Do we know how many of these people were vaccinated?
Do we know what permanent damage they suffered?
My guess is all of them where vaccinated. And many very recently vaccinated
And that no one suffered any permanent injury.
What do you guess?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Quacks & Pseudoscience
- Thread starter scaramanga
- Start date
Do we know how many of these people were vaccinated?
Do we know what permanent damage they suffered?
My guess is all of them where vaccinated. And many very recently vaccinated
And that no one suffered any permanent injury.
What do you guess?
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I think vaccinations as mandatory to be allowed some public goods like public schooling seems like a good idea. I'm not a huge fan of forcing people to do anything. But if the alternative is having to remove children with weakened immune systems from publicly funded schools I prefer the forced vaccination. I would change your mind if I could.
What I'm trying to say is that when you say that the rotavirus vaccine has an accepted mortality rate of 0.2% that's something that can influence people. On here I think that claim has been sufficiently debunked, but that might not be the case elsewhere if you make a claim like that. You might influence someone to choose one decision over the other based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific information.
You're choosing to speak out on issues important for the health and well being of children. You're making direct claims about scientific knowledge on these questions. Seemingly with little to no training or experience and with a very limited understanding of how to interpret scientific information. This is a very risky choice if you think you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.
In short. Speaking out with confidence on an issue one is ignorant about has consequences. Most of those will be unforeseen. I think most of us realize that we have a responsibility when it comes to serious issues like health care not to spread misinformation.
So the reason these kinds of things keep happening in areas/population with a lower vaccination rate is because... Too many people have recently been vaccinated in those areas? Mind giving me your understanding of herd immunity?
This is just rank science denialism on your part. These kinds of outbreaks when populations drop below herd immunity levels have been warned about for years by scientists. And now it's happening. It will only get worse if the anti-vaccine movement grows in numbers. That's the "guess" of the consensus of scientific experts. But you of course think that your guess is just as valid. And that spreading these science denying ideas isn't causing harm.
How many of these people suffered permanent injury is not really the issues here. Look at what milo posted above.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Based on what?
Are you disputing the effectiveness of the measles vaccine or that it is a disease that can have serious side effects and even kill?
We have no real information about this "outbreak"
The point I am making is that it is scaremongering by the pharma industry.
If you want me to apologise for this we need to know if they were vaccinated and if they were permanently damaged
Because I am going to ask you to apologise for those permanently damaged by vaccines
Seedy Ron
Jimmy Neighbour
How about the Swansea one from 2013?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Swansea_measles_epidemic
Most unvaccinated, 1 chap died, does that count? Or just Big Pharma scaremongering?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Swansea_measles_epidemic
Most unvaccinated, 1 chap died, does that count? Or just Big Pharma scaremongering?
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
This outbreak is just one of many. We have limited information about this one at this time, but there are many more with more detailed information available. You only have to look for that information to find it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_measles#Outbreaks lists several of them. Just have a read through, sources are there if you want. Unvaccinated seems to be the common factor for a lot of them where information about the outbreaks are available.
Predictable and preventable for those with some scientific understanding and a wish to learn about this stuff.
milo
Jack L. Jones
So based on limited information, you make assumptions about whether the victims had been immunised.
How is this scare mongering by the pharmaceutical companies? Are you saying that this measles outbreak and others have not happened? The advice on this came from Public Health England, are you saying that they cannot be trusted?
milo
Jack L. Jones
Whilst we're covering this, let's just remind @JPBB of the basis of heard immunity
Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune.[1][2] In a population in which a large number of individuals are immune, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted, which stops or slows the spread of disease.[3] The greater the proportion of individuals in a community who are immune, the smaller the probability that those who are not immune will come into contact with an infectious individual.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune.[1][2] In a population in which a large number of individuals are immune, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted, which stops or slows the spread of disease.[3] The greater the proportion of individuals in a community who are immune, the smaller the probability that those who are not immune will come into contact with an infectious individual.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Since we're on measles specifically...
WHO Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
The key facts from the top of the fact sheet:
One side of the argument wants to increase vaccination to drop the 314 deaths every day number and increase the 17.1 million deaths prevented number.
The other side is the science denialist side. Though the numbers are low enough, I suppose apologizing for 13 deaths an hour is feasible. Just have to get going @JPBB
But of course, what do the World Health Organization know about these things? I'm sure the anti-vaccine movement are much more trustworthy and knowledgeable on these issues.
WHO Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
The key facts from the top of the fact sheet:
One side of the argument wants to increase vaccination to drop the 314 deaths every day number and increase the 17.1 million deaths prevented number.
The other side is the science denialist side. Though the numbers are low enough, I suppose apologizing for 13 deaths an hour is feasible. Just have to get going @JPBB
But of course, what do the World Health Organization know about these things? I'm sure the anti-vaccine movement are much more trustworthy and knowledgeable on these issues.
I'm fairly sure that herd immunity also decreases the chance of disease mutation, as it has fewer targets and therefore less opportunity to spread. The less it spreads, the fewer chances to mutate.
I think this guy might be a scientist. (yeah I know. he does not count because his statement is not supporting your view)
"A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR triple vaccine for children. Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history". He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see. He said he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children. But he added: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
"A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR triple vaccine for children. Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history". He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see. He said he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children. But he added: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
Ah yes. A personal favourite. The Swansea epidemic propaganda war and the strange case of Gareth Colfer-Williams who died from measles without actually having measles.
Let the war begin...
milo
Jack L. Jones
It doesn't count because it is an opinion unsupported by evidence. If the statement is supported (and it would be really helpful if you would provide links when quoting from other site) then there would be something to go on. As it stands we have the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence showing no link up against a quote given without context.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Care to back that up?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-23135464
Consultant pathologist Dr Maurizio Brotto told the inquest that 5ft 8ins tall Mr Colfer-Williams was "very underweight" at just 7st 7lbs.
Dr Brotto told the inquest Mr Colfer-Williams was positive for measles and died from giant cell pneumonia caused by the disease.
He said: "Measles is a viral infection which doesn't kill you but it can lead to giant cell pneumonia."
Last edited:
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
He was illegally paid £40,000 by Wakefield using legal funds during his flawed study. In fact there isn't a single scientist that worked with him that didn't benefit financially.
So if you get paid for your work, you opinion is not valid?
I didn't realise all your scientists did not get paid or funded either directly or indirectly by the pharma industry. And even if they did the sum total would be much less than £40,000 in total.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Independent research labs tend to obtain funding through legitimate pathways and the funding is distributed accordingly (and yes, there are some people who work for free). Wakefields funding was all obtained from legal and it just so happens he paid the lawyers who's job it was to make a case for the MMR being dangerous more than he paid anyone else. That doesn't seem a bit fishy to you? I forgot, you don't want to talk about Wakefiled. So lets move on from that.
You still haven't answered my previous question, Please define vaccine damage so we can talk about the prevalence of incidence?
Except he was not positive for measles. His bloods were negative. The only indication was a rash.
He had seen a doctor the day before he died who had look at the rash and said it was an allergic reaction to his meds (odd as there are no adverse effects to any med). Despite being in the middle of the worst measles epidemic of all time and the measles rash being one of the most recognisable, the doctor failed to diagnosis measles. Either he was incompetent or Colfer-Williams did not have measles. Which way are you going on this. (neither route ends well for the pro vaxxers)
Any damage.