CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 18)

[ChevronB19]

grumbledoak said:

ChevronB19 said:

Who on here would’ve taken an Edward Jenner smallpox vaccine when it was first developed, and also who would agree it was a good idea?

After all, it was experimental at the time.

Honestly a genuine question.

James Phipps didn't get much choice in it either.

(He was the son of Jenner's gardener).

I’m aware of that, yes, but the question still stands if you take the gardeners son as a probably unwilling test subject.

(Jenner basically copied what a lot of milk maids did anyway, but again OTT).

[grumbledoak]

ChevronB19 said:

I’m aware of that, yes, but the question still stands if you take the gardeners son as a probably unwilling test subject.

(Jenner basically copied what a lot of milk maids did anyway, but again OTT).

The milkmaid story isn't true, by the way. We imported inoculation from the Ottoman Empire, who probably got it from North Africa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34073...

[JuanCarlosFandango]

ChevronB19 said:

Who on here would’ve taken an Edward Jenner smallpox vaccine when it was first developed, and also who would agree it was a good idea?

After all, it was experimental at the time.

Honestly a genuine question.

People who felt the benefits justified the risks.

[ChevronB19]

grumbledoak said:

ChevronB19 said:

I’m aware of that, yes, but the question still stands if you take the gardeners son as a probably unwilling test subject.

(Jenner basically copied what a lot of milk maids did anyway, but again OTT).

The milkmaid story isn't true, by the way. We imported inoculation from the Ottoman Empire, who probably got it from North Africa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34073...

Ok, accepted, urban (or country) myth. But the original question(s)?

[isaldiri]

ChevronB19 said:

Who on here would’ve taken an Edward Jenner smallpox vaccine when it was first developed, and also who would agree it was a good idea?

After all, it was experimental at the time.

Honestly a genuine question.

It's more a question of who would support enforcing it on the population because there was a net societal benefit. Would you?

[grumbledoak]

ChevronB19 said:

Ok, accepted, urban (or country) myth. But the original question(s)?

The public were very wary of these experimental treatments/medicines/whatever. And they were right to be. Snake Oil is not a new concept. The term does not have it's origins in engine lubricants.

Not long after Jenner numerous gentlemen were travelling the known world selling what was then known as calf lymph. These people would be selling it as a test in cattle in one place, then as a cure in humans in another. Often moving on because the pile of bodies was getting noticed and the population were angry. It was wise to be sceptical of their claims about the products they sell. It still is - iatrogenic (medical) harm is a massive killer. Forcing it on others has never been ethical.

[ChevronB19]

isaldiri said:

ChevronB19 said:

Who on here would’ve taken an Edward Jenner smallpox vaccine when it was first developed, and also who would agree it was a good idea?

After all, it was experimental at the time.

Honestly a genuine question.

It's more a question of who would support enforcing it on the population because there was a net societal benefit. Would you?

Would you support *not* doing it if there was a net societal benefit?

It wasn’t enforced, at least not in this country. No one was forced to take it. It was strongly encouraged, absolutely, with an awful lot of ‘nudge politics’ to do so. I don’t think that is deniable. But in answer to your question, I would (and did) support encouragement. However, I would also encourage the option for someone not to.

It’s not a million miles off the traditional ‘autonomous car’ question, about whether it decides to crash and kill its driver, or crash into a bus queue and kill the people queuing. Individuals are (understandably) self interested, groups/societies are more interested in overall benefit. Yes, any death (covid, vaccine, car crash) is horrible for the individual, sad for the population, but mitigation measures are put in place. Vaccine was a mitigation measure (with some very sad consequences for a very small minority, but overall beneficial).

Anyway, getting back to my original query. how about the smallpox vaccine (the original question), would you have taken it in its early days? Do you also accept it has saved millions of lives?

[ChevronB19]

grumbledoak said:

ChevronB19 said:

Ok, accepted, urban (or country) myth. But the original question(s)?

The public were very wary of these experimental treatments/medicines/whatever. And they were right to be. Snake Oil is not a new concept. The term does not have it's origins in engine lubricants.

Not long after Jenner numerous gentlemen were travelling the known world selling what was then known as calf lymph. These people would be selling it as a test in cattle in one place, then as a cure in humans in another. Often moving on because the pile of bodies was getting noticed and the population were angry. It was wise to be sceptical of their claims about the products they sell. It still is - iatrogenic (medical) harm is a massive killer. Forcing it on others has never been ethical.

When, at least in this country, has a vaccine been ‘forced’ on someone? Forced, not encouraged.

NHS/care staff does not apply - there was the option (albeit with sanctions) not to take it. So anyone who has been literally ‘forced’ in the UK?

Edited by ChevronB19 on Monday 3rd April 12:54

[grumbledoak]

ChevronB19 said:

When, at least in this country, has a vaccine been ‘forced’ on someone? Forced, not encouraged.

During the 1850s we made smallpox inoculation compulsory.

In case you missed it, recently NHS, care home staff, and many others were coerced into taking the COVID jabs. The option of losing your income, your home, and starving is no option at all.

[Jasandjules]

captain_cynic said:

Indeed... it doesn't happen..

Are you saying that GBS DOES NOT arise from vax?

Yes or no.

[ChevronB19]

grumbledoak said:

ChevronB19 said:

When, at least in this country, has a vaccine been ‘forced’ on someone? Forced, not encouraged.

During the 1850s we made smallpox inoculation compulsory.

In case you missed it, recently NHS, care home staff, and many others were coerced into taking the COVID jabs. The option of losing your income, your home, and starving is no option at all.

Ok, and mea culpa, I’m happy to admit to my mistakes.

But again, whether smallpox vaccine was optional or compulsory, would you have taken it, and would you agree that is has contributed to (an awful phrase) ‘the greater good’. Would you also agree ignoring lockdowns etc and just concentrating on overall health and lifespan) that the C19 vaccine, applied over a large population, has done the same?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

grumbledoak said:

ChevronB19 said:

When, at least in this country, has a vaccine been ‘forced’ on someone? Forced, not encouraged.

During the 1850s we made smallpox inoculation compulsory.

In case you missed it, recently NHS, care home staff, and many others were coerced into taking the COVID jabs. The option of losing your income, your home, and starving is no option at all.

Worth noting that this policy was eventually dropped because it caused resentment and mistrust of the medical profession... sounds familiar.

[grumbledoak]

ChevronB19 said:

Ok, and mea culpa, I’m happy to admit to my mistakes.

But again, whether smallpox vaccine was optional or compulsory, would you have taken it, and would you agree that is has contributed to (an awful phrase) ‘the greater good’. Would you also agree ignoring lockdowns etc and just concentrating on overall health and lifespan) that the C19 vaccine, applied over a large population, has done the same?

I certainly would not have taken it at first. I might have braved the 2% mortality rate once that was established. The smallpox vaccine does seem to have saved more than it killed.

I am not convinced that the COVID jabs have done the same. I don't see how they could significantly increase life expectancy when the victims were, on average, over the UK average life expectancy. In addition there are a lot of question marks over the "death from COVID" numbers we have been given. And we have not seen the end of the 1000 excess deaths per week that we are currently seeing. Or a convincing explanation for them. For all we know they will rise.

[M1AGM]

grumbledoak said:

I certainly would not have taken it at first. I might have braved the 2% mortality rate once that was established. The smallpox vaccine does seem to have saved more than it killed.

I am not convinced that the COVID jabs have done the same. I don't see how they could significantly increase life expectancy when the victims were, on average, over the UK average life expectancy. In addition there are a lot of question marks over the "death from COVID" numbers we have been given. And we have not seen the end of the 1000 excess deaths per week that we are currently seeing. Or a convincing explanation for them. For all we know they will rise.

On covid deaths…

It’s still running fwiw:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?are...

The demographics heatmap says it all.

[ChevronB19]

grumbledoak said:

ChevronB19 said:

Ok, and mea culpa, I’m happy to admit to my mistakes.

But again, whether smallpox vaccine was optional or compulsory, would you have taken it, and would you agree that is has contributed to (an awful phrase) ‘the greater good’. Would you also agree ignoring lockdowns etc and just concentrating on overall health and lifespan) that the C19 vaccine, applied over a large population, has done the same?

I certainly would not have taken it at first. I might have braved the 2% mortality rate once that was established. The smallpox vaccine does seem to have saved more than it killed.

I am not convinced that the COVID jabs have done the same. I don't see how they could significantly increase life expectancy when the victims were, on average, over the UK average life expectancy. In addition there are a lot of question marks over the "death from COVID" numbers we have been given. And we have not seen the end of the 1000 excess deaths per week that we are currently seeing. Or a convincing explanation for them. For all we know they will rise.

I’m certainly saying thanks for answering the question, appreciate it. I may not agree with certain aspects, but it is a sadly rare answer to a direct question.

[Jasandjules]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Worth noting that this policy was eventually dropped because it caused resentment and mistrust of the medical profession... sounds familiar.

Which was because many more people (especially children) died. In some towns the doctors were being killed in the streets. Then they brought it back as compulsory and the same thing happened, death rates shot up, doctors were hunted, the requirement was dropped. This happened three times IIRC. There is a book written about it somewhere..

[isaldiri]

ChevronB19 said:

Would you support *not* doing it if there was a net societal benefit?

It wasn’t enforced, at least not in this country. No one was forced to take it. It was strongly encouraged, absolutely, with an awful lot of ‘nudge politics’ to do so. I don’t think that is deniable. But in answer to your question, I would (and did) support encouragement. However, I would also encourage the option for someone not to.

It’s not a million miles off the traditional ‘autonomous car’ question, about whether it decides to crash and kill its driver, or crash into a bus queue and kill the people queuing. Individuals are (understandably) self interested, groups/societies are more interested in overall benefit. Yes, any death (covid, vaccine, car crash) is horrible for the individual, sad for the population, but mitigation measures are put in place. Vaccine was a mitigation measure (with some very sad consequences for a very small minority, but overall beneficial).

Anyway, getting back to my original query. how about the smallpox vaccine (the original question), would you have taken it in its early days? Do you also accept it has saved millions of lives?

I didn't ask if you would support encouragement of the smallpox vaccine. I asked if you would support enforcement given the net societal benefit.

And wrt to your original question - yes and yes. Given I've consistently stated the covid vaccine is something very sensible for anyone over the age of 40, asking that question for smallpox (a far more deadly virus with a clear net societal benefit certainly compared to the covid vaccines) is a bit of a moot question.....

ChevronB19 said:

Would you also agree ignoring lockdowns etc and just concentrating on overall health and lifespan) that the C19 vaccine, applied over a large population, has done the same?

The point is that the covid vaccine whether or not applied to the under 50 population absolutely would not have meaningfully changed very much. That they have been very beneficial to the older >50 population doesn't justify the 'encouragement' or coercion for the younger groups to have taken it as there hasn't been any 'greater good' achieved by them taking it.

Edited by isaldiri on Monday 3rd April 14:53

[Elysium]

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

I profoundly disagree.

People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.

Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.

Foundational is not the opposite to transient.

Human rights might be foundational to freedom and democracy but they are manifestly not foundational to human society in general whether in the western countries or not. There's nothing to prevent society here from changing it's mind on whether human rights are necessarily so important over 'the greater good' of the overall population. That makes it rather transient I'd say......

What you are saying is that some societies don't respect human rights. I am not sure why you are saying this, because it isn't new information.

[Elysium]

ChevronB19 said:

But again, whether smallpox vaccine was optional or compulsory, would you have taken it, and would you agree that is has contributed to (an awful phrase) ‘the greater good’. Would you also agree ignoring lockdowns etc and just concentrating on overall health and lifespan) that the C19 vaccine, applied over a large population, has done the same?

I would have taken a smallpox vaccine in exactly the same way as I took two doses of the COVID vaccine.

Vaccination is a social good and it should be promoted. However, the final decision needs to be with the individual and be based on informed consent.

Coercing anyone into vaccination is always morally wrong. Regardless of any arguments about the 'greater good'.

[rodericb]

Grumps. said:

rodericb said:

Grumps. said:

rodericb said:

It doesn't happen? It does happen: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-pr... and that article was written in June 2021 when 6.5 million doses of Covid-19 "jabs" had been given out with preference to older people, of which the subject of the new article is not. The person didn't know they were going to get GBS, the TGA already had eight cases of GBS which had occurred after people had been administered Astra-Zeneca Covid-19 "jabs".

Vaccines (generally speaking) can cause GBS, which is why GBS was listed as an adverse event of special interest in all of the reactions databases. Something which doesn't happen a lot is not "it doesn't happen". And that's for people who hadn't shown signs of GBS previously - there's also the people with history of GBS who were pressured into having Covid-19 "jabs" or had to suffer the consequences of not having them such as the drummer from the band Green Day.

https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/a...

Unless i am misunderstanding....

"we did not find increased risks for GBS after receipt of either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine".

Increased specifically for mRNA, as in more than what occurs already. So it still occurs like it does. Which is not "it doesn't happen". If you've history of GBS then you may need to avoid vaccines (and take other precautions). Some people weren't allowed that option - roll up yer sleeve 'n git yer jab!!!. Such as the drummer of Offspring (not Green Day as I'd thought).

Eh?

The quote I pasted was copied from the second link you provided.

I agree that having any vaccine carries risk, as has been the case since the first ever vaccine was developed.

Yes, and apparently COVID-19 "jabs" didn't carry any risk at all of anyone getting GBS according to the poster I quoted, and by all the other people who would prefer people with prior GBS issues to fit in or fk off, such as the drummer of the band Offspring (and likely many more people). Or even people with allergies to the components in the "jabs" (you'll be okay, just keep an epi-pen with you in case you have some sort of seizure...).