Take-up of MMR vaccine falls for fourth year in a row.
Discussion
gregs656 said:
And you can see the correlation in the states for example between areas with a percentage of cruel parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and incidences of dieseases they would otherwise be vaccinated against.
It's ok, you can just call them religious.Nature and god have similar efficacy against contagious pathogens.
Art0ir said:
Woody John said:
They must exist. Sure we have vaccines to protect us from them.
What evidence would you need, to convince you that vaccines are effective?Lord Marylebone said:
I have noticed a distinct trend amongst the couple of Anti-Vaxxers who have appeared in this thread.
They are incredibly selective about answering direct questions.
When they do answer a question it is either with another question, or with some gibberish that wasn’t actually asked.
It’s all classic conspiracy theory/tinfoil hat nutter type stuff.
Jas hasn't answered the most important question, is his child vaccinated...They are incredibly selective about answering direct questions.
When they do answer a question it is either with another question, or with some gibberish that wasn’t actually asked.
It’s all classic conspiracy theory/tinfoil hat nutter type stuff.
I'm guessing the answer is yes, he wants other people not to vaccinate their kids while his own child benefits from the advantages of being immunised.
Woody John said:
Non-sense. Clean water, enough nourishing foods and comfortable homes combined with efficient sewage systems were the main reasons for a vast improvement in health on the whole.
You need to evaluate your relationship with the natural world. That is scary.
Remember, polonium, arsenic and cyanide are all natural. All quite deadly to ingest.You need to evaluate your relationship with the natural world. That is scary.
You need to re-valuate your relationship with unsubstantiated health buzzwords. Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on science as it's gotten us this far.
captain_cynic said:
Remember, polonium, arsenic and cyanide are all natural. All quite deadly to ingest.
You need to re-valuate your relationship with unsubstantiated health buzzwords. Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on science as it's gotten us this far.
Its only the amount of a species that make it deadly. Everything has a LD50, even water. You need to re-valuate your relationship with unsubstantiated health buzzwords. Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on science as it's gotten us this far.
It's easy to fix the world's problems with a 2 minute google. I presume the Macondo blow out would have been easy to stop - you just need to put heavier mud in, so the stuff in the ground can't blow out? It was written on the internet somewhere. Which of course would ignore if you put mud in that is too heavy it will fracture the rock, the mud will effectively get absorbed by the rock, there isn't enough mud in the well, so the stuff underground can push the leftover mud out of the well and it actually causes a blowout. But nevermind that - someone on the internet read that heavier mud would stop stuff underground getting out.
Same as this medical stuff - a quick google and you're much better informed than the experts who spent many years studying from the learnings of others, proper research etc.
Same as this medical stuff - a quick google and you're much better informed than the experts who spent many years studying from the learnings of others, proper research etc.
WinstonWolf said:
Lord Marylebone said:
I have noticed a distinct trend amongst the couple of Anti-Vaxxers who have appeared in this thread.
They are incredibly selective about answering direct questions.
When they do answer a question it is either with another question, or with some gibberish that wasn’t actually asked.
It’s all classic conspiracy theory/tinfoil hat nutter type stuff.
Jas hasn't answered the most important question, is his child vaccinated...They are incredibly selective about answering direct questions.
When they do answer a question it is either with another question, or with some gibberish that wasn’t actually asked.
It’s all classic conspiracy theory/tinfoil hat nutter type stuff.
I'm guessing the answer is yes, he wants other people not to vaccinate their kids while his own child benefits from the advantages of being immunised.
Pretty disgusting really.
El stovey said:
Nobody is really going decide whether to vaccinate their children based on jasandjules who apparently has no medical expertise and is just some bloke posting on PistonHeads. Are they?
In a rational society, not a chance, you’d hope. However, the internet allows all sorts of ludicrous idiocy to gain traction among the gullible.Anti Vaxxers are a bit different from the flat earth, chemtrail and 5g lamp post worshippers in that they harm others.
eldar said:
In a rational society, not a chance, you’d hope. However, the internet allows all sorts of ludicrous idiocy to gain traction among the gullible.
Anti Vaxxers are a bit different from the flat earth, chemtrail and 5g lamp post worshippers in that they harm others.
I think there is a good argument that anything which runs against the principles of the Enlightenment harm others one way or another. Anti Vaxxers are a bit different from the flat earth, chemtrail and 5g lamp post worshippers in that they harm others.
El stovey said:
Nobody is really going decide whether to vaccinate their children based on jasandjules who apparently has no medical expertise and is just some bloke posting on PistonHeads. Are they?
No, but I don’t think anyone should be given the oxygen of publicity.LBC did an hour or so on this same topic the other week, and the strict rule was that calls from anti-vaxxers would not be taken whatsoever, on the basis that no one should ever do anything that allows these people to publicly spout their nonsense, and potentially encourage anyone else to not vaccinate.
Problems occur when hundreds of jasandjules get together on the Internet and are allowed to convince more people via their nonsense.
But I think even one person peddling potentially dangerous claptrap is too many.
El stovey said:
Nobody is really going decide whether to vaccinate their children based on jasandjules who apparently has no medical expertise and is just some bloke posting on PistonHeads. Are they?
Unfortunately people listen to this sort of claptrap, just look at the proliferation of anti-vaxer groups on FB. Idiots who spout this drivel should at least confirm if they practice what they preach.So Jason, what choice did you make for your own offspring?
I just got dragged into some FB conversation about vaccines.
One particular anti-vaxxer was posting all sorts of s
te. To her, her argument was validated by posting naturalhealth.com links, wacko memes and utter junk. She has refused to have her 2 kids immunised because big pharma, government wants to control us, doesn't trust science (but happy to use the fruits of it to post her pish)
She posted a phone screen shot (US - it had AT&T at the corner) and claimed it was the government website saying MMR causes autism, Crohns etc etc.
A quick 2 mins on the internet confirmed my suspicion, it was actually the Extract from Wakefield's paper, taken from the BMJ when they made the ill fated decision to publish it. No critical thought from her or her mates, just an echo chamber of fooktards.
I was polite, pointed her to real research, the recent Danish study etc etc.
Apparently, a woman on bennies in Wigan, with the intellect of moss knows more about this stuff than a Phd at UCLH.
To those who differentiate between vaccine driven immunity and "natural" immunity.
The immune system doesn't produce a special "unnatural" response to vaccines and a special "natural" response to a live disease agent.
The immune system doesn't care whether it's raising antibodies against a live unmodified virus, an attenuated virus or an inactivated virus. It doesn't care if the response comes from an endogenously expressed surface protein, vs a recombinantly expressed surface protein.
Vaccines allow people (and groups) to develop a natural immunity against dangerous pathogens without the hassle of getting the pathogen. Take two identical twins, one of whom has survived smallpox and one of whom has been vaccinated against it. Their immune response will be, for all intents and purposes identical. They will carry a very similar set of antibodies raised against very similar antigens and would both be safe from reinfection.
Vaccines are the closest you can get to a free lunch. To refuse them because you don't understand the biology behind them seems completely insane.
The immune system doesn't produce a special "unnatural" response to vaccines and a special "natural" response to a live disease agent.
The immune system doesn't care whether it's raising antibodies against a live unmodified virus, an attenuated virus or an inactivated virus. It doesn't care if the response comes from an endogenously expressed surface protein, vs a recombinantly expressed surface protein.
Vaccines allow people (and groups) to develop a natural immunity against dangerous pathogens without the hassle of getting the pathogen. Take two identical twins, one of whom has survived smallpox and one of whom has been vaccinated against it. Their immune response will be, for all intents and purposes identical. They will carry a very similar set of antibodies raised against very similar antigens and would both be safe from reinfection.
Vaccines are the closest you can get to a free lunch. To refuse them because you don't understand the biology behind them seems completely insane.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff