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

[Clubs are trumps]

It might be news to you that there is a world wide shortage of IC Nurses. Guess why?

Mate i work at the hospital i mentioned in my post above. Im giving an insight into whats happening. I watched my ex struggle to get employment as a nurse after graduating here during the outbreak of the pandemic, simply because she was born in Nepal. If you're going to ask a condescending sarcastic question you can cram it.

 

[darth_timon]

With vaccines it's really easy. The vast majority of people you know will have been vaccinated. Perhaps all of them. How many have any conditions or issues that could be associated with vaccines?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Frank Bunn]

It is very much known how vaccines work in terms of targeting the diseases they are meant to treat. It's a simple case of helping the body create its own antibodies to combat the virus/bacteria. If the antigens are similar, the immune response might target more than just the intended condition - an added benefit.

It depends. This study found that there were beneficial side effects for live vaccines such as BCG and measles. But also found that, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines increased mortality in girls. The article rightly puts this in context of the WHO immunisation program which prevents more than 2 million childhood deaths every year.

Suggesting an increase in vaccination causes food allergies is a pretty big claim and nowhere have I seen any (reputable) research suggesting it's the case. The fortunes of the Geelong Football Club, the rise of online gaming and the decrease in quality pro-wrestling are also correlated with the rise of food allergies.

I'm not making that claim. I'm saying it has become taboo to mention vaccines where there might be a negative connotation. If the claim is that the old vaccine reduces food allergies, it should at least be looked at whether the new vaccine contributed to the rise in allergies.

 

[Pie eyed]

Simple question for you PE - did you watch that video of the WHO vax experts?

I did not, though I have seen many such video's and have no issue with the concerns expressed.
Nothing is 100% risk free. Not even living.
Without doubt vaccination can have side effects, even long term heath consequences in an very, very small number of cases.
The benefits far outweigh the risk so much it is makes the issue infinitesimal.
People who use the risk of reaction as a crutch to support their cult beliefs should not let their children breath, leave the house or drink tap water.
The risks of these simple things causing health problems in their children is much much much higher. These people should not even have children as the risk in child birth is enormously greater.
The whole argument is a beat up by sensationalist "gurus' who are gormless self promoters.

I do not care about anti-vacc idiots, don't have the time to waste listening to their whining, do not care if they or their children die.
It can only make the human race better to be rid of them.
Put them all and their children on a plane to China this week.
Then listen to the campaigners scream!!!!
Don't want to vaccinate your kids?
Don't have kids.
When you die the problem is gone.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I'm not making that claim. I'm saying it has become taboo to mention vaccines where there might be a negative connotation. If the claim is that the old vaccine reduces food allergies, it should at least be looked at whether the new vaccine contributed to the rise in allergies.

Where has it become taboo to talk about Vaccinations negatively?

There is an high profile industry and social media collective built around believing that vaccinations do more harm than good

 

[Atavistic]

I do not care about anti-vacc idiots, don't have the time to waste listening to their whining, do not care if they or their children die.
It can only make the human race better to be rid of them.

You don't care if their children die?

 

[Pie eyed]

You don't care if their children die?

View attachment 810169

I am. I admit it.
If it saves one life it will have been worth it.
Too long medicine has quietly saved the ignorant.
Let them die and save the medicine for those who want it.
(the above could be flippant parody, but also not necessarily, though no doubt no one will really care when their child dies from being unvaccinated)

 

[CheapCharlie]

I am. I admit it.
If it saves one life it will have been worth it.
Too long medicine has quietly saved the ignorant.
Let them die and save the medicine for those who want it.
(the above could be flippant parody, but also not necessarily, though no doubt no one will really care when their child dies from being unvaccinated)

I was reading something a few months ago about how many children of anti vaxxers were angry with their parents choice once they reached late teens and early twenties and sought out vaccinations themselves.

Sadly, young children dont get a say in their own health treatments or lack of

 

[Pie eyed]

I was reading something a few months ago about how many children of anti vaxxers were angry with their parents choice once they reached late teens and early twenties and sought out vaccinations themselves.

Sadly, young children dont get a say in their own health treatments or lack of

Not vaccinating your child should be treated exactly the same way leaving them in a hot car is.
It should also exclude you from claiming any kind of child rebate, and you should have to pay full medical costs for any illness occurring which could have been vaccinated against.
And if my child is in contact with yours and I object you should have to remove your child from wherever that may be...pool, school, shopping centre etc.

 

[Dry Rot]

I wonder why only sorted bothered to watch the vid I posted?

 

[Dry Rot]

Sadly, young children dont get a say in their own health treatments or lack of

That cuts both ways, doesn't it?

 

[Crankyhawk]

It depends. This study found that there were beneficial side effects for live vaccines such as BCG and measles. But also found that, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines increased mortality in girls. The article rightly puts this in context of the WHO immunisation program which prevents more than 2 million childhood deaths every year.



I'm not making that claim. I'm saying it has become taboo to mention vaccines where there might be a negative connotation. If the claim is that the old vaccine reduces food allergies, it should at least be looked at whether the new vaccine contributed to the rise in allergies.

You raise an interesting point about effects of change from one formulation to another (whole cell to acellular). Although with food allergies there is also the hygiene hypothesis (houses too clean therefore wrong types of immune response to food)
I note that young adults are advised to reimmunise for pertussis as immunity wanes; i don’t know if this was an issue with the whole cell vaccine (or it is just better vigilance that caused detection of deterioration in immunity)

 

[Crankyhawk]

I wonder why only sorted bothered to watch the vid I posted?

It’s too long to watch and the host seems ax grindy

 

[Frank Bunn]

It’s too long to watch and the host seems ax grindy

As Santo, Sam and Ed used to say 'I watched it so you didn't have to'.

He definitely does have an axe to grind. He was being selective in what parts of the meeting he showed, then at times he misrepresented people's statements to make an invalid point. But there were a few times he showed passages of questions and answers which were quite concerning. I tagged a couple of times in the video that are worth a look.

 

[CheapCharlie]

That cuts both ways, doesn't it?

How so?

 

[Dry Rot]

How so?

You are assuming that all decisions by parents about the health of their kids are good ones.

 

[Dry Rot]

But there were a few times he showed passages of questions and answers which were quite concerning. I tagged a couple of times in the video that are worth a look.

Funny that so many here posting on here are too scared to watch it.

 

[CheapCharlie]

You are assuming that all decisions by parents about the health of their kids are good ones.

Vaccination is a good decision

 

[Snake_Baker]

Funny that so many here posting on here are too scared to watch it.

I flicked through it.

It's ridiculous.

 

[CheapCharlie]

 

[Dry Rot]

I flicked through it.

It's ridiculous.

Which bits were ridiculous?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Which bits were ridiculous?

To be fair probably most of it. But, importantly, not all of it.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Does your concern extend to safety of vaccines?

Will be interested to see what you think of what WHO vaccine scientists think - see https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ine-scientists-confirm-major-safety-problems/ and the video I posted 4 posts above.

Look forward to your thoughts.

Welcome to the club Mr Rot. The problem, like in cancer treatment, heart disease, pych is predatory capatalism.

We can't deny the effictveness of medicinal cannibis. Law Makers bribed to keep it illegal because it worked to well, kept profits down.

Pysch drugs is even more shockingly culpable as the science they quote made up in marketing departments. They spend more Money on marketing than research.

The sugar industry hijacked the science on heart disease. If it was taught properly, sugars clogging of arteries, the sugar industry would not of grown into what it is today. Along with the fake science about heart disease came the fake treatments that were money spinners.

Its the culture of profit and not the health of the human. That is the issue. Not vaccinations themselves.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

To be fair probably most of it. But, importantly, not all of it.

Its so funny.

All these trolls abusing people and claiming science as the high moral ground.


Here we have the very scientists warning us the dirty phuqing hippys are right and now you guys think they're wrong.

So On what basis does pro vaxxers base thier argument on, they can only have religion. I cant see anything else that would drive them, now we know thoer science is not s uence...

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Thanks for the genuine frontier gibberish, filled with some of the most ill-formed

Given Netflix is currently promoting Gweneth Paltrow's Goop Series, it hardly constitutes a reliable source of information.

Vaccination has the higher moral ground because it has reliable, replicable, reputable evidence behind it. Not only that but it can explain the mechanism by which it works.

So being pro-vax has got nothing to do with religion (a really strange thing to say given one of the predictors of being anti-vax is being religious or at least claiming to be).

Anti-vaxxers may be exploiting widespread religious exemptions, research suggests | CNN

An increasing number of parents in the United States are citing faith to avoid getting their children vaccinated, according to a new study -- even though no major religion opposes vaccination.

edition.cnn.com

It is definitely a science - as I've noted many times, most people do not even understand what science is. It is a systematic process that if followed produces evidence and a rationale of what the evidence means which can be replicated by another person.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

BTW

Byron Mum Worried This Coronavirus Might Result In Another Deadly Vaccine

"5-G, chemtrails, fluoride in the water, the light rail burning and now this latest vaccine, when will people wake up."

www.betootaadvocate.com