Science/Environment Anti-vacc Crazies at it again. Post appropriate outrage ITT

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Posts
11,159
Likes
6,387
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I must admit I have problems with people telling me what I can or can't watch. If this were just an isolated case of misinformation which could lead to adverse public health issues, I think you might have a point. As an ongoing campaign of lies, by a woman whose only qualification is that her child has autism, not so much.
I am for free speech except for when it offends me or goes against my beliefs! :thumbsu:
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,404
Likes
13,968
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
I am for free speech except for when it offends me or goes against my beliefs! :thumbsu:
I am for free speech except when it is a danger to public health and safety. I would rightly expect that an instructional film on setting up a meth-lab or mixing your own explosives would likewise be banned on public health and safety grounds. Not immunising your child may contribute to the death of someone else's child. it is that simple, so I am happy for an anti-vax film to be refused classification and public release too.
 

nicky

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
27,652
Likes
3,955
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Crystal palace, socceroos
I am for free speech except when it is a danger to public health and safety. I would rightly expect that an instructional film on setting up a meth-lab or mixing your own explosives would likewise be banned on public health and safety grounds. Not immunising your child may contribute to the death of someone else's child. it is that simple, so I am happy for an anti-vax film to be refused classification and public release too.
Are you ok with Hepatitis B shot as soon as the baby is born? Even when both parents are Hep B negative and the baby isn't going to be sexually active or injecting drugs for a substantial period. Do you know the ingredients of the Hep B vaccine?

I find it amazing how anyone that wants to question a vaccination is immediately labelled "anti-vaxx". I mean, are we supposed to just stfu and take every shot Big Pharma makes, otherwise face being ostracised?

I find it perplexing the notion that the "pro-vaccinators" - who question nothing, claim to be on the side of science when science is all about questioning.

I think that people are paranoid about being dumb (because they aren't very smart) so they believe that by aligning themselves on the side of the "winners" they will be perceived as intelligent. I'm not saying that vaccinations are irrelevant, not at all. But I'm not going to sit back and take every vaccination Big Pharma tell me to.

I find the pro vaccinator fundamentalists worse than the anti vaxxers. I mean, you can't even question the validity of a vaccine without being labelled an anti vaxxer. This is incredible. I cannot believe how much blind faith people have in ALL vaccines and don't question that perhaps, there may be vested interests in blowing out the vaccine schedule to make a massive profit.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Posts
1,282
Likes
1,286
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Are you ok with Hepatitis B shot as soon as the baby is born? Even when both parents are Hep B negative and the baby isn't going to be sexually active or injecting drugs for a substantial period. Do you know the ingredients of the Hep B vaccine?

I find it amazing how anyone that wants to question a vaccination is immediately labelled "anti-vaxx". I mean, are we supposed to just stfu and take every shot Big Pharma makes, otherwise face being ostracised?

I find it perplexing the notion that the "pro-vaccinators" - who question nothing, claim to be on the side of science when science is all about questioning.

I think that people are paranoid about being dumb (because they aren't very smart) so they believe that by aligning themselves on the side of the "winners" they will be perceived as intelligent. I'm not saying that vaccinations are irrelevant, not at all. But I'm not going to sit back and take every vaccination Big Pharma tell me to.

I find the pro vaccinator fundamentalists worse than the anti vaxxers. I mean, you can't even question the validity of a vaccine without being labelled an anti vaxxer. This is incredible. I cannot believe how much blind faith people have in ALL vaccines and don't question that perhaps, there may be vested interests in blowing out the vaccine schedule to make a massive profit.

It is because the anti-vaxx movement don't quote facts truthfully. Constantly ask for proof, and then when it is presented, come up with anecdotal stories and pretend they are the scientific facts, like.....but my kid got vaccinated and then got sick so what you are quoting is wrong, vaccines are harmful. That and the evidence presented in peer reviewed studies in reputable journals show that overwhelmingly vaccines are safer than not having them are refuted by those without the relevant qualifications.

Nothing in life is 100% safe, but vaccines are pretty damn close when everything is considered.

But for now I wait for an anti-vaxxer to come along and prove me right.
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Posts
5,434
Likes
4,089
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I find it perplexing the notion that the "pro-vaccinators" - who question nothing, claim to be on the side of science when science is all about questioning.

I think that people are paranoid about being dumb (because they aren't very smart) so they believe that by aligning themselves on the side of the "winners" they will be perceived as intelligent.
the thing is though, anti vaxxers don't ever come up with any answers to all these questions they're (supposedly) asking "scientifically". "just asking questions" is mere sophistry if the answers are readily available, but summarily ignored. if someone ignores factual information because it conflicts with their viewpoint then it perplexes me why anyone would label their approach as (honest) questioning let alone scientific.

for example, when you complained that "toxic" Round Up was being used in our environment and i provided you with the relevant LD50 comparisons, you responded with an emotional retort rather than even try learning that LD50 is a standard measurement of toxicity.

now, im sure my attitude to you previously had a lot to do with that, which i accept responsibility for and apologise. but by this point you should already have a basic understanding of glyphosate's relative toxicity if you're going to describe it as toxic or especially dangerous to humans.

I'm not saying that vaccinations are irrelevant, not at all. But I'm not going to sit back and take every vaccination Big Pharma tell me to.

I find the pro vaccinator fundamentalists worse than the anti vaxxers. I mean, you can't even question the validity of a vaccine without being labelled an anti vaxxer. This is incredible. I cannot believe how much blind faith people have in ALL vaccines and don't question that perhaps, there may be vested interests in blowing out the vaccine schedule to make a massive profit.
the point though is it's not "big pharma" pushing vaccines at all- it's government. if it wasn't for government most vaccines wouldn't even be produced; in ~2014 vaccines accounted for about 2% of all US "big pharma" revenue according to the WHO. in previous decades vaccines have been discontinued because the margins were so small. while they are a growth market the simple reality is they're not the massive revenue stream that people believe (which again, is information readily available but summarily ignored).

your issues with vaccines appear far more ideological (eg anti big business) than scientific.
 

rowie343

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Posts
592
Likes
225
Location
victoria
AFL Club
Essendon

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Are you ok with Hepatitis B shot as soon as the baby is born? Even when both parents are Hep B negative and the baby isn't going to be sexually active or injecting drugs for a substantial period. Do you know the ingredients of the Hep B vaccine?

I find it amazing how anyone that wants to question a vaccination is immediately labelled "anti-vaxx". I mean, are we supposed to just stfu and take every shot Big Pharma makes, otherwise face being ostracised?

I find it perplexing the notion that the "pro-vaccinators" - who question nothing, claim to be on the side of science when science is all about questioning.

I think that people are paranoid about being dumb (because they aren't very smart) so they believe that by aligning themselves on the side of the "winners" they will be perceived as intelligent. I'm not saying that vaccinations are irrelevant, not at all. But I'm not going to sit back and take every vaccination Big Pharma tell me to.

I find the pro vaccinator fundamentalists worse than the anti vaxxers. I mean, you can't even question the validity of a vaccine without being labelled an anti vaxxer. This is incredible. I cannot believe how much blind faith people have in ALL vaccines and don't question that perhaps, there may be vested interests in blowing out the vaccine schedule to make a massive profit.
Might help if you understood hep b and didn't rely on known anti vaxxer logic...
Hepatitis B is spread through contact with blood that contains the hepatitis B virus. If infected blood or body fluids enter another person’s bloodstream, that person may become infected.

Activities that can cause infection include:

  • sharing unsterile equipment for injecting drugs
  • piercing the skin with equipment that is not properly cleaned, disinfected and sterilised
  • sharing razor blades or toothbrushes
  • coming into contact with infected blood through open cuts or the mucous membranes of another person
  • having unprotected sex – for example, without a condom, especially if there is blood present.
Mothers who have hepatitis B sometimes pass the virus to their babies or children. Some babies are infected in the womb (rarely) or during birth, but most infection occurs shortly after birth. If the newborn baby is quickly immunised, they can be protected from the disease.

The time from infection to the appearance of symptoms (if they occur) is from 45 to 180 days. The person is infectious to others for several weeks before and after any acute illness. Even if symptoms do not occur, the person can infect others.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sorted

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
4,728
Likes
6,026
AFL Club
Geelong
Activities that can cause infection include:
  • sharing unsterile equipment for injecting drugs
  • piercing the skin with equipment that is not properly cleaned, disinfected and sterilised
  • sharing razor blades or toothbrushes
  • coming into contact with infected blood through open cuts or the mucous membranes of another person
  • having unprotected sex – for example, without a condom, especially if there is blood present.
How do these risk factors support giving a Hepatitis B shot to a baby as soon as it is born?

Mothers who have hepatitis B sometimes pass the virus to their babies or children. Some babies are infected in the womb (rarely) or during birth, but most infection occurs shortly after birth.
Can you give more details on Hep B infections shortly after birth? Why are babies rarely infected in the womb?
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
How do these risk factors support giving a Hepatitis B shot to a baby as soon as it is born?



Can you give more details on Hep B infections shortly after birth? Why are babies rarely infected in the womb?
Here's some light reading:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154922/
For a newborn infant whose mother is positive for both HBsAg and HBeAg, in the absence of post-exposure immunoprophylaxis, the risk for chronic HBV infection is 70%–90% by age 6 months.9HBV vaccination can prevent 70%-95% of HBV infections in infants born to HBeAg and HBsAg-positive mothers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164184/

In 2005, ACIP recommended HepB vaccine for all infants of HBsAg-negative pregnant women to be administered as soon as feasible but before discharge from the birthing hospital. The birth dose provides a safety net for infants of HBsAg-positive women who might not be identified for PEP because of medical errors in interpreting or documenting maternal screening results [71]. Errors or omissions are also made in administering infant PEP [4, 85, 86]. Likewise, WHO recommends all infants receive HepB vaccine as soon as possible after birth, regardless of HBsAg status of the mother, preferably within 24 hours [1, 2].

And this is interesting to understand the pushback on hep b vaccines and how it is similar to past pushback on other vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092064/

As to the first point, people wrongly assume, that hep b is sexually/drug use transmitted. It isn't the case.
 

rowie343

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Posts
592
Likes
225
Location
victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Can't speak for the rest of the donks born post 1980. This vaccine push kaka is getting stupidly ridiculous. Someone please change the heading of this thread. Momentum will change soon enough.
 

Dry Rot

My hat is better than yours
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
36,360
Likes
8,255
Location
Dead Snow of Norway
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Numerous reports of high numbers of elderly dying of flu in nursing homes.

Pro vaxxers out in force, even recommending compulsory vaccinations.

Oops! buried in the fine print, is that most were vaccinated and it failed and they died.
 

nicky

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
27,652
Likes
3,955
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Crystal palace, socceroos
the thing is though, anti vaxxers don't ever come up with any answers to all these questions they're (supposedly) asking "scientifically". "just asking questions" is mere sophistry if the answers are readily available, but summarily ignored. if someone ignores factual information because it conflicts with their viewpoint then it perplexes me why anyone would label their approach as (honest) questioning let alone scientific.

for example, when you complained that "toxic" Round Up was being used in our environment and i provided you with the relevant LD50 comparisons, you responded with an emotional retort rather than even try learning that LD50 is a standard measurement of toxicity.

now, im sure my attitude to you previously had a lot to do with that, which i accept responsibility for and apologise. but by this point you should already have a basic understanding of glyphosate's relative toxicity if you're going to describe it as toxic or especially dangerous to humans.



the point though is it's not "big pharma" pushing vaccines at all- it's government. if it wasn't for government most vaccines wouldn't even be produced; in ~2014 vaccines accounted for about 2% of all US "big pharma" revenue according to the WHO. in previous decades vaccines have been discontinued because the margins were so small. while they are a growth market the simple reality is they're not the massive revenue stream that people believe (which again, is information readily available but summarily ignored).

your issues with vaccines appear far more ideological (eg anti big business) than scientific.
Round up is toxic, if you think it's safe, go drink some and prove me wrong.

I don't care about your previous attitude - you've always been an OTT angry poster that plays the man, hence why i ignore you most of the time.

Big Pharma lobby the government to blow out the vaccine schedule - it is astonishing that this isn't obvious to everyone. On this basis, when Big business behave like this, ie. use their money to persuade governments to do things against the public interests (we pay their wages) then yes, this makes me anti Big business.


Might help if you understood hep b and didn't rely on known anti vaxxer logic...
Hepatitis B is spread through contact with blood that contains the hepatitis B virus. If infected blood or body fluids enter another person’s bloodstream, that person may become infected.

Activities that can cause infection include:

  • sharing unsterile equipment for injecting drugs
  • piercing the skin with equipment that is not properly cleaned, disinfected and sterilised
  • sharing razor blades or toothbrushes
  • coming into contact with infected blood through open cuts or the mucous membranes of another person
  • having unprotected sex – for example, without a condom, especially if there is blood present.
Mothers who have hepatitis B sometimes pass the virus to their babies or children. Some babies are infected in the womb (rarely) or during birth, but most infection occurs shortly after birth. If the newborn baby is quickly immunised, they can be protected from the disease.

The time from infection to the appearance of symptoms (if they occur) is from 45 to 180 days. The person is infectious to others for several weeks before and after any acute illness. Even if symptoms do not occur, the person can infect others.

All the examples you listed are almost irrelevant to a new born baby, especially when both parents are hep b negative. Which is what I said. The risks you mentioned do not warrant a baby, day 1 of life being injected with neural toxins.

I have a good immune system and never have the flu shot (i never get the flu either) - does this mean i miss out on immunisation? No it doesn't. There is a difference between immunisation and vaccinations.

The debate about the safety of vaccinations is far from over and I can guarantee, almost without a shadow of a doubt, the blind faith pro vaccinator fundamentalists are going to feel pretty stupid in the future when they discover that some of their beloved vaccines cause far more damage than they provide anything good.

Vaccines don't go through the rigour other drugs are required to go through in order to get on the market. If they had to jump through the hoops that any other prescription drug had to go through then there'd be far less vaccines. Given the nature of how easy it is to get a vaccine authorised, and the intense blow out of the vaccine schedule (compare the amount of vaccines kids had in the 70s compared to what is required today), i find it perplexing that everyone isn't just a tiny bit skeptical of their efficacy and safety.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Round up is toxic, if you think it's safe, go drink some and prove me wrong.

I don't care about your previous attitude - you've always been an OTT angry poster that plays the man, hence why i ignore you most of the time.

Big Pharma lobby the government to blow out the vaccine schedule - it is astonishing that this isn't obvious to everyone. On this basis, when Big business behave like this, ie. use their money to persuade governments to do things against the public interests (we pay their wages) then yes, this makes me anti Big business.





All the examples you listed are almost irrelevant to a new born baby, especially when both parents are hep b negative. Which is what I said. The risks you mentioned do not warrant a baby, day 1 of life being injected with neural toxins.

I have a good immune system and never have the flu shot (i never get the flu either) - does this mean i miss out on immunisation? No it doesn't. There is a difference between immunisation and vaccinations.

The debate about the safety of vaccinations is far from over and I can guarantee, almost without a shadow of a doubt, the blind faith pro vaccinator fundamentalists are going to feel pretty stupid in the future when they discover that some of their beloved vaccines cause far more damage than they provide anything good.

Vaccines don't go through the rigour other drugs are required to go through in order to get on the market. If they had to jump through the hoops that any other prescription drug had to go through then there'd be far less vaccines. Given the nature of how easy it is to get a vaccine authorised, and the intense blow out of the vaccine schedule (compare the amount of vaccines kids had in the 70s compared to what is required today), i find it perplexing that everyone isn't just a tiny bit skeptical of their efficacy and safety.
So you've got multiple peer reviewed studies showing why they do it, and your response is "I don't care. They don't need to"

Don't lump people into a category just because they actually have subject knowledge. I'm not a "blind faith pro vaxxer", never had a flu shot, and find them mostly pointless, except for some population groups

Can you please specify which parts of the peer reviewed studies you disagreed with? Can you provide some scientific basis for your claims of them being incorrect?
 

Nickos66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
16,275
Likes
7,795
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Round up is toxic, if you think it's safe, go drink some and prove me wrong.

Last I checked (which I didn't) this guy is alive and well and not suffering from teh toxinz.

If you're afraid of roundup which is a 2A "Probable carcinogen", are you avoiding all the other 'confirmed' carcinogens out there? What about things that are actually classed as carcinogens like booze, red meat? sunlight?
 
Last edited:

ChampRevesby

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 8, 2012
Posts
16,836
Likes
20,452
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Royals, Wildcats, Warriors
Anti-vaccers make me ill and furious all at the same time. How dare they endanger our children because of their bullshit theories. Thankfully we live in an age where we can protect our children against some really nasty diseases. Please people, I beg you, vaccinate your children.
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Posts
5,434
Likes
4,089
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Round up is toxic, if you think it's safe, go drink some and prove me wrong.
you're kind of proving my point you realise? you don't actually understand most of the topics you pontificate about, and are rarely able to respond to any of the specific objections people make to your assertions. that radiation thread; the time you weren't aware mercola was a crank, challenged me to provide examples and when i did you roundly ignored it; the TPP thread where you didn't even know the agreement had been available for ~18 months, much less bothered to read any of it.

yet you have the audacity to claim that "...people are paranoid about being dumb (because they aren't very smart) so they believe that by aligning themselves on the side of the "winners" they will be perceived as intelligent"; as if getting facts right or considering the respectability of sources is something dumb people do.

I don't care about your previous attitude...
well last time you reported my post and sooked that you didn't come to BF much anymore and it was all my fault, so i figured i would offer an apology. so it's there, even if you're now saying you got that wrong too.

Big Pharma lobby the government to blow out the vaccine schedule - it is astonishing that this isn't obvious to everyone. On this basis, when Big business behave like this, ie. use their money to persuade governments to do things against the public interests (we pay their wages) then yes, this makes me anti Big business.
nothing wrong with being anti big business per se, as they are quite frequently campaigners. i was merely pointing out that your criticisms re vaccines are reflective of your views of big business, rather than being grounded in scientific evidence.
 

nicky

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
27,652
Likes
3,955
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Crystal palace, socceroos
you're kind of proving my point you realise? you don't actually understand most of the topics you pontificate about, and are rarely able to respond to any of the specific objections people make to your assertions. that radiation thread; the time you weren't aware mercola was a crank, challenged me to provide examples and when i did you roundly ignored it; the TPP thread where you didn't even know the agreement had been available for ~18 months, much less bothered to read any of it.
It's not that i don't understand the topics that I "pontificate" on, it's more a case that they are complex and require too much of my time to explain the problems with "peer reviewed" studies (i.e. the amount of studies that don't get published) and the environmental impacts of using pesticides to grow veggies. I can't just rip out a study that proves this because you will automatically find a study to debunk this, and if i could be fk'd i could find another one to debunk yours, and so on and so forth. This is not a very enjoyable way for me to spend my time.

This forum is dogmatic and rarely does anyone learn anything new. People stick to what they believe.

I can honestly say, i have things i've rather be doing.

well last time you reported my post and sooked that you didn't come to BF much anymore and it was all my fault, so i figured i would offer an apology. so it's there, even if you're now saying you got that wrong too.
I reported your post because you went crazy man which derailed the thread.

Apology accepted but that doesn't really change the fact that you're not a poster I get any enjoyment out of conversing with. We are just different in the way we discuss things, take that anyway you want to, it really doesn't matter.

nothing wrong with being anti big business per se, as they are quite frequently campaigners. i was merely pointing out that your criticisms re vaccines are reflective of your views of big business, rather than being grounded in scientific evidence.
Actually, no, not really. I question things all the time, have studied and received a qualification in the health field which means i have affiliations with respected labs that provide (expensive) yet high quality tests - much more so than anything you'd get on medicare. Not only that, i know how to read blood panels, ones that you'd get from medicare, and without bragging, i can interpret them better than most doctors because unfortunately many doctors don't keep up with the latest research nor do they understand the relationship between simple things like markers for insulin and blood glucose (and many more).

I'm definitely an advocate for preventive health rather than the current medical sickness model we're currently immersed in.

In terms of vaccines, I've done alot of research on them. Not sure where you're getting your data for the efficacy of them, but maybe you should follow the trail and see where this mis-information is coming from. You'd be silly to take on face value anything the CDC and FDA says about them because there is a revolving door between leaders of these organisations and Big Pharma....

I'd hate to say it, but yes! there are conspiracies going on, there are conflict of interests. Eg. The CDC study on the MMR vaccine that Julie gerberding oversaw; when the findings were not what they wanted they changed the conditions of the scientific analysis, which is illegal and even within the new parameters they "made up" (which again is a scientific study SO FKING NO), the results were not what they wanted so the head scientist refused to speak positively about the MMR vaccine. So Julie Gerberding, removed him from the agenda (which was to go over the results, that were doctored) and got another scientist to speak postively about the MMR vaccine. Soon after Julie Gerberding was given the role of the head of the vaccine dept at Merck.

Wakefield, I thought he was a quack - then i find out he is pro vaccine and the study that pro vaccinators (including bill gates) continue to refer to in order to establish him as a quack was an observational study, with the conclusion that there was no conclusion and until more study is done, all he suggested was to make the triple vaccine into a single dose. Not only that, but 12 of his peers signed this OBSERVATIONAL STUDY..... ie, not a scientific paper we've been led to believe which established him as a quack and ruined his career. I mean there is footage of him on record stating that a proper study needs to be conducted. Bloody hell, and we all (me included) just accepted him as a quack because we were basically programmed to. It reminds me of the Yudkin book that he wrote on sugar which ended his career.

I still don't think Mercola is a quack. Maybe you're not immersed in this like i am but there's alot of mud slinging against doctors and health practitioners that go against the grain or threaten profits of Big Pharma.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom