunisation expert Professor Peter McIntyre, is because the pertussis vaccine is good at reducing the risk of severe disease and death, but is not necessarily going to prevent infection altogether.

"It's not like measles vaccine where if you have the vaccine you just won't get measles infection," says McIntyre, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases at the University of Sydney.

"The pertussis vaccine is decreasing the amount of infection to some extent, but mostly what it's doing is decreasing how sick you get."

This means children who might otherwise have got extremely sick and ended up in intensive care on oxygen or even died, now get a milder infection or sometimes show no symptoms at all.  Also if you've had the vaccine you're less likely to transmit the disease to those around you.

However, it does mean that a significant proportion of infections will occur in vaccinated individuals.

"You'd expect that because if 95 per cent of kids are immunised and if you find that 95 per cent of the cases are also immunised, then that means that the vaccine's not doing anything," McIntyre says.

But that's not the case. Only about 70 per cent of reported cases of whooping cough occur in people who have had the pertussis vaccine.

"That's telling you that the vaccine is working and if you do the numbers, that equates to about an 80 per cent effectiveness of the vaccine."


----------



## sptrawler (27 July 2013)

Interesting post Sydboy, I wasn't aware that immunisation didn't give almost 100% protection.
Also I wasn't aware that 'third world' countries had such high vacination rates.


----------



## medicowallet (27 July 2013)

cynic said:


> Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath actually mean anything these days? Or is it just another one of those "guidelines" that can be readily dismissed in favour of pragmatic considerations (i.e. "perceived" benefits for a majority outweighing the devastating consequences to a minority) ?




Off topic, but:

Any new doctor who actually swears the hippocratic oath is a fool.

MW


----------



## sydboy007 (28 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Interesting post Sydboy, I wasn't aware that immunisation didn't give almost 100% protection.
> Also I wasn't aware that 'third world' countries had such high vacination rates.




It seems the level of protection is different based on the disease.  Measles and mumps, polio too seem to have near 100% protection.

I thought I'd post the information because at first glance what these anti immunisers are saying seems worrying, and while the information might be correct, it fails to show that the majority of hospitalisations for whooping cough are for those not immunised.

Now that we've moved away from using live attenuated virus vaccines to subunit ones that use just a few of the main antigens we've traded efficacy for far lower negative response to the vaccines.  Since this was done a lot more parents have been willing to vaccinate their children.

My hope is once the needle free ways of administering vaccines become available that immunisation rates will start going up again.  Keep a lookout for the nano patch (an aussie project) and the PharmaJet’s Stratis as they seem to be close to going mainstream.  The nano patch has been trialled with the tetanus vaccine and has been shown to provide a much higher immune response while using less vaccine - up to 1/100th of what is required in a needle dosage.  Win Win.  It's also able to be stored without refrigeration.  It's so easy to use you can literally just hand them out to people to apply to themselves.  Perfect for poor countries.  

It should certainly make providing the flu vaccine a lot easier - might be tempted to try it since you will be less likely to get mild flu symptoms from it - and should also encourage people to get boosters.  I do wish the Govt would provide free whooping cough boosters to all parents.  It would probably work out a cost effective  program compared to the expense of hospitalisation or just the time off work parents have to take when they have a sick child.

Personally I'd like to send some of the anti immunisation lobby to some poor countries just to see first hand how deadly and debilitation a lot of "childhood" illnesses can be.  We can send polio, measles, mumps and possibly some other diseases to live with small pox and the dodo.


----------



## matty77 (29 July 2013)

Its well known Whooping Cough vaccine doesn't guarantee you wont get it but it does reduce the risk.

If it was 99.9% coverage though I am sure we would see even less of it, just as if it was 75% coverage we would see plenty more people catching it.


----------



## bellenuit (26 August 2013)

Texas Measles Outbreak Traced To Anti-Vaccine Megachurch

http://gawker.com/texas-measles-outbreak-traced-to-anti-vaccine-megachurc-1197363514


----------



## sydboy007 (26 August 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Texas Measles Outbreak Traced To Anti-Vaccine Megachurch
> 
> http://gawker.com/texas-measles-outbreak-traced-to-anti-vaccine-megachurc-1197363514




Sigh.  Just like religion the basis for being against vacinnation (99% of the time) is based on fear and belief rather than on scietific reasoning.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Church claims this is some attack by Satan


----------



## burglar (26 August 2013)

jbocker said:


> Had whooping cough myself in my late 30s. Felt like someone was sitting on my chest and couldnt get a real lungful of air and would 'whoop' to breath after a coughing fit. So debilitating and remember being thankful that i could at least gag and slag some of it out (sometimes vomitting). I felt incredibly sad knowing a baby couldnt do that. Went on for weeks.
> Shortly after I recovered there was an advertising campaign on TV/radio - could hear a baby 'whoop'. It took some effort to stop getting very tearful whenever i heard it.
> 
> I would recommend immunizing. Highly.



+1
My eldest had croup in infancy. 
Very scary, but not as scary as whooping cough.


----------



## burglar (26 August 2013)

cynic said:


> SPTrawler, please accept my apologies for once again having diverted this thread away from the original theme. ...




cynic, my friend,
I can't see where you diverted.

It does say "Immunisation, right or wrong?"


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2013)

Health authorities are fearing a measles outbreak in Victoria after 10 cases of the potentially fatal virus were diagnosed in Melbourne over the past three weeks.

Measles, which is also known as rubeola, is a very contagious virus. Estimates suggest one person will infect about nine in every 10 people who have not had the illness or are unvaccinated.

The Victorian clusters come after an alarming surge of measles in the UK this year prompted an urgent vaccination campaign.
British health authorities believe the outbreak was caused by a lack of herd immunity among young people who were not vaccinated in the early 2000s.

Low vaccination rates around the turn of the century were caused by now discredited suggestions that the measles mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine was linked to autism.

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published research implying a link between the two, however the research has since been withdrawn and Mr Wakefield was struck off the medical register for using falsified data.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/m...rus-spreads-20130826-2skyo.html#ixzz2d5Yiflbx

Ah Mr Wakefield, the lie that keeps on giving eh.


----------



## cynic (27 August 2013)

The cognitively challenged amongst us seem somewhat reluctant to allow inconvenient facts to get in the way of grand scale media based public lynchings!

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)75696-8/fulltext

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/


----------



## bellenuit (12 September 2013)

I'm not a great fan of Tim Minchin, but I think this short animated film is superb.....

*The Best Critique of Alternative Medicine Ever*

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...nse_of_reason.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_toolbar


----------



## Julia (12 September 2013)

That's just terrific.  I'm a great Tim Minchin fan - he's a hell of a piano player and his lyrics have all the relevance and punchiness he shows in this video.

If you wouldn't ordinarily take a look at this, give it a go.  So, so good.
(And haven't we all been at one of those dinner parties!)


----------



## bellenuit (3 January 2014)

Interesting. Growing up unvaccinated.

*I am the 70s child of a health nut. I wasn’t vaccinated.*

http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/vaccination-growing-up-unvaccinated/


----------



## Chris45 (3 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Interesting. Growing up unvaccinated.
> *I am the 70s child of a health nut. I wasn’t vaccinated.*
> http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/vaccination-growing-up-unvaccinated/



Excellent article! 

A *low GST* diet (eat mainly foods that *don't* attract the GST), avoidance of high sugar and high salt junk food, avoidance of toxic "recreational" drugs, sensible regular exercise and hygiene, PLUS a sensible approach to medicines and vaccines ... it's not rocket science.

I have a friend who swears by the advice on www.mercola.com and believes that vaccines should be avoided and that maintaining a high Vitamin D level is the secret to avoiding all illnesses. He spends a fortune on nutritional supplements and organic food, and spends a lot of time in the midday sun building up his Vit D. He recently caught a cold from touching something, he thinks. Hmmm!


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2014)

A friend in malaysia has just found out he's got chicken pox.  Was quite surprised he never had it as a child.  Not sure how good vaccination programs were in Malaysia 20 odd years ago.

Luckily it wasn't mumps.

I'll take my chances with vaccines.  It's the only way we eradicated small pox.  Diet, supplements and better sanitation don't explain how that marvel happened.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Interesting. Growing up unvaccinated.
> 
> *I am the 70s child of a health nut. I wasn’t vaccinated.*
> 
> http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/vaccination-growing-up-unvaccinated/




Great article.  For a minute I thought it was going to another anti vaccination rant, but she goes on to show just how many people are affected by preventable diseases, sometimes with life long repercussions.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2014)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/measles-outbreak-linked-to-sydney-dance-festival-20140103-30a1e.html

A person who isn't immunised against measles can get sick by coming within three metres of an infected person.

"Complications can range from an ear infection to pneumonia or swelling of the brain.”


----------



## bellenuit (4 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Great article.  For a minute I thought it was going to another anti vaccination rant, but she goes on to show just how many people are affected by preventable diseases, sometimes with life long repercussions.




I think this is a key point of the article: _Those of you who have avoided childhood illnesses without vaccines are lucky. You couldn’t do it without us pro-vaxxers._ They may think their anti-vaccine attitude works, but it is only because the other 95% actually do vaccinate. 

And the important advice:
_If you think your child’s immune system is strong enough to fight off vaccine-preventable diseases, then it’s strong enough to fight off the tiny amounts of dead or weakened pathogens present in any of the vaccines.

But not everyone around you is that strong, not everyone has a choice, not everyone can fight those illnesses, and not everyone can be vaccinated. If you have a healthy child, then your healthy child can cope with vaccines and can care about those unhealthy children who can’t._


----------



## Judd (4 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> A friend in malaysia has just found out he's got chicken pox.  Was quite surprised he never had it as a child.  Not sure how good vaccination programs were in Malaysia 20 odd years ago.
> 
> Luckily it wasn't mumps.
> 
> I'll take my chances with vaccines.  It's the only way we eradicated small pox.  Diet, supplements and better sanitation don't explain how that marvel happened.




You have just reminded me of events surrounding the birth of my son.  Wife in the ward with about five other mothers and their new-borns.   One mother had her family visit and one of her children had chicken-pox, which she knew.  Very, very stupid and inconsiderate lady.

Well, Matron came.  And I mean MATRON, none of this Director of Nursing stuff, in all of her awesome and glorious power.  Get that child out of MY hospital!!!  Now!

I really do find it difficult to understand how people are swayed by the false science spread by anti-vacination groups.  Yes, a child can have a severe adverse reaction but a number of studies have shown the unfortunate children had a genetic pre-disposition and would have contracted the condition sooner or later.  The vaccination was the trigger but not the actual cause.  As for MMR/Autism, apart from David Wakefield being exposed as undertaking fraudulent research, the diagnosis of Autism coincidentally occurred around the time of the vaccination.  Coincidence is not correlation.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2014)

Judd said:


> You have just reminded me of events surrounding the birth of my son.  Wife in the ward with about five other mothers and their new-borns.   One mother had her family visit and one of her children had chicken-pox, which she knew.  Very, very stupid and inconsiderate lady.
> 
> Well, Matron came.  And I mean MATRON, none of this Director of Nursing stuff, in all of her awesome and glorious power.  Get that child out of MY hospital!!!  Now!



Thanks heavens for the dedication of that Matron!



Judd said:


> I really do find it difficult to understand how people are swayed by the false science spread by anti-vacination groups.



Did my earlier posts fail to make this clear?


Judd said:


> Yes, a child can have a severe adverse reaction but a number of studies have shown the unfortunate children had a genetic pre-disposition and would have contracted the condition sooner or later.  The vaccination was the trigger but not the actual cause.



Even if these studies were accurate and unbiased (which I sincerely doubt), surely you would agree that later would be preferable to sooner! Your dismissive attitude towards the rights of all humans to be supported in striving to have the happiest and healthiest life possible is something that I find completely abhorrent!


Judd said:


> As for MMR/Autism, apart from David Wakefield being exposed as undertaking fraudulent research, the diagnosis of Autism coincidentally occurred around the time of the vaccination.  Coincidence is not correlation.




Have you made reasonable efforts to investigate Wakefield's claims before siding with his persecutors?

Are you able to offer assurance that Wakefield's accounts of the sordid history of "Pluserix" and "Immravax" are without foundation?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/full-statement-by-mmr-scare-doctor-andrew-wakefield-the-government-has-tried-to-cover-up-putting-price-before-childrens-health-8570596.html


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Even if these studies were accurate and unbiased (which I sincerely doubt), surely you would agree that later would be preferable to sooner! Your dismissive attitude towards the rights of all humans to be supported in striving to have the happiest and healthiest life possible is something that I find completely abhorrent!




Do you believe all the human suffering caused by the eradication of small pox to have been completely abhorrent?

To put things into perspective:

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/dangerous-diseases-epidemics/smallpox-12000-years-terror.html

_Smallpox continued to ravage Europe, Asia, and Africa for centuries. In Europe, near the end of the eighteenth century, the disease accounted for nearly 400,000 deaths each year, including five kings. *Of those surviving, one-third were blinded. *The worldwide death toll was staggering and continued well into the twentieth century, where mortality has been estimated at 300 to 500 million. This number vastly exceeds the combined total of deaths in all world wars.

In the *United States, more than 100,000 cases of smallpox were recorded in 1921*. Strong declines occurred after that because of the widespread use of preventive vaccines. *By 1939, fewer than 50* Americans per year died of smallpox._

_In 1959, The World Health Assembly decided to organize mass immunization campaigns against smallpox. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced the global smallpox eradication program in 1967. At that time there were still an estimated 10 to 15 million cases of smallpox a year resulting in two million deaths, millions disfigured, and another 100,000 blinded. Ten years later, after dispersal of 465 million doses of vaccine in 27 countries, the last reported naturally occurring case appeared in Somalia. On October 22, 1977, a 23-year-old male, Ali Maow Maalin, developed smallpox and survived.

The global campaign against smallpox ended in 1979 just two years after Maalin's case. Two additional cases of smallpox occurred in Birmingham, England, in 1978, after the virus escaped from a laboratory. There has not been a case reported in more than 25 years._

*Amazingly, eradication of smallpox, one of the world's most deadly scourges, cost approximately $100 million. Even in today's dollars, this was a bargain.*

Any harm that was caused, and I'm sure with the early work on vaccinations and especially variolation there was some harm and deaths, do you believe this near forced global vaccination program caused more harm than good?  Do you blelieve it would have been better to have left the third world ravaged by this disease than, for all intents and purposes, forced the populations of these countries to get vaccinated.  I doubt there was too much compulsion though.  People growing up seeing what these diseases do would be quite willing to see themselves and their families protected. My parents and grandparents all talk of a world I hope to never know of iron lungs for children crippled by polio, friends who were badly disfigured by the pox, and just the general toll of children being sick for a week or 2 with measles and mumps.

Personally I am very grateful that the generations before me bore the risks so I could grow up in a world where tens of millions are no longer infected by a such a horrid disease.

It seems you want a 100% guaranteed safe vaccination before even considering it, yet discount the still current toll that is borne by mostly the unvaccinated.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe all the human suffering caused by the eradication of small pox to have been completely abhorrent?
> 
> ...
> 
> It seems you want a 100% guaranteed safe vaccination before even considering it, yet discount the still current toll that is borne by mostly the unvaccinated.



Your opinions of my opinions are at complete variance to the contents of my posts!

I am all for people having the freedom to make fully informed choices when it comes to providing the best available health care for themselves and their children! 

Please desist from ignorantly applying untrue interpretations to my posts!


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Your opinions of my opinions are at complete variance to the contents of my posts!
> 
> I am all for people having the freedom to make fully informed choices when it comes to providing the best available health care for themselves and their children!
> 
> Please desist from ignorantly applying untrue interpretations to my posts!




Then your argument appears to be that there is more chance of harm from vaccination than not?  Unless there's other choices beyond to vaccinate or not?

Pretty much all the scientific literature agrees that the risks are higher for those who do not vaccinate, and with the increasing level of air travel relying on herd immunity is becoming less of a safety net.

Stats like 1 in 10 non vaccinated children who get Measles will have a complication serious enough to result in a visit to a healthcare provider, or most children who get chickenpox will have 200-500 sores covering their body should be burned into peoples' mind when they're thinking of not getting vaccinated.

http://www.immunize.org/reports/  has the real life stories of 100 people who were not vaccinated and the often tragic consequences.  Scientifically verifiable X disease caused y, unlike a lot of anecdotal _evidence _that person was vaccinated X time ago and now has y therefore vaccination is to blame.


----------



## cynic (6 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Your opinions of my opinions are at complete variance to the contents of my posts!
> 
> I am all for people having the freedom to make fully informed choices when it comes to providing the best available health care for themselves and their children!
> 
> Please desist from ignorantly applying untrue interpretations to my posts!






sydboy007 said:


> Then your argument appears to be that there is more chance of harm from vaccination than not?  Unless there's other choices beyond to vaccinate or not?
> 
> Pretty much all the scientific literature agrees that the risks are higher for those who do not vaccinate, and with the increasing level of air travel relying on herd immunity is becoming less of a safety net.
> 
> ...




Sydboy007,

Exactly which part of my post:


cynic said:


> Your opinions of my opinions are at complete variance to the contents of my posts!
> 
> I am all for people having the freedom to make fully informed choices when it comes to providing the best available health care for themselves and their children!
> 
> Please desist from ignorantly applying untrue interpretations to my posts!




Did you fail to understand?

Those whom deliberately choose to continue behaving as ignorantly as you have, are deserving of my continued contempt. Again I ask you to please desist!


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2014)

_/disclaimer: this posting does not relate in any way to cynic_

My view is from a risk perspective.

If risk of vaccination greater than risk from the disease being vaccinated against then don't do it.

If, as seems to be the case, the risk from vaccination is far lower than the risk of contracting the disease, then vaccination would be a clear choice.

There's plenty of scientifically verifiable information that shows what goes wrong when someone contracts a preventable disease.

There's 100 odd years of scientifically verifiable information that shows vaccination works.  The risk / reward profile of vaccination seems to be firmly on the reward side.

What scientifically verifiable information is out that shows the risk of vaccination is greater than not being vaccinated?  I've read a lot on this topic over the years.  I've found a lot of anecdotal claims, or studies that claim harm which are then debunked later on.  Unless you believe there's a global conspiracy of IPCC proportions it would seem near impossible to hide large scale harm from vaccination.

Studies in the USA have shown consistently that the majority of people who don't vaccinate do so because of:

* Philosophical beliefs - fear of harm from vaccination, believe it's better to build immunity from contracting the disease, belief that a healthy life style provides enough protection.

* Religious beliefs

I would say a similar profile for most western countries as the USA.

Are they right or wrong reasons?  No.  They just don't make sense to me.

Maybe I've been in IT too long following logic paths, but I don't understand how some people choose to discount all the credible research that shows vaccination is safe and well worth the very small risk to adverse reactions


----------



## bellenuit (6 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> What scientifically verifiable information is out that shows the risk of vaccination is greater than not being vaccinated?  I've read a lot on this topic over the years.  I've found a lot of anecdotal claims, or studies that claim harm which are then debunked later on.




I think the problem is that in many communities the very few anecdotal claims of harm from vaccination will be contrasted with the claims from those who didn't vaccinate that they have not contracted contagious illnesses. But like the article said, the reason they have been immune is because the herd is vaccinated and is thus protecting them. They don't realise that.

A great example of this going wrong is this recent case posted previously:

*Measles Outbreak Traces To Vaccine-Refusing Megachurch*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywi...tbreak-traces-to-vaccine-refusing-megachurch/


----------



## Judd (9 January 2014)

This particular site may be useful for those interested.

http://www.cochrane.org/


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I think the problem is that in many communities the very few anecdotal claims of harm from vaccination will be contrasted with the claims from those who didn't vaccinate that they have not contracted contagious illnesses. But like the article said, the reason they have been immune is because the herd is vaccinated and is thus protecting them. They don't realise that.
> 
> A great example of this going wrong is this recent case posted previously:
> 
> ...




I find it tragicly funny that while anti vacinators generally don't trust the medical profession on being honest that vaccination is relatively safe, they look to the same medical professionals to help when something goes wrong.

Some serious cognitive dissonance there


----------



## bellenuit (26 January 2014)

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/one-map-sums-damage-caused-anti-vaccination-movement

*One map sums up the damage caused by the anti-vaccination movement *


----------



## cynic (26 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Have you made reasonable efforts to investigate Wakefield's claims before siding with his persecutors?
> 
> Are you able to offer assurance that Wakefield's accounts of the sordid history of "Pluserix" and "Immravax" are without foundation?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/full-statement-by-mmr-scare-doctor-andrew-wakefield-the-government-has-tried-to-cover-up-putting-price-before-childrens-health-8570596.html




Would any of the pro-vaccination posters care to proffer informed answers to my earlier questions?


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Would any of the pro-vaccination posters care to proffer informed answers to my earlier questions?




I suppose this article answers your earlier questions and makes reference to Andrew Wakefields claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine

It appears to be a balanced report and well referenced.


----------



## cynic (26 January 2014)

sptrawler said:


> I suppose this article answers your earlier questions and makes reference to Andrew Wakefields claims.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine
> 
> It appears to be a balanced report and well referenced.




It appears that our respective definitions of "balance" are at variance.

Are you telling me that Wakefield's claims regarding the sordid history of "Pluserix" and "Immravax" are without foundation?


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2014)

cynic said:


> It appears that our respective definitions of "balance" are at variance.
> 
> Are you telling me that Wakefield's claims regarding the sordid history of "Pluserix" and "Immravax" are without foundation?




No, the referenced article in wikipedia is. 
If you want to base your assumptions on one persons claims, that is your perogative.
If you base all your personal medical prognosis on one practioner or specalists diagnosis, that is your right.
I personaly, visit many before making a decission, maybe I'm paranoid.
If Wakefields claims are correct and can be substantiated, there are numerous law firms that would enact a class action.


----------



## cynic (27 January 2014)

sptrawler said:


> No, the referenced article in wikipedia is.
> If you want to base your assumptions on one persons claims, that is your perogative.




Well I certainly don't base my assumptions on the sole contents of wikipedia!
Particularly given that it includes such gems as this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

"massless photons" indeed! 
(Next thing you know they'll be trying to tell us that the speed of light cannot be exceeded!)
Need I say more about the integrity of wikipedia!!


sptrawler said:


> If you base all your personal medical prognosis on one practioner or specalists diagnosis, that is your right.
> I personaly, visit many before making a decission, maybe I'm paranoid.



Wakefield was by no means the first, nor the only, medical professional to make such claims!
(Again, I note, that you are failing to address my question regarding the history of "Pluserix" and "Immravax".)


sptrawler said:


> If Wakefields claims are correct and can be substantiated, there are numerous law firms that would enact a class action.



Had you taken the time to look beyond the confines of wikipedia, I believe that you would have found references to a number of past and present litigatory proceedings by aggrieved parents. 

By the way, MMR isn't the only vaccine to be blamed for serious ill effects in children.

For example:

 http://www.smh.com.au/national/virus-traces-in-fluvax-cause-of-childrens-convulsions-20120620-20olw.html

P.S. Please bear in mind that I am not opposed to the appropriate use of vaccinations in circumstances that warrant such use. However, I am incensed at this widespread public disinformation campaign regarding the efficacy, safety and propriety of such pharmacological procedures. I am of the belief that people are being denied the right to make informed choices concerning the health care of themselves and their children!


----------



## sydboy007 (27 January 2014)

cynic said:


> P.S. Please bear in mind that I am not opposed to the appropriate use of vaccinations in circumstances that warrant such use. However, I am incensed at this widespread public disinformation campaign regarding the efficacy, safety and propriety of such pharmacological procedures. I am of the belief that people are being denied the right to make informed choices concerning the health care of themselves and their children!




Can you define _the appropriate use of vaccinations in circumstances that warrant such use?_

Considering that in Australia, and pretty much all other rich countries, the number of deaths due ALL vaccinatable diseases are pretty much statistical blips compared to 50 years ago, it seems mass immunisation programs have probably done as much to reduce human suffering as agriculture and sanitation had done previously.

As a global society we were faced with smallpox deaths in the hundreds of thousands every year.  Over the last 30 years there's not be a single death to this vile disease.  A conservative estimate is the small pox vaccine has saved AT LEAST 12 million deaths, let alone the millions saved from being blinded.

Any harm caused by the mass immunisation program to eradicate small pox surely out weighs any harm it caused, especially when you consider some of those harmed by the vaccine would have likely been harmed by the virus itself.


----------



## cynic (27 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Can you define _the appropriate use of vaccinations in circumstances that warrant such use?_
> ...




I believe that I've already made my stance on informed use of pharmacology perfectly clear on more than one occasion throughout this thread!

This and numerous of our other interactions on this forum have left me with the opinion that you are desperately seeking a means to debunk me!

Were your earlier oversights and mistakes truly so difficult to accept that your ego will no longer allow you rest until you find some way to invalidate me?


----------



## sydboy007 (27 January 2014)

cynic said:


> I believe that I've already made my stance on informed use of pharmacology perfectly clear on more than one occasion throughout this thread!
> 
> This and numerous of our other interactions on this forum have left me with the opinion that you are desperately seeking a means to debunk me!
> 
> Were your earlier oversights and mistakes truly so difficult to accept that your ego will no longer allow you rest until you find some way to invalidate me?




You made a statement. All I did was ask you to clarify your view point.  That's how discussions occur.

It's generally not possible to debunk a non factual / scientifically based belief as there's no evidence to support or disprove the belief.

The facts show that since immunisation deaths due to diseases that killed millions of people every year has pretty much dropped to close to zero.  To me that is irrefutable evidence that vaccination works.  The fact that millions of people aren't dying from the vaccines is to me irrefutable proof that vaccination is a very good risk reward trade off.

I'd like any parent thinking about not immunising their children to be presented with information like how many non vaccinated children end up at the doctors, hospital, how many die, how many have long term issues from the disease they contract.  Then compare these stats with vaccinated children.  Shouldn't be too hard for the medical community in Australia to summarise that kind of information.  

What is the kind of information you want to allow informed consent?


----------



## cynic (27 January 2014)

Must I repeat myself?!



cynic said:


> ...By the way, MMR isn't the only vaccine to be blamed for serious ill effects in children.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Must I repeat myself?!




If we're being specific about the fluvax then yeah, I'd generally say no point unless you're in one of the high risk groups.

The flu is different in that you don't get life long immunity from the vaccination.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2014)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...h-no-added-benefits/?&WT.mc_id=SA_SP_20140602

The new study, published in the May 19 Pediatrics, found that administering the MMR shot or the less frequently used MMRV one (which includes the varicella, or chickenpox, vaccine) later, between 16 and 23 months, doubles the child’s risk of developing a fever-caused, or febrile, seizure as a reaction to the vaccine. *The risk of a febrile seizure following the MMR is approximately one case in 3,000 doses for children aged 12 to 15 months but one case in 1,500 doses for children aged 16 to 23 months* “This study adds to the evidence that the best way to prevent disease and minimize side effects from vaccines is to vaccinate on the recommended schedule,” says Simon Hambidge, lead author of the study and the director of general pediatrics at Denver Health

No evidence to date reveals any benefits to delaying vaccines. *A study in 2010 showed that children who received delayed vaccinations performed no better at ages seven to 10 on behavioral and cognitive assessments than children who received their vaccines on time.* “There was not a single outcome for which the delayed group did better,” observes Michael Smith, the pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Louisville who led that study. He notes that delaying vaccines leaves children at risk for disease longer, and that many parents have little firsthand experience with those diseases. “In this context, any potential side effect””real or perceived””may be enough to convince a parent that it’s safe to defer vaccines,” he says. “However, that is not a safe choice, especially as vaccine-preventable diseases like measles are making a comeback.”

A measles outbreak currently underway in Ohio, for example, is now the largest state outbreak since 1996, keeping the U.S. on track for the worst measles year in nearly two decades. Universities in Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois and Virginia have had recent mumps outbreaks, and pertussis, or whooping cough, has been increasing for several years.


----------



## orr (3 February 2015)

Measles Measles every where.
The broader public health I'm allowed to hold in my own hands and there's in yours; Gives cause for serious thought.

A little know children's authors thoughts on the subject;

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/tod...vaccination-call-to-arms-20150203-134my1.html



Are there opponents to vaccination still out there in 'Farkking Disneyland'.............a good dose of Adolescent Mumps to those that are.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2015)

This idiot is trying to come here...



> *Uproar as US anti-vaccination campaigner Sherri Tenpenny announces trip to Australia*
> 
> A BROAD media campaign has begun to stop an American anti-vaccination campaigner running a series of lectures in Australia in March.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (3 February 2015)

DB008 said:


> This idiot is trying to come here...




I disagree with what she says, but...

Just get a few doctors in the audience to rebutt her claims and she will look like the fool she is.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I disagree with what she says, but...
> 
> Just get a few doctors in the audience to rebutt her claims and she will look like the fool she is.




She has gained huge traction in the USA


----------



## Value Collector (3 February 2015)

This is a funny demonstration, I pretty much agree with Penn on this one.


----------



## Value Collector (3 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> If we're being specific about the fluvax then yeah, I'd generally say no point unless you're in one of the high risk groups.
> 
> The flu is different in that you don't get life long immunity from the vaccination.




The herd vaccination principle still applies.

Just because your not at high risk, doesn't mean society won't benefit from you being vaccinated. Because you can pass the germ onto people who are high risk, imagine if it were you that spread the flu to your dear old grandma at the family BBQ, or the nice older lady that's a regular customer at your store.

Some vaccines such as whopping cough are recommended solely for their herd protection, you will never die of whopping cough, but your new bouncing baby niece or nephew might, so if they are to young to be vaccinated and you plan on visiting, getting a jab can pay off big time.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> This is a funny demonstration, I pretty much agree with Penn on this one.





Yes , I agree too, however the fact is that the USA has established the Vaccine Injury Compensation program which has compensated about 2500 individuals with payments of over $2 billion (including lawyers fees).

So there is a risk with vaccinations, it's just a very small one compared to the benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_injury


----------



## bellenuit (3 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> This is a funny demonstration, I pretty much agree with Penn on this one.




Although I agree with most of what Penn (and Teller) say, I just can't stand his foul mouth. This clip is something I would like to post on a forum about anti-vaxers, but it would simply turn off some of the participants.

Meanwhile, another letter from the heart.....

*To the Parent of the Unvaccinated Child Who Exposed My Family to Measles*

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...er-parent-unvaccinated-child-measles-exposure


----------



## Value Collector (3 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes , I agree too, however the fact is that the USA has established the Vaccine Injury Compensation program which has compensated about 2500 individuals with payments of over $2 billion (including lawyers fees).
> 
> So there is a risk with vaccinations, it's just a very small one compared to the benefits.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_injury




Probably like seat belts, can it be shown that in a few extremely rare cases that seats belts have caused harm,.. Probably yes.

Should we avoid seats belts,.. Offcourse not.


----------



## Value Collector (3 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Although I agree with most of what Penn (and Teller) say, I just can't stand his foul mouth. This clip is something I would like to post on a forum about anti-vaxers, but it would simply turn off some of the participants.
> 
> Meanwhile, another letter from the heart.....
> 
> ...




Yeah, it takes all types to get the point accross, in some cases you need a diplomat, other cases you need a fire brand, Penn plays the part of the fire brand.


----------



## bellenuit (3 February 2015)

*Medical experts rebuke Republican politicians hyping vaccination concerns*

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...xperts-vaccines-safe-chris-christie-rand-paul


----------



## cynic (7 February 2015)

If there is truth in the claims of the CDC whistleblowers (reported in the linked article), then a thorough reexamination of popular opinions may be warranted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html


----------



## cynic (8 February 2015)

Contrary to popular opinion, it looks like the science is yet to be settled:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/


----------



## DB008 (15 February 2015)

*‘You are playing with your child’s life’: Aussie mum’s powerful message for anti-vaccination movement*



> The anti-vaccination movement has been a talking point after a measles outbreak in the US, which has been traced back to the Disneyland amusement park in California.
> 
> At the latest count, the outbreak had reached 121 people, the majority of whom were unvaccinated.
> 
> The spread of the disease ”” which has now hit three provinces in Canada ”” sparked a scathing attack on the anti-vaccination movement by Toronto mother Jennifer Hibben-White, whose baby may have also contracted the highly contagious disease.




http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/you-are-playing-with-your-childs-life-aussie-mums-powerful-message-for-anti-vaccination-movement/story-fnet08xa-1227220062085


----------



## orr (15 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Contrary to popular opinion, it looks like the science is yet to be settled:
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/




I've read the links, to both of your above posts.

Do you want to make some specific point?

If so, Before you do, you can assist broader academia with a definition of the _'recombinaltion tinikering'_ ,as it appears that it's an_ 'in term'_ with a very small crowd, (of crack pots).......


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 February 2015)

Vaccination poses some risks, that seems fairly clear.

Not being vaccinated is a risk too, and that risk is larger than the risk associated with being vaccinated.

I'm both amazed and alarmed that the anti-vaccination argument seems to be gaining traction. At best, it's a sad reflection of a society too "dumbed down" to understand chance and probability and how to interpret statistics (all of which is just basic high school maths).


----------



## sydboy007 (15 February 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Vaccination poses some risks, that seems fairly clear.
> 
> Not being vaccinated is a risk too, and that risk is larger than the risk associated with being vaccinated.
> 
> I'm both amazed and alarmed that the anti-vaccination argument seems to be gaining traction. At best, it's a sad reflection of a society too "dumbed down" to understand chance and probability and how to interpret statistics (all of which is just basic high school maths).




An easy way to deal with it is to make these people pay for any medical costs if their Children get a vaccine preventable disease.

I'm not proposing to bankrupt them via this, though it's conceivable the full costs would, but they should have to wear a significant proportion of the costs.  I don't see why those doing the reasonably right action for the personal and common good should have to see their scarce tax $$$ funding what is a personal choice.


----------



## bellenuit (15 February 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm both amazed and alarmed that the anti-vaccination argument seems to be gaining traction. At best, it's a sad reflection of a society too "dumbed down" to understand chance and probability and how to interpret statistics (all of which is just basic high school maths).




I think an important contributing factor is that many parents of today no longer know how serious and debilitating some of these diseases are. They have grown up in a society where no one catches measles or any of the other diseases that kids are vaccinated against, so they do not know the seriousness of them and have become complacent.


----------



## basilio (15 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I think an important contributing factor is that many parents of today no longer know how serious and debilitating some of these diseases are. They have grown up in a society where no one catches measles or any of the other diseases that kids are vaccinated against, so they do not know the seriousness of them and have become complacent.




+10

I think the anti vaccination movement is just unbalanced.  As Smurf points out there is a small risk in vaccination that is hugely outweighed by the  risks of catching the diseases being protected against.

The other thing that concerns me is the way the net has enabled anti vaccination bodies to develop and grow recycled and reused arguments regardless of  their accuracy.

For what its worth the Wiki article which analysis the current concern about vaccination is very thorough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy


----------



## SirRumpole (15 February 2015)

Weren't some schools refusing admission to children who had not been vaccinated ?

I wonder how this would go down in the legal system as to whether schools have the legal right to do this.


----------



## Value Collector (15 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Weren't some schools refusing admission to children who had not been vaccinated ?
> 
> I wonder how this would go down in the legal system as to whether schools have the legal right to do this.




I thought they were daycare centres.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I thought they were daycare centres.




I suppose day care centres would have the right to reject whoever they wanted, unlike public schools perhaps.


----------



## cynic (15 February 2015)

orr said:


> I've read the links, to both of your above posts.
> 
> Do you want to make some specific point?
> 
> If so, Before you do, you can assist broader academia with a definition of the _'recombinaltion tinikering'_ ,as it appears that it's an_ 'in term'_ with a very small crowd, (of crack pots).......




As I generally prefer to distance myself from "crack pots", I do not consider myself empowered to translate on their behalf.

Having said that, I do recall reading a very similar term to the one you mention. 
Based upon the context in which it was used, the author's intent seemed to centre around expressing concern over the presence of human recombinant DNA in (some) vaccines. The author further (briefly) outlined how such DNA may have a potentially adverse impact on the vaccine recipient. (I'm confident that you already understood that, but thought I'd better mention it for the benefit of those here that may not have read that particular article.)

As for the point I'm making, it's similar to comments I've made earlier on this thread. 
I already know from my own direct experience that vaccines can have extremely adverse consequences for some (not all) unlucky individuals, and am annoyed when subjected to peer pressure from misinformed members of our society. 

Please be assured that I am not supportive of any campaign to mandate or outlaw vaccination! 

However, I am generally opposed to the deliberate misrepresentation of pharmacology, particularly when such misinformation is part of a campaign that threatens to remove the right of the individual to make informed choices.

Whilst acknowledging the inappropriateness of dictating how others manage their health, I was vainly hoping that such consideration for individual rights might be reciprocated. (I find the eagerness, with which some individuals, have embraced this campaign for removal of such an important human freedom, thoroughly disconcerting.) 

On a similar note, I am amazed by the repetitious assertions (reported via mainstream media) that unvaccinated children pose a threat to vaccinated children!  

Do they actually understand the implications of what they're saying?! 
(Whenever the argument is raised it seems to be tantamount to an admission of doubt regarding vaccine efficacy!!)

The logic of such assertions escapes me! (Yes! I've heard many fanciful theories about herd immunity, however, events in recent times are raising challenges to the validity of such beloved concepts!)

So do vaccines work or don't they?

If they only work for some children, then any impervious child will surely pose equal risk to others. 

Are we to alienate those children also?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> They have grown up in a society where no one catches measles or any of the other diseases that kids are vaccinated against, so they do not know the seriousness of them and have become complacent.




The same general principle could be said for all sorts of things from vaccination to fuel supply to war to rising interest rates. 

Few if any seem to believe that, for example, Australia will ever be faced with a military war on its' own soil, that imports of fuel (or anything else) will be cut-off and not available at _any_ price or that mortgage interest rates will return to the average of the past 50 years. All are very plausible scenarios, indeed I'd go so far as saying that at some point they're almost certain.

Humans just don't seem to be good at learning from the past. Most know that bad things happened in the past, few seem willing to contemplate the possibility of those same things happening today. Vaccination is just one example. That we keep having fires in the same places every few years is another one and there are plenty more such examples.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

> That we keep having fires in the same places every few years is another one and there are plenty more such examples.




Or advertising such as this on this on this very forum

http://signup.dailyreckoning.com.au/X920R205?gclid=CLfbu8OJ5MMCFUUHvAodrwIA9A

Blatant scaremongering to sell subscriptions ? A genuine warning or a self fullfilling prophecy ?


----------



## Tisme (16 February 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Few if any seem to believe that, for example




I think there are many who expect consequences and down turns. But there is a generation out there who have no idea of ubiquitous national deprivation and conservation of meagre incomes. I'm not sure if they should and possibly hinder the pursuit of visions.....(is there a cost?)


----------



## Julia (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> So do vaccines work or don't they?
> 
> If they only work for some children, then any impervious child will surely pose equal risk to others.
> 
> Are we to alienate those children also?



Aren't some of the routine vaccines not given to children until they reach X age?  We often see the little baby choking with whooping cough.  If they can't be vaccinated against everything at birth then presumably they're vulnerable then.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Julia said:


> Aren't some of the routine vaccines not given to children until they reach X age?  We often see the little baby choking with whooping cough.  If they can't be vaccinated against everything at birth then presumably they're vulnerable then.




You raise an interesting point.

I have on occasions read that breastfeeding infants gain some benefit from the mother's immunities. 
However, I am uncertain as to the extent to which those claims have been scientifically substantiated. 
So in the absence of further corroborative information regarding the aforementioned claim/s, I presume that there would indeed be some vulnerability.

Having said all that, how exactly does this alter the point I was raising?

"If they [vaccines] only work for some children, then any impervious child will surely pose equal risk to others. 

Are we to alienate those children also?"

Are infants under vaccination age vulnerable?

If so then the warped logic (behind proposals to alienate members of the community) could equally apply to those infants!


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose day care centres would have the right to reject whoever they wanted, unlike public schools perhaps.




I can see an argument for banning non vaccinated kids, or at least managing them so a schools population of un vaccinated kids doesn't rise above certain levels.

This is a very interesting video, discussing herd protection etc, and the importance of maintaining a 92% vaccination ratio for measles.


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

Julia said:


> Aren't some of the routine vaccines not given to children until they reach X age?  We often see the little baby choking with whooping cough.  If they can't be vaccinated against everything at birth then presumably they're vulnerable then.




Yes, their only protection is herd protection, in that we need a decent chunk of the population around them vaccinated to protect them by stopping vectors from spreading. Unfortunately if the community has lots of unvaccinated people getting around, babies are at risk.


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> You raise an interesting point.
> 
> I have on occasions read that breastfeeding infants gain some benefit from the mother's immunities.
> However, I am uncertain as to the extent to which those claims have been scientifically substantiated.
> ...




the video I uploaded above talks about this point, the vaccinations will not work on about 3% of people, however herd protection will still protect these children most likely, however adding unvaccinated children into the mix greatly increases the chance that the unvaccinated will act as an unnecessary vector and break down the protection of the herd.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> the video I uploaded above talks about this point, the vaccinations will not work on about 3% of people, however herd protection will still protect these children most likely, however adding unvaccinated children into the mix greatly increases the chance that the unvaccinated will act as an unnecessary vector and break down the protection of the herd.




Yes that was quite an amusing little video!

However, the information presented did not offer compelling substantiation of the concept/theory of herd immunity.

For example, the beneficial impact of dramatic improvements to sanitation etc. seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the interpretation of statistics offered in support of this somewhat questionable herd immunity theory.


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Yes that was quite an amusing little video!
> 
> However, the information presented did not offer compelling substantiation of the concept/theory of herd immunity.
> 
> For example, the beneficial impact of dramatic improvements to sanitation etc. seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the interpretation of statistics offered in support of this somewhat questionable herd immunity theory.




Improvements in sanitation? how does this effect the recent out break? 

The recent outbreak was linked back to Disneyland, it is likely that a single infected individual brought the virus into Disneyland, if this person had immunity from a vaccination it wouldn't have happened. the other 100 people would have been protected by this individual being immune. 

that is herd protection.

50% of the people that later got infected due to this one individual, were not vaccinated, if those 50% had been vaccinated, then they would not have been infected, and would not have continued passing on the virus to other unprotected people.

due to the high level of vaccination, there is only 100 reported cases, no doubt this number would have been higher if people were not vaccinated, and the people who were vaccinated, have saved people that weren't.

eg. little Timmy that didn't get sick because of his vaccination, no doubt saved little sally at school that wasn't vaccinated or had an ineffective response to vaccination.

it has spread to 17 states, if the 17 vectors had been vaccinated, they wouldn't have continued spreading the virus.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

VC, I do understand that some people like to believe that certain cherished opinions are grounded in (or perhaps even synonymous with) proven facts.

I've yet to see a compelling proof of the truth behind this herd immunity concept. The only fact that I can confidently derive, from recently reported events, is that some people were vulnerable to measles and an outbreak subsequently occurred. 

Conflicting theories have surfaced regarding the cause (and attribution of blame).

One unpopular theory is that the outbreak may have resulted from a child having been previously infected via a faulty vaccination batch!


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> VC, I do understand that some people like to believe that certain cherished opinions are grounded in (or perhaps even synonymous with) proven facts.
> 
> !




What part of herd protection do you doubt?

Do you think a person who has immunity, has the same chance of becoming a vector as a person who has no immunity?


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What part of herd protection do you doubt?
> 
> Do you think a person who has immunity, has the same chance of becoming a vector as a person who has no immunity?




8% of any large population is a lot of people!!! I fail to understand how the extinction of any communicable disease could be guaranteed (let alone proven!), especially considering the speed with which people are now able to travel and interact.

But hey, some people like to believe that "when you wish upon a star - dreams come true"!


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> 8% of any large population is a lot of people!!! I fail to understand how the extinction of any communicable disease could be guaranteed (let alone proven!), especially considering the speed with which people are now able to travel and interact.
> 
> But hey, some people like to believe that "when you wish upon a star - dreams come true"!




Well, smallpox is gone, apart from the samples that the US and Russia still keep. I suppose it could rear up again but so far it hasn't been seen since 1979.


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> 8% of any large population is a lot of people!!! I fail to understand how the extinction of any communicable disease could be guaranteed (let alone proven!), especially considering the speed with which people are now able to travel and interact.
> 
> But hey, some people like to believe that "when you wish upon a star - dreams come true"!




The point I am making is that vaccinations have been proven to work in the vast majority of people, that's a fact.

Also, when a person has immunity because they have been vaccinated, they have far less chance of becoming a vector, that's a fact.

So, when a person is vaccinated and they come in contact with an infected person, the fact that they are immune, means they have extremely reduced chance of carrying that virus from the infected person, to other none infected people.

That's herd protection right there.

If you want to prove herd protection wrong, all you have to do is show that being immune to a disease, does not reduce your risk of passing it on, However all the evidence suggests that being immune does infact reduce your chance of passing on the virus.

If you knew that you were personally vulnerable to a disease, and had absolutely no immunity, would you prefer to live in a society where 95% of other people were immune and won't spread the disease, or a society where 100% of the population had no immunity and all could be vectors?

If you said you would rather live in the society where 95% of people can't pass the disease to you, then congratulations, you understand herd protection.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, smallpox is gone, apart from the samples that the US and Russia still keep. I suppose it could rear up again but so far it hasn't been seen since 1979.



Yes! That is an interesting observation! 

However, does the recognition of one such statistical correlation conclusively prove that vaccination was the only factor contributing to the extinction of any particular disease.

I've no doubt that you've also observed the extent to which society and human activity has changed during the last century. 

I'm sure that other equally interesting statistical correlations may be drawn between disease reduction and technological and/or societal changes that have occurred during this past century.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The point I am making is that vaccinations have been proven to work in the vast majority of people, that's a fact.
> 
> Also, when a person has immunity because they have been vaccinated, they have far less chance of becoming a vector, that's a fact.
> 
> ...




I do not share your confidence in many of these things that you seem to confidently assert as fact. 

To the best of my understanding, herd immunity might be achievable for some diseases depending upon the nature of the disease and the typical behavior of the herd species.

However, 8% of a human population that likes to commute on crowded transport through highly populated cities and fly all around the globe - dream on!!!


"To dream the impossible dream..."


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Yes! That is an interesting observation!
> 
> However, does the recognition of one such statistical correlation conclusively prove that vaccination was the only factor contributing to the extinction of any particular disease.
> 
> ...




Yes, it was a coincidence that small pox disappeared just after a massive global vaccination push with the aim to eradicate it 

And it's an equal coincidence that the only remaining polio cases are in an area where vaccinations are impossible due to religious conflict that lead to aid workers attempting to vaccinate people being killed.

There are lots of areas where sanitation etc remain relatively unchanged, however they no longer have polio or small pox,

If herd protection didn't work, we wouldn't beable to eradicate disease, and we wouldn't have such low number of cases of other diseases.


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> I do not share your confidence in many of these things that you seem to confidently assert as fact.
> 
> To the best of my understanding, herd immunity might be achievable for some diseases depending upon the nature of the disease and the typical behavior of the herd species.
> 
> ...




So I ask again, would you want to be on the train or plane with the 95% with immunity, or the 100% unvaccinated?

Just a simple straight answer would be nice.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So I ask again, would you want to be on the train or plane with the 95% with immunity, or the 100% unvaccinated?
> 
> Just a simple straight answer would be nice.




If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to corner me here!

I've often used crowded public transport and can honestly say that, until recent times, the question of other's vaccination history did not concern me at all.

However, now that I know that some vaccinations for some diseases can result in a person being infectious to others, my preference would lean towards being amongst the unvaccinated.


----------



## needsajet (16 February 2015)

If we stop vaccinating, saving and planning for retirement will get easier as life expectancies drop back to where they were before vaccines. Can you get a better return on an annuity if you're unvaccinated?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

> However, 8% of a human population that likes to commute on crowded transport through highly populated cities and fly all around the globe - dream on!!!




Hopefully that may change as the increasing prices of aviation fuel and the diminishing cost and greater availability of teleconferences and work from home arrangements makes it less necessary to travel.

Paradoxically, the increasing threat of terrorism may discourage travel as well, although we obviously wouldn't want that.


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

> However, now that I know that some vaccinations for some diseases can result in a person being infectious to others, my preference would lean towards being amongst the unvaccinated



.

Cynic, you truely are very silly, for someone who tries to act like they understand science and simple maths, you say some really stupid things.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> Cynic, you truely are very silly, for someone who tries to act like they understand science and simple maths, you say some really stupid things.



{Heavy sigh!}

It seems that some posters simply never change!

As has been said so many times before:



> Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!


----------



## Value Collector (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> {Heavy sigh!}
> 
> It seems that some posters simply never change!
> 
> As has been said so many times before:




Well what else am I to think, to say you would prefer to take your chances with unvaccinated people rather than those who have been vaccinated, when it's been proven that vaccinations work and people with immunity have almost no chance of spreading the disease is, just dumb.

And the fact that you don't have to be concerned about disease on public transport anymore is a testament to the fact the herd protection works.

if herd protection didn't work, a lot more than 37 people in the USA would get measles each year. Because as you said a portion of the populace don't get effective immunity from vaccinations, without herd immunity this portion of hhe population which represents millions of people, would have a lot more cases than 37.

As I said, all you have to prove is that immune people don't have a reduced risk of passing on the virus, but the science is against you. And if you accept that immune people have an almost zero chance of passing on the disease, then simple math proves that herd protection exists.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

VC,

 Are you denying the presence of the actual disease within the vaccine?!!

Are you further denying the possibility that even when a person is safely vaccinated, they can be infectious to others for a period of time post vaccination?!!


----------



## sptrawler (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Yes! That is an interesting observation!
> 
> However, does the recognition of one such statistical correlation conclusively prove that vaccination was the only factor contributing to the extinction of any particular disease.
> 
> ...




You could throw in cholera, hooping cough, polio, diphtheria. Yes it is all pure ar$e, that they have reduced to the point of being non existent, in first world countries.

Maybe you can draw the same correlation between antibiotics and technology and social changes.
It makes for a great baseless argument.


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

sptrawler said:


> You could throw in cholera, hooping cough, polio, diphtheria. Yes it is all pure ar$e, that they have reduced to the point of being non existent, in first world countries.
> 
> Maybe you can draw the same correlation between antibiotics and technology and social changes.
> It makes for a great baseless argument.




Yes! 

I certainly agree that many interesting correlations can be drawn! 

The fact that correlation alone is insufficient for proof of causation does stymie the progress of such debates.

It's interesting that you mention that purportedly eradicated disease polio. 

Despite having received the oral vaccination for this disease throughout my childhood, pathology tests, obtained whilst suffering severe illness as an adult, returned a positive result for its presence!!!

From the aforesaid, I think you can understand the depth of my concern over issues concerning the merits of vaccination.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 February 2015)

Tisme said:


> But there is a generation out there who have no idea of ubiquitous national deprivation and conservation of meagre incomes. I'm not sure if they should and possibly hinder the pursuit of visions.....(is there a cost?)




My view is that it's always wise, in any situation, to be aware of what can go wrong. That doesn't mean living in fear, it just means being aware and taking sensible steps to be prepared should the worst occur.

Random examples:

Most car journeys are a safe, efficient and reliable means of getting from A to B. But things can go wrong so it's wise to wear a seat belt, preferably have a car with safety features such as air bags, have insurance on the car and join the RAC, NRMA etc in case you find yourself stranded. It would be irrational and in most cases impractical to avoid cars entirely, but you can certainly be sensibly prepared in case things go wrong. 

Same concept with anything really. Smoke detectors in houses. Insurance. Immunisation. Clearing around buildings in case of fire. Not putting your life savings into some unheard of junior mining company. Going to a doctor prompty if you have reason to suspect a serious illness. And so on.

If a risk can be reduced or eliminated at minimal cost, either financial cost or some other cost, then it's commonsense to do so. 

Failing to immunise is akin to choosing to not wear a seat belt. Increasing the overall risk for no good reason.


----------



## sptrawler (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Yes!
> 
> I certainly agree that many interesting correlations can be drawn!
> 
> ...




I certainly can and I'm sure the vaccine doesn't work for everyone, however the prevalence of the disease is a lot less than it was 40 years ago, when I was a kid.

It is hard to reconcile things when you have a negative outcome, but our life expectancy has continually increased with medical and technological improvements.
Whether that is for the good of mankind is debatable,
IMO, we are overpopulating the planet


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> .
> ...
> Failing to immunise is akin to choosing to not wear a seat belt. Increasing the overall risk for no good reason.



I do not feel that I could so confidently state, whether or not, your perception is true for some (or perhaps many) people in respect to immunisation for some (or perhaps many) diseases.

What I can confidently state that this is certainly untrue for some people in respect to immunisation for some diseases.

I am able to confidently state this on account of direct personal experience. As already mentioned, earlier in this thread, I happen to be one of those unlucky people experiencing serious ill effects as a direct consequence of vaccination.


----------



## Value Collector (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> VC,
> 
> 
> 
> Are you further denying the possibility that even when a person is safely vaccinated, they can be infectious to others for a period of time post vaccination?!!




Even if that were true, that risk pales in comparison to the huge benefit of immune people acting as a fire wall and back stop when they come in contact with a person that is infectious.

On average, infectious people come in contact with 18 people in ways that would spread an airborne virus, everytime one of those 18 people has been vaccinated, it prevents another 18 people being at risk. It's simple maths.

So in a country where over 92% of people are immune because of vaccinations, virus chains constantly hit dead ends, preventing outbreaks, that's herd protection.


----------



## burglar (17 February 2015)

sptrawler said:


> ... we are overpopulating the planet



Hi sp, 
long time no see!

So, do you advocate a little disease to thin the ranks?


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I certainly can and I'm sure the vaccine doesn't work for everyone, however the prevalence of the disease is a lot less than it was 40 years ago, when I was a kid.
> ...



Yes! That's observably true of a number of diseases. 

Much has changed and despite my deep concerns regarding vaccination, I still like to believe that some of it may have been beneficial for some (or perhaps even many) members of the populace.

However, numerous societal advancements during those years do render the question of causation difficult to conclusively settle from statistical correlations.


----------



## sptrawler (17 February 2015)

burglar said:


> Hi sp,
> long time no see!
> 
> So, do you advocate a little disease to thin the ranks?




Just watched the movie "Kingsmen", it had a similar theme.

It is the elephant in the room, everyone knows we are overpopulating.

The professionals aren't having kids, because they want to enjoy the trappings of wealth.

You figure out who are populating the world, the first world countries have negative population growth, so eventually we reach the lowest common denominator.lol


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Even if that were true,..



Unlike some members of this forum I do take care not to mistake personal opinions for proven facts!


----------



## Value Collector (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Unlike some members of this forum I do take care not to mistake personal opinions for proven facts!




Yet you seem to take proven facts as if they are personal opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> I am able to confidently state this on account of direct personal experience. As already mentioned, earlier in this thread, I happen to be one of those unlucky people experiencing serious ill effects as a direct consequence of vaccination.




I'm sure all of us sympathise with you for your personal experience over vaccinations, but it could also be said that these experiences bias your ability to look at the issue objectively.

Yes, a small percentage of people suffer reactions to vaccinations, but is this just cause to deny the vast majority the protection that comes from vaccination ?

 If your vaccinations produced no ill effects to you and protected you against disease, I wonder how different your opinion would be ?


----------



## sydboy007 (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Yes! That's observably true of a number of diseases.
> 
> Much has changed and despite my deep concerns regarding vaccination, I still like to believe that some of it may have been beneficial for some (or perhaps even many) members of the populace.
> 
> However, numerous societal advancements during those years do render the question of causation difficult to conclusively settle from statistical correlations.




How beneficial would you rate the eradication of small pox from the world?  If it wasn't vaccination that made small pox a historical memory, then what was it?  Even by the 50s, after much of the industrialised world had eradicated small pox, 50M new infections were still occurring every year.

How beneficial would you rate the close to eradication of polio within Australia, and much of the world?  Between the 1930’s and 1960’s there were 40,000 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis recorded in Australia but the total number of polio infection cases are up to 100 times greater. This is because only 1 in 100 cases of poliomyelitis causes paralysis thereby requiring hospitalisation and mandatory reporting. However, a large percentage of the ‘non-paralytic’ and non-reported polio infections still caused considerable damage to the motor neurones.


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure all of us sympathise with you for your personal experience over vaccinations, but it could also be said that these experiences bias your ability to look at the issue objectively.



I certainly do not claim to be unbiased on any matter influenced by personal experience. 

Throughout the years,  I've noticed how easily overconfidence can lead to delusions of "impartiality". 

Usually those succumbing to such delusions aren't sufficiently self aware to know that they've actually bought into a personal fantasy of superiority.

I used to be amazed by the number of people confidently expressing a firm belief in their own impartiality.

It was seldom (if ever) true!

Some of the most blatantly opinionated people I know, proudly profess their total impartiality! Unsurprisingly, those same people are very quick to accuse others of prejudice! 

The underlying logic seemed to be akin to: "I know I'm right! Therefore anyone in disagreement must be wrong!"

Some people do attempt to synthesise a level of objectivity by making conscious, concerted (and indeed noble) efforts to quarantine favoured opinions whilst in dialogue with others. 

However, despite best efforts, past experience will still hold some influence over interpretation and filtration of data. 

Thankfully such people are rarely seen to make the foolish error of presuming total impartiality. Nor do such people make the error of claiming the infallibility of anything, irrespective of popularity or the amount of supportive evidence.

By now some may be wondering what this has to do with the immunisation debate.
A perusal of the posts (including linked articles) within this thread will reveal numerous examples of prejudice appearing on both sides of the debate.

It's not so much a question as to whether or not prejudice exists - it's more a question of the degree to which prejudice exists!




> Yes, a small percentage of people suffer reactions to vaccinations, but is this just cause to deny the vast majority the protection that comes from vaccination ?



I believe earlier comments have already made my position on this question quite clear:


cynic said:


> ...As for the point I'm making, it's similar to comments I've made earlier on this thread.
> I already know from my own direct experience that vaccines can have extremely adverse consequences for some (not all) unlucky individuals, and am annoyed when subjected to peer pressure from misinformed members of our society.
> 
> Please be assured that I am not supportive of any campaign to mandate or outlaw vaccination!
> ...





> If your vaccinations produced no ill effects to you and protected you against disease, I wonder how different your opinion would be ?




My comments in this post regarding prejudice and impartiality should suffice.


----------



## Value Collector (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> I certainly do not claim to be unbiased on any matter influenced by personal experience.
> 
> Throughout the years,  I've noticed how easily overconfidence can lead to delusions of "impartiality".
> 
> ...




Replace the word vaccinations, with seat belts and see how silly your argument sounds.

Should we let parents make an "informed choice" as to whether to restrain their children while driving.


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yet you seem to take proven facts as if they are personal opinion.




Perhaps my recent response to Sir Rumpole may shed some light on the dynamics behind our interactions on this and other threads within this forum!


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How beneficial would you rate the eradication of small pox from the world?  If it wasn't vaccination that made small pox a historical memory, then what was it?  Even by the 50s, after much of the industrialised world had eradicated small pox, 50M new infections were still occurring every year.
> 
> How beneficial would you rate the close to eradication of polio within Australia, and much of the world?  Between the 1930’s and 1960’s there were 40,000 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis recorded in Australia but the total number of polio infection cases are up to 100 times greater. This is because only 1 in 100 cases of poliomyelitis causes paralysis thereby requiring hospitalisation and mandatory reporting. However, a large percentage of the ‘non-paralytic’ and non-reported polio infections still caused considerable damage to the motor neurones.




This is getting repetitious. 

Have I not already voiced my concerns regarding the failure of some to distinguish between correlation and causation?

Have I not also drawn attention to the fact that there were numerous beneficial changes throughout the past century that, ideally, need to be considered when trying to determine causation?

I hope by now you can understand why I consider it unwise to become too attached to opinions regarding the likely causation behind the eradication of the diseases you mention.


----------



## orr (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> I used to be amazed by the number of people confidently expressing a firm belief in their own impartiality.
> 
> It was seldom (if ever) true!
> 
> .




It's hard not to be influenced by  information like this;

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-pubs-cdi-2002-cdi2602-cdi2602a.htm


a lifted quote;
_Vaccination prevents an estimated 650,000 cases of paralytic polio in each annual global birth cohort.1 In October 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Western Pacific region, including Australia to be polio-free.2_

and another;
_Since the creation of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative by the World Health Assembly in 1988, the estimated number of polio cases has fallen from 350,000 to less than 3,500, a decrease of more than 99 per cent.3
_

The article goes on to discuss world eradication of polio.

Cynic; do you ever contemplate a world, that because of a successful vaccination programme related to polio, that someone with your susceptibility to a reaction to a polio immunisation would never have to suffer that reaction because there would be no need to vaccinate people in the first place. 
   As it is in my case I have no need to risk the small but real possibility of a reaction to the small pox vaccination because of its eradication in the wider population. I and many millions owe a great debt to those who, were both drugooned or volunteered into taking that small but real risk .    

Feel free to repeat yourself. 
And correlate this; with no virus there is no causation of the associated implicated disease. Orr in your opinion, is there?


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

orr said:


> It's hard not to be influenced by  information like this;
> 
> http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-pubs-cdi-2002-cdi2602-cdi2602a.htm
> 
> ...



Orr, when presented with published statements which happen to be at variance to direct personal experience, do you automatically dismiss the evidence of your own senses in favour of such published statements?


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Replace the word vaccinations, with seat belts and see how silly your argument sounds.
> 
> Should we let parents make an "informed choice" as to whether to restrain their children while driving.




Is your desire to ridicule me so intense that you must now resort to word substitution?


----------



## orr (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Orr, when presented with published statements which happen to be at variance to direct personal experience, do you automatically dismiss the evidence of your own senses in favour of such published statements?




Depending of the origin supporting published statements and the capacities of the authors and my variance to them, I'd conclude either I'm mad or they are....

You're the one here who posts _supporting_ links to, 'crack pots' ... or? you would describe them as ??? 

The published statement I've linked to ?.... I'll await your description.

By the way, both my father and his brother contracted polio as children, from _Pemperton's polio pool _in Ramsgate NSW as it was euphormisticly referred to back then. I don't know what you've suffered. But if your exercises in semantics here, were to lead to one unnecessary infection,  I'd find a use for an iron lung, and where I'd place it, wouldn't be aiding your resporation. 

You were asked for your opinion previously ....
now you've two more Q's ....  and here's another, are they to hard???


----------



## sydboy007 (17 February 2015)

cynic said:


> This is getting repetitious.
> 
> Have I not already voiced my concerns regarding the failure of some to distinguish between correlation and causation?
> 
> ...




Yet you wont answer a simple question.

If small pox wasn't eradicated due to mass immunisation, then what other causation do you offer as an alternative.  I honestly can't think of anything else, considering that small pox had been around for roughly 16000 years prior.

Same with polio.  I've not met anyone born in Australia within the last 40 years who's had polio.  If it isn't vaccination that's allowed this to occur, then what has?  The only person of similar age I know who had polio was from South America and had not been vaccinated for polio when living there.

You seem to be arguing that improved sanitation, possibly improved access to food and general health care can explain the reduction in various diseases that are vaccine preventable.


----------



## cynic (17 February 2015)

orr said:


> Depending of the origin supporting published statements and the capacities of the authors and my variance to them, I'd conclude either I'm mad or they are....
> 
> You're the one here who posts _supporting_ links to, 'crack pots' ... or? you would describe them as ???
> 
> ...




My opinion and rationale have been repeatedly stated throughout this thread. If you truly believe your questions unanswered, then I recommend that you read through my previous posts. 

My concerns regarding the importance of discernment and critical thinking, when assessing the merits of any claims, have also been expressed.

A tragic reality that seems recurrent throughout human history, is the habitual and automatic vilification of those daring enough to question popular beliefs!


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Yet you wont answer a simple question.
> 
> If small pox wasn't eradicated due to mass immunisation, then what other causation do you offer as an alternative.  I honestly can't think of anything else, considering that small pox had been around for roughly 16000 years prior.
> 
> ...




Not quite! But you're getting warmer!

I'm saying that there were other factors that may have contributed to the eradication of those diseases and ideally should also be considered when attempting to conclude causation.

(Please note that there is a chasm of difference between the meaning of the words "may" and "can".)


----------



## sydboy007 (18 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Not quite! But you're getting warmer!
> 
> I'm saying that there were other factors that may have contributed to the eradication of those diseases and ideally should also be considered when attempting to conclude causation.
> 
> (Please note that there is a chasm of difference between the meaning of the words "may" and "can".)




Yet you don't actually say what those _other factors that may have contributed to the eradication of those diseases and ideally should also be considered when attempting to conclude causation._

I'm not a mind reader, so how about you put a couple of bullet points down and make it easy for me to understand your argument.

Lets be specific and focus on small pox, since it's the first virus I'm aware of that we have reasonable proof existed and now no longer exists in the environment we live in.


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> ...
> Lets be specific and focus on small pox, since it's the first virus I'm aware of that we have reasonable proof existed and now no longer exists in the environment we live in.



Lets not!

If you wish to talk about smallpox you are perfectly free to do so! 

I've already expressed my concerns regarding pharmacology enamoured researchers automatically favouring one correlation in isolation to all others, and see no benefit in reiterating my observations to those disinterested in openly investigating the question of causation.

The current campaign for herd immunity happens to be heavily focused on vaccination for a number of far less serious diseases which were once considered too trivial to even warrant vaccination!

Every child I knew whilst growing up was allowed to catch chickenpox, mumps and measles - and did so! 

It really didn't present much of a problem. 

The child simply stayed at home for the few days that it took to recover. 

Girls were vaccinated against rubella in those days. 
(Apparently there were concerns over the impact of rubella on the human foetus during pregnancy).


----------



## Julia (18 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Every child I knew whilst growing up was allowed to catch chickenpox, mumps and measles - and did so!
> 
> It really didn't present much of a problem.



I cannot see the sense in anyone, child or adult, being subjected to any of the above if vaccination can avoid it.
And they are not necessarily as mild as you seem to be suggesting.  
Then if someone who has avoided it in childhood catches measles as an adult they can be very sick indeed.
I can remember my mother being very ill, having pneumonia as a complication, despite the fact that she was at the time a healthy 35 year old.

I had whooping cough as an adult and coughed so intensely and relentlessly that I vomited and lost consciousness.

So I cannot see any case for altering the status quo which strongly encourages vaccination.


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)

Julia said:


> I cannot see the sense in anyone, child or adult, being subjected to any of the above if vaccination can avoid it.



You are certainly quite entitled to hold your own point of view , whatsoever it may be, and I am equally entitled to mine!

However, when it comes to supporting a campaign to oppress the rights of others...



> And they are not necessarily as mild as you seem to be suggesting.



For the children I knew it certainly was mild in comparison to the outlandish claims in the media. Concerns did arise if a child didn't catch these diseases prior to adolescence. Fortunately it was sufficiently prevalent that such occurrences were virtually unheard of.


> Then if someone who has avoided it in childhood catches measles as an adult they can be very sick indeed.
> I can remember my mother being very ill, having pneumonia as a complication, despite the fact that she was at the time a healthy 35 year old.
> 
> I had whooping cough as an adult and coughed so intensely and relentlessly that I vomited and lost consciousness.
> ...



Actually, you may not have noticed this, but it seems that you have just inadvertently highlighted a very strong argument against the case for vaccination!


----------



## Knobby22 (18 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Girls were vaccinated against rubella in those days.
> (Apparently there were concerns over the impact of rubella on the human foetus during pregnancy).




Girls are still vaccinated for rubella.
I have a cousin who's Mum got rubella during the early stages of pregnancy because she didn't vaccinate and I can tell you the damage to the child is horrific. He is nearly totally blind, deaf, brain damages etc. Very nasty and so preventable.


People should watch documentaries about polio, see the iron lungs and the pure agony and death. If people don't want to vaccinate, just like they want to drink milk that hasn't been pasteurised, then good on them but don't come running for me to help when it all goes wrong. 

Governments try to protect people but if they want to deliberately expose themselves to danger then they should act with some responsibility and don't visit pre school centres or maternity wards!!


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Girls are still vaccinated for rubella.
> I have a cousin who's Mum got rubella during the early stages of pregnancy because she didn't vaccinate and I can tell you the damage to the child is horrific. He is nearly totally blind, deaf, brain damages etc. Very nasty and so preventable.




Yes- that matches my understanding of the case for vaccination against rubella (which was the reason for my inclusion of that comment).



Knobby22 said:


> People should watch documentaries about polio, see the iron lungs and the pure agony and death. If people don't want to vaccinate, just like they want to drink milk that hasn't been pasteurised, then good on them but don't come running for me to help when it all goes wrong.
> 
> Governments try to protect people but if they want to deliberately expose themselves to danger then they should act with some responsibility and don't visit pre school centres or maternity wards!!



People could also take the time to acquaint themselves with the families of children unfortunate enough to have a vaccination go horribly wrong!!


----------



## sydboy007 (18 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Lets not!
> 
> If you wish to talk about smallpox you are perfectly free to do so!
> 
> ...




So basically you seem unwilling / unable to proffer any understandable alternatives to vaccination as the cause of reduction in the amount of vaccine preventable disease related deaths and complications.

Even if it turned out 50% of the reduction was due to vaccines, that's still a massive benefit to humanity.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Yes- that matches my understanding of the case for vaccination against rubella (which was the reason for my inclusion of that comment).
> 
> 
> People could also take the time to acquaint themselves with the families of children unfortunate enough to have a vaccination go horribly wrong!!




Which cohort is larger?  Those that benefited from vaccination, or those harmed?

Even measels, one of your so called mild diseases (from the WHO website)


Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
*In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally*
Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
*During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths* making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

Seems a pretty good risk reward trade off.


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So basically you seem unwilling / unable to proffer any understandable alternatives to vaccination as the cause of reduction in the amount of vaccine preventable disease related deaths and complications.



My posts have already alerted you to my concerns and I find your repetitious insistence to the contrary somewhat tiresome. 

Just because someone doesn't like or agree with the content of my responses, doesn't entitle them to claim that none were proffered!!!



sydboy007 said:


> Even if it turned out 50% of the reduction was due to vaccines, that's still a massive benefit to humanity.




Perhaps!

However, what if it turned out that improved sanitation, food handling practices, nutritional awareness etc. accounted for the "lion's share" and it turned out that eradication only occurred in spite of vaccination and not because of it?!!


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Which cohort is larger?  Those that benefited from vaccination, or those harmed?
> 
> Even measels, one of your so called mild diseases (from the WHO website)
> 
> ...




Really! 

Then tell me, how many measles deaths were there annually, prior to the world's introduction to the use of measles vaccine?


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)




----------



## burglar (18 February 2015)

cynic said:


> View attachment 61624




Are we now immortal or have I missed the point too?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 February 2015)

burglar said:


> Are we now immortal or have I missed the point too?




I think he's making the point that measles deaths rapidly decreased before the advent of vaccinations.


----------



## cynic (18 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think he's making the point that measles deaths rapidly decreased before the advent of vaccinations.




+1

It may also be interesting to note the period during which the decline occurs and how it seems to coincide with the decline in prevalence of other diseases!


----------



## orr (19 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Lets not!
> 
> 
> 
> Every child I knew whilst growing up was allowed to catch chickenpox, mumps and measles - and did so!




Lets

And which one/s of those have suffered mental retardation due to the effects encephalitic manifestation of the (now conceivably completely avoidable) measles infection?

Or is that obvious ...

Back of the envelope calculations are about 350 cases of sevre Mental retardation due to measles per million

Spose it has to be somebody, hey Cynic.


----------



## cynic (19 February 2015)

cynic said:


> ...
> The current campaign for herd immunity happens to be heavily focused on vaccination for a number of far less serious diseases which were once considered too trivial to even warrant vaccination!
> 
> Every child I knew whilst growing up was allowed to catch chickenpox, mumps and measles - and did so!
> ...






orr said:


> Lets
> 
> And which one/s of those have suffered mental retardation due to the effects encephalitic manifestation of the (now conceivably completely avoidable) measles infection?
> 
> ...




Orr, please recognize that my observations regarding the relative triviality of certain diseases most certainly did not include rubella (commonly referred to as "German measles") which was purposely mentioned separately!



cynic said:


> ...
> The current campaign for herd immunity happens to be heavily focused on vaccination for a number of far less serious diseases which were once considered too trivial to even warrant vaccination!
> 
> Every child I knew whilst growing up was allowed to catch chickenpox, mumps and measles - and did so!
> ...


----------



## sydboy007 (19 February 2015)

cynic said:


> My posts have already alerted you to my concerns and I find your repetitious insistence to the contrary somewhat tiresome.
> 
> Just because someone doesn't like or agree with the content of my responses, doesn't entitle them to claim that none were proffered!!!
> 
> ...




Then how does one explain the regular outbreaks of various vaccine preventable diseases?

Are there sudden changes in sanitation, or perhaps diets suddenly change?  I suppose the nanas hep a food scare shows how poor food handling can spread disease quite readily, but then unless you're going to rely solely on your own produce seems a hep a/b vacination is a reasonable preventative route to take, especially if you plan to travel overseas, or interact with people from overseas.

That the issue with today's globalised world.  Just because the country you live in has been able to lower the incidence of a particular disease through good sanitation / access to nutrition / high hygiene doesn't offer that much protection these days.  If you live in a global city like Sydney or Melbourne where millions of people from countries with much higher rates of measles and hepatitis visit, then it's hard to avoid coming into contact with infected people.  Possibly living in outback Australia might give you some protection - hopefully you got ya tetanus vaccination though.


----------



## cynic (19 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Then how does one explain the regular outbreaks of various vaccine preventable diseases?
> ...



What makes you so certain that these diseases were vaccine preventable?

Where's the evidence that conclusively proves efficacy of vaccine?

Where's the evidence that conclusively disproves the benefits of improved nutrition, sanitation etcetera?

Until these questions are adequately answered, questions regarding causation must surely remain open!


----------



## cynic (19 February 2015)




----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2015)

cynic said:


> View attachment 61642




And how many deaths prevented due to eradication?


----------



## cynic (19 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And how many deaths prevented due to eradication?



Given that questions regarding eradication causation remain open, I fail to understand how anybody could so much as claim to be able to proffer a definitive answer to your question.


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Given that questions regarding eradication causation remain open, I fail to understand how anybody could so much as claim to be able to proffer a definitive answer to your question.




You crack me up cynic, you have got to be a Poe.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 February 2015)

cynic said:


> View attachment 61642




So your argument is that 16000 years of small pox within humanity and somehow being able to wash our hands and eat enough calories a day is the major contributor to the virus going extinct in the wild?


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So your argument is that 16000 years of small pox within humanity and somehow being able to wash our hands and eat enough calories a day is the major contributor to the virus going extinct in the wild?




I wonder what fantasy story he can construct to explain why Polio has been eradicated everywhere except the one place where the vaccine can not be distributed due to Islamic fanatics killing aid workers.


----------



## cynic (20 February 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So your argument is that 16000 years of small pox within humanity and somehow being able to wash our hands and eat enough calories a day is the major contributor to the virus going extinct in the wild?




Sydboy007, please, please please desist from such misrepresentation regarding my position on this question!



cynic said:


> ....
> I'm saying that there were other factors that may have contributed to the eradication of those diseases and ideally should also be considered when attempting to conclude causation.
> 
> (Please note that there is a chasm of difference between the meaning of the words "may" and "can".)






cynic said:


> ...
> Much has changed and despite my deep concerns regarding vaccination, I still like to believe that some of it may have been beneficial for some (or perhaps even many) members of the populace.
> 
> However, numerous societal advancements during those years do render the question of causation difficult to conclusively settle from statistical correlations.






cynic said:


> This is getting repetitious.
> 
> Have I not already voiced my concerns regarding the failure of some to distinguish between correlation and causation?
> 
> ...


----------



## cynic (20 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I wonder what fantasy story he can construct to explain why Polio has been eradicated everywhere except the one place where the vaccine can not be distributed due to Islamic fanatics killing aid workers.




Who's fantasizing here?



> Concerns about viral reversion to neurovirulence have been bolstered recently by three separate reports. An outbreak of 21 cases of polio in the Dominican Republic and Haiti which began in October 2000,16 has been shown to be associated with *a vaccine-derived poliovirus type 1, which had recovered the capacity to cause paralytic disease*. A retrospective study of polioviruses circulating in Egypt between 1982 and 1993 demonstrated that *a vaccine derived poliovirus type 2 was associated with 32 cases of polio*.17 *A third outbreak of paralytic disease associated with vaccine derived poliovirus* occurred in October 2001 in the Philippines, where 3 children were infected with a poliovirus type 1 variant.18 The occurrence of variant neurovirulent polioviruses in populations with low vaccination rates in three different geographic areas raise concerns that these could be more widely spread.




(Note: I've taken the liberty of bolding portions of some statements which have serious implications!)

Given that the aforequoted paragraph appears in the following publication:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-pubs-cdi-2002-cdi2602-cdi2602a.htm

..who's fantasizing now?


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Who's fantasizing here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So how many cases of polio have been caused by vaccination? and how many cases have been prevented now and into the future considering polio is virtually eradicated?

and before you go on a poe's law tangent about the cornering of polio to not being due to the vaccinations, please explain why it is you think polio now only exists in the one part of the world where we can't safely give out vaccinations.


----------



## cynic (20 February 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So how many cases of polio have been caused by vaccination? and how many cases have been prevented now and into the future considering polio is virtually eradicated?
> ...




Given that not all incidences of this disease are correctly diagnosed and reported, how could one possibly know?



> ...
> and before you go on a poe's law tangent about the cornering of polio to not being due to the vaccinations, please explain why it is you think polio now only exists in the one part of the world where we can't safely give out vaccinations.




Please refer to my recent response (post # 188)  to Sydboy007.


----------



## bellenuit (11 April 2015)

*Anti-vaxx mom abandons movement — after all seven of her kids get whooping cough*

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/...all-seven-her-of-her-kids-get-whooping-cough/


----------



## cynic (12 April 2015)

By now the participants of this thread will already be well aware that vaccines aren't 100% effective. 

Knowing this, one might reasonably ask just how effective are they?

We've seen ample media coverage of medical authorities assuring >90% efficacy, but do these assurances actually translate into reality?

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/jun/12/immunized-people-getting-whooping-cough/


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2015)

cynic said:


> By now the participants of this thread will already be well aware that vaccines aren't 100% effective.
> 
> Knowing this, one might reasonably ask just how effective are they?




Historically  = very.

I bet the native americans would have liked a shot before the Europeans came knocking.....and the Martians at the zenith of The War of The Worlds. 

Seriously there are still remnants of polio victims about, as a boy I watched a mother down the street slowly succumb to TB, people not so long ago died frequently of the flu, ...these are sample diseases that don't make a race stronger by weeding out the weak, they just kill indiscriminately.


----------



## cynic (13 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Historically  = very.
> 
> I bet the native americans would have liked a shot before the Europeans came knocking.....and the Martians at the zenith of The War of The Worlds.
> 
> Seriously there are still remnants of polio victims about, as a boy I watched a mother down the street slowly succumb to TB, people not so long ago died frequently of the flu, ...these are sample diseases that don't make a race stronger by weeding out the weak, they just kill indiscriminately.




Interestingly enough, some decades and several diseases ago, I might have actually agreed with your perspective on this!

Since you've volunteered an answer to one of my rhetorical questions, perhaps you'd like to answer the other regarding translation of promised efficacy into reality!

Should you choose to do so, it would also be of interest to read your thoughts on how this perceived "efficacy" is reconciled with reported events.

P.S. As for Europeans and H.G. Wells' unfortunate Martians, I think many, irrespective of personal bias, with actual experience of the woeful performance of the influenza vaccines would likely agree that the woeful performance of our contemporary influenza vaccines would prove tantamount to a death sentence to such historical and fictional entities.


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2015)

cynic said:


> Interestingly enough, some decades and several diseases ago, I might have actually agreed with your perspective on this!
> 
> .




What made you second guess what I see as common sense predicated on empirical success:- millions saved, the few succumbed. 

I'm fairly sure I don't need to know latin or the medical lingo to understand the success of immunisation, so if you can put your argument in plain straightforward numbers, I'm happy to consider your argument as plausible. But it has to be fair and not an obfuscate and obdurate numbers puzzle as used, for instance by Newscorp/Jones/Bolt to make Noco happy.


----------



## cynic (13 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> What made you second guess what I see as common sense predicated on empirical success:- millions saved, the few succumbed.
> ...




That many?! 

Really?!

For each person proven to have perished from vaccination, can you confidently identify so much as one person from amongst those millions purportedly saved?

If so, which of the purportedly vaccine preventable disease/s was this person "saved" from and where is the proof that this person wouldn't have survived via their normal immune response?  

The tragic reality is that such grandiose claims regarding lives saved are simply estimates based upon society's perception of vaccine efficacy.

In the real world, events have occurred which call such optimistic perceptions into serious doubt.


----------



## Craton (13 April 2015)

cynic said:


> By now the participants of this thread will already be well aware that vaccines aren't 100% effective.




Back in the mid 80's (and I dare say pertinent information was not so readily available back then) as a new parent, I was well aware of this and well aware of the associated risks (including death) of vaccinating my children. At the time even though my dearly departed wife and I had both had been immunised and had the polio syrup via the school system, we still discussed at length the pros and cons of immunising our kids. So is it right or wrong was a huge question mark over us at the time. 

To me it was a real case of damned it you do and damned if you don't Catch 22 scenario. We decided to go pro vaccination for many reasons foremost of which, in our perception, was that the disease was far worse than the cure.

We also took it upon ourselves that if a child died because of the vaccination, so be it. We would be wholly responsible for the decision we had taken, we would not blame each other or the "authorities" because it was our choice to give our children what we thought would help in giving them the best start in life. Vaccination was simply a part and parcel of that start.

We also took the view that if the child did die, then that child had a weakness that no vaccination could/would protect the child against regardless. Also, an un-immunised child would be at risk.

Had we not immunised and a child died because of that non-immunisation decision, I don't think we, certainly I could've, coped with that. It would have torn us apart in more ways than one.

Is it right or wrong?
I think it's up to the parents but it seems our current govt. is going to make that judgement call for the parents. Probably better that way too due to the large, obvious rift and division amongst the anti and pro-vaxx groups. 

Do I regret the pro decision? 
Not for a minute as my kids have grown up to either become parents or are on the cusp. Do I badger them on getting my grandkids immunised? 
Of course not. It's a decision my kids have or will have to grapple with for themselves although I will say, they are all pro-vaxx.

I get that you are cynical cynic and good on you for doing/being so. Good on you too for showing an opposing view to the norm. I for one, appreciate it.


----------



## cynic (13 April 2015)

Craton,

Thankyou so much for your well considered post. 

I found the circumspection displayed within most refreshing, and I'm glad that your choices have worked out well for yourself and family.

It's comforting to encounter one that shares an appreciation for the freedom to make informed choices (based upon best available resources) and accepting responsibility for the outcomes. 
(I like to believe that's the reason each human is born fully equipped with its own personal brain  - so that they needn't be solely dependent upon a collective decision making authority.)

Whilst controversy can often polarize a population into extreme viewpoints, making it difficult for members to equip themselves with impartial information when deciding issues, I don't wish to see freedom of choice regarding medication of oneself and one's own children legislated out of existence.

Given the above, if there was a push by government to completely outlaw vaccination, whilst I mightn't be nearly so outspoken on the issue, I certainly wouldn't be supporting that campaign either.


----------



## DB008 (13 April 2015)

*Ottawa mother of 7 abandons anti-vaxxer views as kids hit with whooping cough​*


> It was “the kind of cough that stops a parent’s heart,” says Tara Hills, who has seven children and has heard them cough many times before.
> 
> Just another cold, she thought at first. But her family’s journey into whooping cough treatment has forced them to re-examine what they believed about vaccination, knowledge and responsibility in a community.
> 
> ...




http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-mother-of-7-abandons-anti-vaxxer-views-as-kids-hit-with-whooping-cough​


----------



## Craton (14 April 2015)

cynic said:


> Craton,
> 
> Thankyou so much for your well considered post.
> 
> ...




Cheers cynic, pleasure to contribute. Thanks too for you candid and well articulated reply.

Briefly and by way of conclusion.

Firm believer in that one must do the best one can, with the knowledge and resources available at the time and more importantly, that one must accept the consequences of one's decisions and actions.

Now don't get me wrong, there was a tense period when our children had those first inoculations but we wouldn't be human if we don't have self doubts and concerns. So yeah, I'm more than glad it worked out OK too. 

Regarding the touted legislation, another touchy area no doubt.

I agree that there is too much legislation as it is and like the rest of us, I enjoy having the freedom to make my own decisions/choices but I'm not totally opposed to this law being enacted. I can see that if the situation is left unchecked, the distinct disconnect between vaxxed and unvaxxed will further split and divide our society. Separate pre-schools being just the start, increased costs for new parents and I shudder to think of the long term consequences of this highly emotive matter down the track. I'd really hate to see those anti-vaxx segregated and penalised.

Seems to me that bringing this regulation in as much as I don't like it, is a necessary erosion of parenting rights for the above reasons. No doubt an indemnity clause will be passed within the law thus exonerating the authorities (and so too I would think, the parents) should things go awry.  I'm interested to hear what would happen to those that would oppose or refuse immunisation due to religious beliefs. Surely they can't be exempt as that would make a mockery of the law?

Still, the bill hasn't been passed nor have we heard the full details so I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion yet to come.

FWIW.
Yikes, a quick Google Fu of mandatory immunisation is an eye opener.


----------



## cynic (22 May 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/health/flu-vaccine-paradox-adds-to-public-health-debate-1.2912790

There is a bit of flu vaccine related discussion occuŕring on the science thread at present, however, I thought this article might be more suited to this thread, rather than one intended for discussion of a broader spectrum of science.


----------



## orr (2 December 2019)

With the in excess of Fifty needless deaths of children in Samoa, and the unfortunate probability that this number will rise. Ancillary to this the curtailing of social interaction and trade in an attempt to slow the spread of the preventable Measles epidemic now gripping the Pacific Nation.
Immunisation would be hard pressed to mount a case 'As Wrong'

The wanton disregard for the suffering and unnecessary  death of one child is bad enough. But the poisonous ignorant drivel spruked under the protections of free speech has consequences.
Manipulative misrepresentations, which in %99.9 of cases that are simple to digest by those with little or no understanding of medicine or history stokes a situation where we have  the human disaster now infecting Samoa. 
My Contempt for the anti vaccer brigade has cost me friends hopefully it has saved a life or the distuction of a good one.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2019)

orr said:


> The wanton disregard for the suffering and unnecessary  death of one child is bad enough. But the poisonous ignorant drivel spruked under the protections of free speech has consequences.
> Manipulative misrepresentations, which in %99.9 of cases that are simple to digest by those with little or no understanding of medicine or history stokes a situation where we have  the human disaster now infecting Samoa.




We're unfortunately living in an age where anti-intellectualism is a thing and many aren't ashamed of it.

Sad but true.


----------



## cynic (2 December 2019)

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article236237578.html


----------



## orr (7 December 2019)

It 's a good article pointing out nothing that Noam Chomsky wasn't saying 45-50yrs ago... 
The punitive trade sanctions placed on Cuba causing the shortages affecting the safe storage of vaccines leads to the deaths of innocents... along with poor regulation on the sub-continent.
Great to see you highlighting cause and effect cyinc.


----------



## sptrawler (7 December 2019)

It's funny how some neglect the science, for some issues and embrace it for other issues.
Aka climate change, as opposed to mass vaccination.


----------



## cynic (7 December 2019)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2019)

60 dead in Samoa and many more seriously that came close to death over last two months , mostly children due to inoculation rates only at 40%. It appears the anti vaxxers had success in this little nation who are now suffering due to their gullibility.

The tiny population is in despair and a mass inoculation run by the Red Cross is now taking place.

I am not posting a link. Go to your preferred news source and follow it.


----------



## cynic (8 December 2019)

Note the presence, within this WHO report, of what appears to be a suspiciously significant correlation between sickness and immunisation.


http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-ce...rope-record-number-of-both-sick-and-immunized


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2019)

You didn't read the report properly leading to a wrong conclusion.
Read it again and tell me why your statement is wrong. 3/10. 

Also you have ignored main article posted previously where many children are dying in an island nation after successful anti vaxxer propaganda effort. 

Please undertake research and address to get a pass in this subject.

Please also address within your report why anti vaxxers have now been arrested and why the mothers who fell for their propaganda resulting in their children dying want legal recourse.


----------



## cynic (8 December 2019)

http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-ce...rope-record-number-of-both-sick-and-immunized
For the benefit of those whom "didn't read the report properly" before accusing me of same, I draw attention to the following sentence, which confirms the validity of my earlier observation: 


> While data indicate an exceptionally high immunization coverage at regional level, they also reflect a record number affected and killed by the disease.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2019)

And?


----------



## cynic (8 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> ... Please undertake research and address to get a pass in this subject.



Right back at you!


> Please also address within your report why anti vaxxers have now been arrested and why the mothers who fell for their propaganda resulting in their children dying want legal recourse.



I cannot seem to find any references to the things you mention here, within the report I posted, which leads me to wonder, are you asking me to do your research for you?


----------



## cynic (8 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> And?



An apology for the wrongful accusation would be nice!


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2019)

Please read the report, not just mouth whatever the anti vaxxer site or bot gave you. I can't be bothered going through it with you. Just read it. It's clear and obvious. The disease occurred in isolated areas where the vaccine rate had dropped below 95%. I would also point out the reason measles is around again in such large numbers is due to the drop in vaccine rates in some parts of the world.

Meanwhile, I will post soon on the anti vaxxer arrest.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2019)

ANTI VAXXER ARRESTED IN SOMOA

Samoa has arrested an anti-vaccination campaigner as the country continues to battle a deadly measles outbreak.

Edwin Tamasese was charged with incitement against a government order after he was detained on Thursday.

The outbreak - which has killed at least 63 people, mostly young children, since October - is in part blamed on people spreading false information, claiming vaccinations are dangerous.

Samoa declared a state of emergency, and made vaccinations compulsory.


Why is the UK seeing a rise in measles cases?
The countries that trust vaccines the least
Measles deaths 'staggering and tragic'
Measles is a highly contagious illness that causes coughing, rashes and fever.

Although effective and safe vaccination is available, even some developed countries have seen a resurgence in recent years as unfounded fears about vaccine safety began to spread, often on social media.

*Who was arrested?*
Mr Tamasese had spoken out against vaccines on Facebook, instead promoting using ineffective remedies such as papaya leaf extract to treat the deadly illness.

Before his arrest, he had described the government's mass vaccination programme as "the greatest crime against our people", and falsely claimed vitamin C could cure the infected children.






	

		
			
		

		
	
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionAuthorities warn that children are particularly at risk from the disease
Samoa's low vaccination rates are in part due to the deaths in 2018 of two children wrongly being attributed to vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella.

However, their deaths were due to nurses mixing the vaccine with a muscle relaxant instead of water, and not the vaccine itself.

The cases had nonetheless raised local fears, and were exploited by people seeking false proof that vaccines are harmful.

*'Don't get in the way'*
The current crisis in Samoa has also triggered many foreign anti-vaccination campaigners to weigh in and criticising the country's drive to immunise its children, which is trying to lift the level of measles vaccination coverage to more than 90%.

Samoa's Communications Minister Afamasaga Rico Tupai said anti-vaccination activists - also known as "anti-vaxxers" - are spreading conspiracy theories which were hindering the unprecedented public health mobilisation.

"The anti-vaxxers unfortunately have been slowing us down," he told TVNZ.

"We've had children who have passed away after coming to the hospital as a last resort and then we find out the anti-vaccine message has got to their families and that's why they've kept these kids at home."

He warned anti-vaccine campaigners: "Don't get in the way, don't contribute to the deaths."






Media captionIt's a numbers game... if some people are not vaccinated, it can cause a big problem for us all
His words were echoed by Unicef representative to the Pacific Dr Sheldon Yett, who told the BBC earlier this month that "people who are spreading lies and misinformation about vaccinations are killing children".

"The best way to keep children safe is to make sure they're immunised. Preventing vaccination and presenting false information kills children. That is clear - the evidence speaks for itself."

Vaccination is not the only way Samoa is trying to end the outbreak. Earlier this week unvaccinated families were asked to hang a red flag outside their homes, while all schools have been closed and children under 17 are banned from public gatherings.


----------



## cynic (8 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Please read the report, not just mouth whatever the anti vaxxer site or bot gave you. I can't be bothered going through it with you. Just read it. It's clear and obvious. The disease occurred in isolated areas where the vaccine rate had dropped below 95%. I would also point out the reason measles is around again in such large numbers is due to the drop in vaccine rates in some parts of the world.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will post soon on the anti vaxxer arrest.



Two apologies for unfounded and wrongful accusations are now owed, but do not distress! I do understand that religious indoctrination such as that which is on display can be quite difficult to surmount, so I shall not be holding my breath.


----------



## qldfrog (8 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It's funny how some neglect the science, for some issues and embrace it for other issues.
> Aka climate change, as opposed to mass vaccination.



My exact feeling
Let's put figures, facts, real absent of manipulation and the billions spent on co2 would have better impacts elsewhere, and mitigation first 
I am sure some kids died from immunisation, got paralyzed horrible stuff
But how many more are alive because of it, the generations of tuberculosis and polio affected life we avoided
The effect of what is ignorance in maths and scienced allows this exploitation, and the latest figures on math literacy do not show a bright future
We have never have so much access to knowledge, could only dream of, but with no investigative minds we just have parrots sharing facebook, Greta and the Guardian or news ltd
What a failure


----------

