Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[onewheeldave]

If you dont want to vaccinate your children, this is what you risk.

 

These diseases kill. Meningitis - 10% fatality rate Polio - 2% fatality rate Measles 5% serious complications. 0.1% die.

 

If you do not get them vaccinated you will catch these diseases. If they catch them some of them will die. Lots of them. Every year. Every single year. All the time. This is what you want?

 

Shame on you all.

 

The part in bold is clearly, clearly, not true

[sgtkate]

The part in bold is clearly, clearly, not true

 

No, I would agree with you on that, but the risk of catching these diseases are significantly higher. Here's a link from a neutral site that explores controversial issues and does not always toe the 'party line':

 

http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964

 

Go and look at the graphs showing polio rates in the US prior to a vaccine and then after. If you would EVER risk your kids lives by withholding a polio vaccination because you cannot understand basic maths and science then you should not be having kids.

 

There are other links for things like MMR vaccines at the bottom that I haven't looked at so feel free to argue against those if they show something different to the polio stats.

[onewheeldave]

This is what anti vaxxination is.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35596857

 

Look at it

 

Read it.

 

 

Having looked at it, and read it, this part stood out-

 

A vaccine to protect against meningitis B became available on the NHS for babies in September but parents who want to have older children vaccinated must pay privately.

 

If the NHS wishes to push vaccination on people who don't want it, perhaps they should ensure that those who do want to get their older children vaccinated, can do so, without requiring them to pay privately?

 

The NHS seems to be in a bizarre position of, on one hand, compelling patients to have treatments (MMR etc), whilst simultaneously denying it to others, eg the above mentioned meningitis B vaccine.

 

They're also currently denying B12 injections to pernicious anaemia sufferers-

 

https://www.change.org/p/ian-hudson-please-make-our-life-saving-injectable-vitamin-b12-hydroxocobalamin-available-over-the-counter

[sgtkate]

Having looked at it, and read it, this part stood out-

 

 

 

If the NHS wishes to push vaccination on people who don't want it, perhaps they should ensure that those who do want to get their older children vaccinated, can do so, without requiring them to pay privately?

 

The NHS seems to be in a bizarre position of, on one hand, compelling patients to have treatments (MMR etc), whilst simultaneously denying it to others, eg the above mentioned meningitis B vaccine.

 

They're also currently denying B12 injections to pernicious anaemia sufferers-

 

https://www.change.org/p/ian-hudson-please-make-our-life-saving-injectable-vitamin-b12-hydroxocobalamin-available-over-the-counter

 

And this I would agree with. Cannot understand why this isn't been offered widely. The financial costs of dealing with a meningitis case alone surely make any vaccination a good choice, before you bring into the argument the suffering for the person who gets ill and their family. Very odd decision. I wasn't even aware there was a meningitis vaccine but I'll be first in the queue now once my kid is born, along with all the other vaccines offered. I have done my research and I fully accept the tiny risk associated with vaccination over the bloody massive risks of not giving them.

[JFKvsNixon]

And this I would agree with. Cannot understand why this isn't been offered widely. The financial costs of dealing with a meningitis case alone surely make any vaccination a good choice, before you bring into the argument the suffering for the person who gets ill and their family. Very odd decision. I wasn't even aware there was a meningitis vaccine but I'll be first in the queue now once my kid is born, along with all the other vaccines offered. I have done my research and I fully accept the tiny risk associated with vaccination over the bloody massive risks of not giving them.

 

Isn't it a case of directing the resources at the most vulnerable?

[MAC33]

“No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.”

 

Health care seeking behavior? Ethics of studying kids who haven’t gotten vaccines?

 

Let me get this straight: we have the most complex and raging health epidemic amongst our kids in modern times, and no plausible explanation for cause from the mainstream authorities. Meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of case reports of kids regressing into autism after vaccination, but it’s just too complicated and unethical to study unvaccinated kids?

 

 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-and-autism-why-no-studies/

[truman]

And this I would agree with. Cannot understand why this isn't been offered widely. The financial costs of dealing with a meningitis case alone surely make any vaccination a good choice, before you bring into the argument the suffering for the person who gets ill and their family. Very odd decision. I wasn't even aware there was a meningitis vaccine but I'll be first in the queue now once my kid is born, along with all the other vaccines offered. I have done my research and I fully accept the tiny risk associated with vaccination over the bloody massive risks of not giving them.

 

There was a guy (doctor I think) on the radio this morning..he said that once kids get past 2 years old then there's little chance of them contracting Meningitis B..maybe they are targeting the vaccination where it will do most good..?

[onewheeldave]

No, I would agree with you on that, but the risk of catching these diseases are significantly higher. Here's a link from a neutral site that explores controversial issues and does not always toe the 'party line':

 

http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964

 

Go and look at the graphs showing polio rates in the US prior to a vaccine and then after. If you would EVER risk your kids lives by withholding a polio vaccination because you cannot understand basic maths and science then you should not be having kids.

I can't help noticing that, on the first graph, prior to the commencement of the vaccine in 1955, polio cases had fallen by a massive 30,000 from the previous high of 60,000.

 

In the second graph, cases fell from a high of 3,000, to 1,000, again, before vaccinations.

 

Massive drops starting before the vaccinations.

 

Other factors than vaccines were clearly behind those drops- those factors may well account for the continuing drops post vaccination.

[sgtkate]

Isn't it a case of directing the resources at the most vulnerable?

 

Possibly. But still surprising unless the vaccine is less effective as you get older? But I'd imagine this ones childs care has cost the NHS more than vaccinating an entire catchment area. The drug is listed as costing around £75 per dose privately. A single night stay on ICU is well over £1000. And clearly the finances aren't the most important. The most important thing is that people get protected from terrible illnesses to the best of our ability.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 09:49 ----------

 

I can't help noticing that, on the first graph, prior to the commencement of the vaccine in 1955, polio cases had fallen by a massive 30,000 from the previous high of 60,000.

 

In the second graph, cases fell from a high of 3,000, to 1,000, again, before vaccinations.

 

Massive drops starting before the vaccinations.

 

Other factors than vaccines were clearly behind those drops- those factors may well account for the continuing drops post vaccination.

 

Ok. Go prove it. Honestly, go and find evidence to support that theory. As I've said I'm clearly pro-vaccine, but not so blinkered that I'll ignore valid scientific evidence that shows my view is wrong.

 

Equally you need to account for why there was an increase prior to 1955. I'd suggest WW2 played a massive part in the increase as people were being more exposed to 'foreign' viruses and bacteria and then bringing them home with them at the end of WW2 and that explained the spike which then settled down soon after.

 

In fact here is a seemingly good article explaining polio in the US around that time:http://www.plosin.com/beatbegins/projects/sokol.html

This says that during the 1950s people became increasingly aware of the risks of polio so started taking steps to avoid it. Also, don't miss that that graph shows polio deaths. Medicine was improving, inventions such as the iron lung were keeping people alive who would have previously died all which has nothing directly to do with exposure rates of polio. Article also states a new drug was developed to help 'cure' polio in 1952, which directly correlates with the graph showing a decrease in deaths due to polio.

 

Apart from a few angry moments on both side, this has in general been an interesting discussion. And if people stick to using facts and figures from 'neutral' sources then we can have a proper good debate on the topic. It's when people start using conspiracy websites as the basis for their argument that it all ends in tears...

Edited February 18, 2016 by sgtkate

[MAC33]

Sgtkate......you first appeared to have an open mind.

 

Through more brainwashing propaganda your mind has unfortunately returned to a closed state. Some call them the living dead or a zombie state-- no offence.

 

I strongly urge you to open up your mind again and see thru the BS.

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v8OwwDP-Xkg