All that proved was that governments are stupid and not scientists. They had no right to make the claim about beef.
And you wonder why parents refused to believe the categoric reassurances that were given to them about MMR?
I find it amusing that people who have been taken in by obvious charlatans start going on about the mainstream medical profession's profit motive....
Last post from me here.
Aracer - I'm sorry but the picture you posted up of 'how herd immunity works' is laughable. It's not even a scientific theory, it's just an idea. If you can link to any hard and fast scientific proof that that is how it works then fine, I'll review my opinion. The fact remains that if 'Herd Immunity' does work the way it's spun to us, then [i]any[/i] child who has not had an MMR jab remains a risk to the community. That's typically [i]all[/i] children under a year old. The same applies to all children who have not had a second MMR jab, typically given between 3 & 5 years. Furthermore if the vaccine is 90% effective then 10% of those who have recieved both jabs are a risk also. So to lay the blame for the outbreak in Wales solely with those who choose not to vaccinate is somewhat unfair. It probably originated from someone who came back from the European Championships in Ukraine, which has the highest rate of Measles in Europe.
Cougar - My rhetorical questions didn't particularly highlight issues I have concerns about, rather my point was that those who are aggresively pro-vaccine need to ensure they have engaged properly with those issues and other ones, before they condemn those who have not vaccinated.
Are people asserting that vaccination was solely responsible for the eradication of smallpox? If so that's a pretty wobbly stance to take. What about all the other factors that been influential in a similar timeframe to vaccination; hygeine, nutrition, the strengthening of the gene pool through migration to list a few. What about Bubonic Plague and Scarlett Fever? Both historically rampant in this country, neither vaccinated against and neither exist today.
Globally you may be right, but we can get bloody close, and we can wipe some out within a given community.
Last year 0.003% of the UK population got measles, 1 person out of over 60 million died. Surely that's 'bloody close'?
Are you content with the levels of mecury in the vaccines?
Well as far as mmr is concerned that number is zero. But when you say mercury do you mean elemental mercury? If you do then you will be reassured that there isn't any of that in any vaccine. Ethyl mercury (something very different) is used In some vaccines but has never been shown to cause any health problems. Ignorant questions like that do nothing more than risk people's lives. By all means ask questions but try to have the decency to find the answers for yourself first. It's all available on reputable sites on the Internet if only you'd take the time to look
gonefishin, I point you to my post above.
So would you rather trust journalists? Unfortunately for you, it's such a specialised area that you have no choice.
Nope don't trust journalists either - and fortunately for me epidemiology, pharmaceutical and other medical research is not that hard to understand. I'm quite capable of reading, understanding and making decisions based on scientific articles.
. I love people basing arguments on the 'greater good'. Often a last resort in a debate...Well this measles scare is a good example of why they should.
I usually agree with a lot you say Molgrips - but not this time.
So to lay the blame for the outbreak in Wales solely with those who choose not to vaccinate is somewhat unfair
They're not responsible for the initial outbreak, but they are responsible for the subsequent spread throughout the rest of the community.
Are people asserting that vaccination was solely responsible for the eradication of smallpox? If so that's a pretty wobbly stance to take. What about all the other factors that been influential in a similar timeframe to vaccination; hygeine, nutrition, the strengthening of the gene pool through migration to list a few.
Whilst it is undeniable that those things (with the exception of strengthening the gene pool!) will have helped the reduce the incidence of the disease they are not responsible for its eradication. Only the vaccine can ultimately do this.
What about Bubonic Plague and Scarlett Fever?
Those are both bacterial infections, you can't vaccinate against that. You can on the other hand use antibiotics which don't work agains viruses.
As for the Ukraine thing (ignore the implied racism), you do know that the reason given for the high incidence of measles is the low vaccination rate!
Now that I've responded to your post would you care to answer my question about precisely what you mean by "mercury in the vaccine"?
kja78 - Member
Last post from me here.
It's good to see that prediction was just as accurate as the rest of your post
kja78 - Member
gonefishin, I point you to my post above.
I love people basing arguments on the 'greater good'. Often a last resort in a debate
That's gonna need some explaining. This whole debate is about the greater good. It's not some mystery socialist bogeyman thing, it's a real and important concept. Much as right-wingers would love to believe they are islands unto themselves, they're not.
I'm not quite sure of your point here. You've got evidence that vaccinations are worse than the diseases? Can you share some?
So to lay the blame for the outbreak in Wales solely with those who choose not to vaccinate is somewhat unfair
Surely it's a chain reaction? Based on probability of exposure and transmission. If you only have a 10% chance of getting the disease and passing it on, then only 10% of the people with whom you come into contact will contract the disease and therefore become vectors themselves. Since this is a low percentage, each person is statistically unlikely to pass it on. Hence outbreaks fizzle out.
Are you saying that this is not the case?
Molgrips. I'm suggesting that forcing the usage of medical approaches on people based on the greater good doesn't have the best reputation. Let's leave the socialist bit out for a minute as I am of that persuasion anyway. Leaving that to one side, there are some fairly drastic negative examples (Not vaccination-based.) -
- Forced sterilisation and/or termination to reduce birth rates
- Sterilisation of the mentally ill or those deemed at the time 'subnormal'... Without considering reproductive rights or capacity to make informed decisions
- Incarceration of individuals in psychiatric units based on the potential of transmission of moral laxity (Having children outside of marriage etc...)
The above approaches were used with the idea they were for the greater good...
I prefer the approach that solid education and provision of information works best to encourage vaccination, but this can take time... Obviously this has worked with great success in the case of smallpox and polio. We are in a situation where Wakefield and his medua supporters have a lot to answer for and this will take time to overcome.
Finally, we receive treatment in the UK not based on the 'greater good' but on our right to use capacity to make informed decisions. Do you honestly want to lose that...?
Aracer - Nice, see what you did there, but I just can't help myself.
gonefishin - as I responded to Cougar, my questions were not aimed specifically at MMR, but at vaccines in general. Have those who are so pro-vaccine fully engaged with all the issues surrounding vaccines before makein their decisions?
My comments about Bubonic Plague and Scarlet Fever refer to the fact that these diseases died out without any medical intervention from humans. There is evidence to suggest that smallpox was already declining significantly before the vaccine was introduced.
My comment on the Ukraine comes directly from an HPA recommendation that all visitors to there have MMR before they go, so if there is any racism blame the HPA, not me.
Whilst it is undeniable that those things (with the exception of strengthening the gene pool!) will have helped the reduce the incidence of the disease they are not responsible for its eradication. [b]Only the vaccine can ultimately do this.[/b]
Can you back that assertion up with hard and fast evidence? I believe the answer is no. There is no possible way to tell whether vaccines or other factors are the primary reason for the decline in disease.
Molgrips - to reiterate what I've tried to articulate already. The first MMR jab is generally given at 12-13 months. The second is given at 3-5 years. MMR is not claimed to be fully effective until the second jab has been given. Therefore, every single child under 3, and a significant proportion of under 5s, is at risk of contracting and transmitting the disease. Not just the ones who's parents choose not to vaccinate, but every single child who has not had two MMR jabs, for whatever reason.
You've got evidence that vaccinations are worse than the diseases? Can you share some?
I know that wasn't aimed at me, and my googlefu is weak at this time of night, however a study conducted in Denmark suggests that for every 1000 MMR jabs, 2 children will suffer from febrile seizures. Just off the top of my head, with regards to the HPV vaccine, there are some pretty unpleasant side effects, and there have been a few well documented occurences of breathing difficulties leading to death.
I may be missing the point here kja, but are you suggesting that large scale outbreaks of measles are not in some way linked to the reduction in vaccine uptake? Perhaps you might like to have a look at the incidence of measles pre & post MMR.
Therefore, every single child under 3, and a significant proportion of under 5s, is at risk of contracting and transmitting the disease. Not just the ones who's parents choose not to vaccinate, but every single child who has not had two MMR jabs, for whatever reason.
You're seriously suggesting this as a reason why it doesn't matter that some kids who could have the jab don't? So because some young kids aren't immune and need protecting from coming into contact with the disease, it's OK for some older kids to also not be immune and so help spread the disease? 😯
Why don't you go and do your own research on herd immunity since you appear to so completely misunderstand the concept.
Kja, you know that the second jab is given to guard against the [i]2-5%[/i] failure rate for the first jab. So how do you work out that a 'significant proportion' of under 5's are at risk?
Heard immunity a fun illustration. Say a given individual will meet two people liable to catch the disease during it's contagious period , they will meet two more each. Place a penny on a corner of a chess board for the first person two pennys for the two people they meet on the next square four for thier contacts on the next and so on . See the pille of pennys increase as the disease spreads.
How introduce a vaccine that has a 5/6 success rate place your penny on the first square roll two dice only place a penny on the next square if one dice comes up six two for a double six . See how hard it is for the disease to spread .
A refusal to immunise is a considered decision to gamble with you child's health and the health of those around you.
Those who were drawn in by the media hype cannot really be blamed they were victims to what was in effect a profit driven band wagon Wakefield had set himself up to profit from sales of the single shot vaccines . The press sell papers off the back of such stories and have no interest in debunking them with any firm of analysis.
However we do now need to move on from the natural method of control used to defeat the bubonic plague . Seeking to physically limit the spread of a disease by condoning off the population center then waiting till the disease has infected all susceptible hosts and run it's course is so yesterday.
Re the effectiveness of vaccination. The recent whooping cough outbreak http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20080472
[i]"Health experts do not know why the outbreak is so large this year, especially as vaccination for whooping cough is at record levels.
One theory is that the bacterium which causes the infection, Bordetella pertussis, has mutated.
Another idea is that tight control of whooping cough is part of the problem. Repeated infections of whooping cough used to naturally boost people's immune systems.
However, after years of low levels of whooping cough the whole population may be more vulnerable to the infection."[/i]
As a kid I was vaccinated for whooping cough, yet I contracted it last Spring. From a personal viewpoint It raised more questions about vaccines and medical drugs. Bacteria and viruses mutate, are we chasing our tails trying to wipe out disease? Where will this lead? As the virus mutates, the vaccine is updated and we keep pumping them into ourselves? If so what effect will this have on our health? Can the medical world win this race? Is this just evolution?
Sharing some personal experience about medial treatments: 10 years ago my Father starting taking warfarin. 5 years ago he got bladder cancer. Did the warfarin cause the bladder cancer? Looking online the is plenty of content to suggest it's possible.
Questions, questions, questions
An old woman walked past our horse in the field. 4 days later the horse was dead.
Burn the witch !!!
It is just evolution - in the medium and long term, bacteria and viruses will continue to mutate in response to changes in their environment, their environment being the human population. Doesn't mean we should stop responding ourselves.
The price of allowing our bodies to acquire immunity in the natural way would be a substantial increase in mortality, particularly from childhood infections. Whooping cough vaccination is estimated to have saved approximately 500,000 lives worldwide in 2002. Of course any diminution of vaccine effectiveness is a concern, but I think as a society we are losing our memory of just how much of a threat some of these illnesses can be.
Access to the internet also gives various persuasive but unevidenced or plain wrong statements undue prominence. Looking for medical evidence on the first page of Google is like trusting the Jehovahs because they happened to be the first to knock on your door.
On your other point, a lot of elderly men take warfarin. A lot of elderly men develop bladder cancer. It's possible there is an association, but this could well be coincidence rather than causation. I've seen a couple of studies which point tentatively towards warfarin having a protective effect against prostate cancer, and no obvious detrimental effect in terms of other urogenital cancers. And of course you mustn't forget that he was given warfarin for a reason, and it's quite possible it prevented a dangerous or even deadly clotting event during the period he was on it.
Whooping cough used to kill 300 a year now it kills 0 and you think this calls into question the merits of vaccination ? It may well be that whooping cough is evolving and the vaccination is less effective now , perhaps if we had had universal vaccination whooping cough would not have had the time and human boasts in which to evolve .
My comments about Bubonic Plague and Scarlet Fever refer to the fact that these diseases died out without any medical intervention from humans.
They haven't been eradicated. They haven't died out. People still catch both these diseases.
There is evidence to suggest that smallpox was already declining significantly before the vaccine was introduced.
There probably is and like I have said, all those things will have helped reduce the incidence. Additionally no one is saying that vaccination will allow us to eradicate all viral infections, there are some that we vaccinate against that we will never eradicate (e.g. Tetanus) however it does not follow from that that we can't eradicate any viral infections using vaccination.
What would be nice would be if we could add Polio to the list of eradicated diseases, however similar anti intellectual arguments are being used to stop that too and as a result children are suffering from this disease.
however a study conducted in Denmark suggests that for every 1000 MMR jabs, 2 children will suffer from febrile seizures. Just off the top of my head, with regards to the HPV vaccine, there are some pretty unpleasant side effects, and there have been a few well documented occurences of breathing difficulties leading to death.
All medical treatments run the risk of side effects the point is that these side effects are less severe than the thing they are meant to treat. Febrile seizures, whilst no doubt distressing for the parents, are for the most part not dangerous for the child. The same cannot be said for measles.
Now how about you stop avoiding my point about Mercury and answer my question' what do mean about Mercury in the vaccine. Any vaccine by the way since it isn't in the MMR one.
You don't hear about Polio any more. Is that a vaccination success story? Tetanus might be, too.
And, long time ago, the thought of Mercury used in injections bothered me. It seemed then that the Ministry of Health took a nanny-knows-best attitude and wasn't saying much. Some open and frank discussion might have helped. As I said, it was a long time ago. But I suspect things didn't change, until perhaps recently.
Kja 78
After your beautifully nuanced postings on the long God thread, I'm disappointed. Epidemiology a well evidenced, well understood area of study. The reason there is an epidemic in South Wales is precisely because of the lack of enough herd immunity, which means susceptible individuals are more likely to be in contact with each other. Think of the infection as frogs able to jump between Lilly pads if you want... The more lily pads there are in a pond, the closer they are, the easier for the frog to move from place to place. The fact that the vaccine only kills 90% of the lily pads is irrelevant. Your understanding of the role of the 4 year MMR jab is incorrect.
The Guardian website today has a nice story about what Wakefield and colleagues are up to now.
You don't hear about Polio any more. Is that a vaccination success story? Tetanus might be, too.
As far as polio in the UK is concerned yes that is a vaccination success story. Sadly in parts of the developing world ill informed scare mongering (similar in nature the MMR stuff we had in the UK) is preventing it from being eradicated there where it still causes unnecessary suffering. Tetanus will never be eradicated as it lives in the general environment.
I would like to make one correction to a statement I made earlier that you can't vaccinate agains bacteria. Looking at some stuff on tetanus it appears that it is bacterial in nature and as there is a vaccine apparently you can vaccinate against at least some bacterial infections.
linky to save us the trouble, stoatsbrother?
I seem to remember being injected against tetanus, typhoid and cholera.
Gonefishin
And pneumococcus, meningitis C, Haemophillus etc etc etc etc
I seem to remember being injected against tetanus, typhoid and cholera.
Oh you will have had such vaccines, especially for tetanus. It also needs a booster every ten years or so should you have an open wound. The fact is though that whilst vaccination will help to prevent, or at least reduce the severity, of such conditions for tetanus in particular it exists and survives all over the environment that we live in and as such we will never eradicate it in the way we have to smallpox which no longer exists in the environment.
Thanks stoatsbrother. I was wrong in what I said earlier hence my correction. I'm sure there are plenty of others too.
After your beautifully nuanced postings on the long God thread, I'm disappointed.
Welcome to Singletrackworld.com
[img] 
[/img]
Harsh and offensive, I fear.
Harsh and offensive, I fear.
Pretty fair I would say.
If experts tell you one thing, repeatedly, and you with no specialist knowledge of your own go another way then surely you are guilty of not realising your own ignorance.
Medical issues seem particularly susceptible to this kind of problem.
You would never second guess an electrition about installing an earth wire in your house because you don't believe in electrons. You probably wouldn't question a gas engineer on boiler safety either. But doctors giving medical advice are fair game. After all its not like eight years of medical school and lots of subsequent experience trumps stuff you can just read on the internet is it.
So what we end up with in place of Herd Immunity is Herd Ignorance
But doctors giving medical advice are fair game.
While people have always been suspicious of science and scientists, I believe that this malaise has got a lot worse over the last 15 years.
It's fear born out of ignorance basically and is responded to by the adoption of something that a brighter and more educated group of people have not yet claimed and will never claim thereby empowering the disenfranchised.
There is a trend for people to be proud not to understand any science and to be proud of taking decisions based on their own gut feelings. No doubt fuelled by the vast majority of journalists who themselves don't understand science and feel that they're superior to those nerds who studied scientific subjects.
richmtb - Member
Pretty fair I would say.If experts tell you one thing, repeatedly, and you with no specialist knowledge of your own go another way then surely you are guilty of not realising your own ignorance.
Medical issues seem particularly susceptible to this kind of problem.
[b]Why: because information is limited[/b]
You would never second guess an electrition about installing an earth wire in your house because you don't believe in electrons. You probably wouldn't question a gas engineer on boiler safety either.
[b]Why: because information on these issues is readily available[/b]
But doctors giving medical advice are fair game. After all its not like eight years of medical school and lots of subsequent experience trumps stuff you can just read on the internet is it.
[b]but some of us Cretins may not have medical degrees but have other qualifications/post grad qualifications/doctorates etc that may enable us to look at available evidence and make a reasoned decision[/b]
So what we end up with in place of Herd Immunity is [s]Herd Ignorance[/s] intolerance
some may look at the available evidence and then decide what is best for their children rather than accept that society actually nurtures individuals
some may look at the available evidence and then decide [b]incorrectly [/b]what [b]they think[/b] is best for their children
So what we end up with in place of Herd Immunity is Herd Ignorance intolerance
Damn right. You want me to be tolerant of your measles ridden child when a) my son is too young to be protected and b) it's perfectly avoidable?
Sorry pal you're looking in the wrong place.
I have zero problem with people freely choosing the single jabs at their own expense. No problem with that at all. It's your money.
But if someone is going to recklessly endanger my kid because of some misappropriated concern that's a different story.
aracer - Member
some may look at the available evidence and then decide incorrectly what they think is best for their children
but i have a right to do that and the intellectual ability to look at the available evidence and make a reasoned decision - the OP's point was that it wasn't a reasoned decision
Damn right. You want me to be tolerant of your measles ridden child .......
no = i want you to be tolerant of my reasons for possibly having a measles ridden child
but some of us Cretins may not have medical degrees but have other qualifications/post grad qualifications/doctorates etc that may enable us to look at available evidence and make a reasoned decision
So having done that you'll have understood all evidence and immunised your child using the safest method available then.
Chapeau
So having done that you'll have understood all evidence and immunised your child using the safest method available then
yes i we waited a couple of years because believe the immune system needs more time to develop and paid for single jabs
currently live in Melbourne, Aus and have to present vac' certs to get kids in to school
I will happily defend parents right to decide what is best for their children and attack the UK medical authorities poor position and very poor outcome on this
i have ... the intellectual ability to look at the available evidence and make a reasoned decision
If the reasoned decision was to not have your child vaccinated, then I think the first part is in some doubt.
I will happily defend parents right to decide what is best for their children
Even if their decisions are quite clearly not best for their children?
I will happily defend parents right to decide what is best for their children
You mean, their right to do what THEY THINK is right for their kids, even though it's not...
aracer - MemberI will happily defend parents right to decide what is best for their children
Even if their decisions are quite clearly not best for their children?
thought the argument was all about what was best for other peoples children - but to a point yes - there is a line as i'm sure you are aware
aracer - Membei have ... the intellectual ability to look at the available evidence and make a reasoned decision
If the reasoned decision was to not have your child vaccinated, then I think the first part is in some doubt.
as per the OP's point so not a useful contribution
