Take-up of MMR vaccine falls for fourth year in a row.

[Jasandjules]

_dobbo_ said:

Why bother if they don't work? Just make sure you drink clean water and you'll be fine?

That is what I am trying to ascertain.

So far it does appear you are right they do not.

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

That is what I am trying to ascertain.

So far it does appear you are right they do not.

Just so your position is not misunderstood (deliberately or otherwise), to clarify; you do not believe that vaccination prevents disease, a specific example could be that the smallpox vaccination does not protect against smallpox ?

[oyster]

MDMetal said:

ScotHill said:

Lazadude said:

Oakey said:

That's not why people are refusing it for their kids, it's because they think it'll cause autism.

My point, was the NHS say the vaccine definitely does not cause a reaction and its got to be environmental even though it very obviously does.

This makes the people say "what else are they saying it doesn't do?", which then mixed with faceache, it spirals.

I'm pretty sure when we got our boy's MMR there was a leaflet giving side effects, and one of them was mild symptoms of measles may appear within two weeks.

Edit: yep - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-sid...

The NHS doesn't help itself, we had a fuss when my wife asked for an elective c section and they said they don't do them despite their guidelines clearly saying they do. Even at the hospital before delivery several ward nurses asked what the medical reason was and said we couldn't possibly have got an elective one there must have been a medical reason. It's clearly a huge organisation but for there's not really any excuse for getting inconsistent messages, either defer the question or ensure you're giving correct advice, health is somewhat more important to give clear answers on than which trim levels offer which paint colours or other relatively pointless info that large organisations do get right.

Elective C-sections cost a shed load more money than normal birth.
I suspect individual hospitals and trusts have their own rules/guidelines based on their own budgets, and these can override national NHS guidelines.

As it's public money at stake, this seems the right option to me, even if it is a bit of a postcode lottery.

[oyster]

Hayek said:

jjlynn27 said:

Hayek said:

Who gets to decide what is or is not a good reason? Generally people would like their children vaccinated. Thanks to a lot of noise that amounted to nothing there is misplaced distrust in a certain vaccine, but people are entitled to be concerned rightly or wrongly. If it's government policy to make sure as many as possible are vaccinated then it should do a better job at PERSUADING people of the safety of the MMR and/or offer the seperate injections.

If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.

ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.

Edited by Hayek on Monday 24th September 13:31

If you are not trolling, it's scary to think that you might have kids.

If you actually read what I've written you'll realise that I haven't said that people should not have the MMR.

You have said people should have the freedom to choose.

Which is akin to saying some adults have the right to prevent their children AND other peoples' children the right to protection against deadly and vile diseases.

How dare you suggest that some ignorant 'adult' needs the right to expose their children AND MY CHILDREN to a horrible death simply because of their inability to separate expert opinion from media opinion.

[CubanPete]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...


Not the most exciting article, but amusing link between Dunning-Kruger effect and anti-vaxxers

[durbster]

Hoofy said:

durbster said:

Look at rural Africa: fewer plumbers, massive vaccine success rates.

This seems appropriate.

Why do you think that is appropriate?

[james_tigerwoods]

james_tigerwoods said:

durbster said:

Jasandjules said:

Thanks for that.

Had a quick look but that graph does not correlate with the measles rates in the ONS data I have found (having to ignore causation for obvious reasons at this juncture). I am going to assume the ONS data is the most accurate at this stage unless you have something else?

And do you have the percentage of the vaccinated and unvaccinated in the ONS measles data by any chance? Need that too of course for fairly obvious reasons.

Just to clarify, are you seriously trying to establish whether vaccines are effective?

I mean, bloody hell.

And the question of whether he'd have his own children vaccinated remains unanswered...

Ahem.... ^^^^

[hairykrishna]

Jasandjules said:

That is what I am trying to ascertain.

Go to Google scholar. Search for the particular vaccine you are interested in. Fill your boots.

[Some Gump]

Jasandjules said:

Do you have the uptake rate for the last 5 years or so? Moonhawk hasn't replied yet.

Will also need the numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the ONS data I found but I can't see that listed either, do you have it please?

Why do you keep asking for data? It's painfully obvious that (if you aren't trolling) then you don't have any ability to interpret it in any useful way.

The efficacy of vaccines is well known, tested by most government's regulatory bodies, peer reviewed by scientists and challenged by competing drug companies. The chance that it's all a big scam and they dont work, as well as the chance that e.g mmr causes autism is simply 0. To make that happen, thousands of researchers spread over the planet (and with various local political and economic drivers) would have to somehow be corrupted, but there is no mechanism to do so. On top of this, somehow the entire industry would have to have none of their many thousand employees leave in a huff and blow the whistle, or join a rival and let out a secret. Hell, most researchers entered their profession with the wide eyed aim of making the world a better, healthier place - could every single one of them be somehow seduced by their massive sub 20k starting package and think "ahh sod it, i'm on the gravy train now" and keep schtum?

Every shred of evidence suggests that vaccines work. The people that claim otherwise are either massively discredited (mmr scandal guy), or just some loon that post internet has a soapbox. Gun nuts, homeopaths, some religious types and hippies all suffer from the same issue (on this subject) - they fit the data to their ideology, which impairs their critical thinking.

Yes, more people die in the care of doctors than from guns. That is a correct thing. How many ill people go to a doctor? Few. How many terminally ill people go to a doctor or hospital? Most of them?! The correct stat would be "how many non terminally ill people were.killed by doctors vs how many non terminally ill people were killed by guns" but that's not going to win votes from trumpeteers.

Please, please.read a book called "bad science". If you do so with a mind open for learning it will change your world view. The big pharmas, the doctors, the NHS - they are not exploiting you. The homeopaths, the "alternative medicines", holland and bd barrett - they are the ones on the take. If there was ANY evidence that "alternative medicine" or "natural remedy" had efficacy better than placebo, it would be simply be called medicine, just like the naturally occuring medicines penicillin, st. Johns wort and aspirin, or the natural vaccine that is cowpox against smallpox.

[w00tman]

Remember people, vaccines cause adults.

[Murph7355]

durbster said:

Hoofy said:

durbster said:

Look at rural Africa: fewer plumbers, massive vaccine success rates.

This seems appropriate.

Why do you think that is appropriate?

I think he was supporting you, and noting the person you replied to was a plum.

Could be wrong. But that's how the chain read to me.

oyster said:

...

As it's public money at stake, this seems the right option to me, even if it is a bit of a postcode lottery.

The right option would be no elective c-sections on the NHS. None.

[James_B]

Jasandjules said:

I am seeking to ascertain whether the assertions made hold water. Thus far they do not. The data does not support the contentions made and there appears to be no correlation let alone causation. That is what I am trying to work out - because we need the vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the disease incidence figures to drill down into the information and confirm if what moonhawk said was correct and indeed what the paper said (though I tend not to rely upon newspapers for evidence).

Last time there was a discussion on this matter I discovered my plumber was correct and my education was not. Now I am looking into matters much deeper before agreeing to something which I previously "knew".

And that means we have established that vaccines did not hugely reduce disease, they declined with sanitation, sewers etc so plumbers saved millions of lives (as my plumber claimed) not vaccines and the rates were down long before vaccines came onto the scene. Now, my education said millions died then vaccines came along and it was an instant reduction which I know now to be untrue as the massive reductions took place beforehand. So it is necessary to investigate everything before making a decision.

Have you got causation then? If so, please post so I can read.

Causation, are you serious? Vaccines teach the immune system to react to specific pathogens, allowing it to react quickly, and in force.

You may as well argue that exercise doesn’t make you fitter as argue that we don’t have any idea why and how vaccines work.

[anonymous-user]

James_B said:

Causation, are you serious? Vaccines teach the immune system to react to specific pathogens, allowing it to react quickly, and in force.

You may as well argue that exercise doesn’t make you fitter as argue that we don’t have any idea why and how vaccines work.

You sound like you know stuff. Perhaps a qualified professional. This means that you will be part of the deception, perhaps you’re falsifying data or lying to get funding or just plain wrong.

These anti expert and anti facts types are all over the climate change threads and energy threads too.

It’s what happens when google replaces knowledge and everyone can find “the truth” its always interesting to find out about their qualifications and backgrounds when deciding whether they have uncovered some amazing scientific or medical consensus changing facts or whether they are in fact talking bks.

They all tend to be old retired people so maybe there’s an issue with internet use and being a bit mailable?

They always quote the story about the non expert who overturned the consensus on ulcers and Galileo. I expect they think they might do the same.

[Oakey]

Isn't jasandjules a lawyer (so supposedly educated then)?

Also, the ulcer thing wasn't a non expert, they were scientists weren't they?

[esxste]

There is a common theme in homeopaths, creationists, anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, chemtrailers.

- Deny the science.

- Ask "where is the evidence!?"

- Refuse to accept the evidence when it is presented.

- Ask again ""where is the evidence!?"

Repeat ad nauseum.

It's insidious.

[Moonhawk]

esxste said:

- Ask "where is the evidence!?"

Well - in the case of drugs and vaccines, pharma companies have been making their clinical trials public for years:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&t...

https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/s...

https://www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com/

[jjlynn27]

Moonhawk said:

Well - in the case of drugs and vaccines, pharma companies have been making their clinical trials public for years:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&t...

https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/s...

https://www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com/

You know that those are all falsified? Do you expect Big Pharma to tell the truth? Sheeple.
Nullius in verba!!! Appeal to authority!!!

[james_tigerwoods]

Oakey said:

Jasandjules said:

I can't find any accurate source for uptake - can you please provide it so we can check the last few years compared to the incidence rates I have found.

Would you have your children vaccinated?

I'm still wondering about this ^^^^ There have been lots of thoughts shared, but one simple question hasn't been answered.

Would you have your children vaccinated?

[Jim the Sunderer]

Murph7355 said:

The right option would be no elective c-sections on the NHS. None.

They aren't just for women wanting to avoid a wizard's sleeve, as I've found out this week they are elective even if the baby is arse first with a 50% chance of getting stuck, requiring an emergency Cesarean.

[Jasandjules]

hairykrishna said:

Go to Google scholar. Search for the particular vaccine you are interested in. Fill your boots.

Nope, checked there before.

There are a few papers which appear to be devoid of scientific integrity with assertions such as "vaccine rate increased in this area by X% and that year deaths were down by y% therefore the vaccine was a success" - A 5 year old with their first science book would see the causality issue there.

So, do you have proof of causality, yes or no?