Australian parenting - No Jab, no play and no rebate

[Angilion]

You're back on to the conspiracy stuff again and I'm calling you a bully.

People campaigning against medicine aren't a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secrecy and they're not keeping it secret.

Or are you claiming that there's a conspiracy hidden there as well as amongst all medical organisations? I haven't said there's any conspiracy - my point is that the conspiracy that would be required for the anti-medicine position to have any validity is wildly implausible.

Call me a bully if you like (and keep changing the focus too - you were calling loads of people bullies before). I find it silly and a bit funny. Which makes a nice change in tone from the deaths that the people I'm arguing against would cause.

I don't need anyone to prove to me that mavity exists because I see the effects of it nearly every day.

True, but irrelevant unless you believe that disease doesn't exist. The point isn't whether or not mavity exists. It's whether or not you'd jump rather than taking the slight risk of using the stairs. You were strongly emphasising a slight risk and saying it was understandable that people would take a much larger risk instead. If you apply that to disease, why not to mavity? Or anything else?

If you want to blindly follow without question then go ahead.

That's your thing, not mine. I prefer to use what knowledge and evidence I can get, rather than going against all evidence to follow the word of people who gain money and power from me doing so while putting people at risk, especially my own children.

I didn't mention anything about a global agreement or a conspiracy.

You mentioned every medical organisation in the world not telling the truth.

The position you are arguing in favour of requires a global conspiracy of ludicrous proportions. Every medical organisation in the world would have to be in on it, along with at least almost all governments. If the diseases that have been suppressed (and in one case eradicated) since mass vaccination started aren't suppressed by vaccination then there must be some other cause, some technology that is being kept completely secret everywhere in the world and the vaccination programs would have to have some other purpose that is being kept completely secret everywhere in the world. Global agreement to conspiracy is an essential part of the anti-vaccination position.

I think I've explained myself enough.

I can carry on repeating my explanations for as long as required.

 

[Angilion]

In my opinion we would be foolish to put all our eggs in one basket. We can not truly know the possible future effects of a vaccine. If scientific opinion suggests it should be safe then most people should use it. It is prudent, from a humanity survival standpoint, that some do not use the vaccine just in case there is a long-term issue that manifests in a hundred years and kills the users (or users' progeny). This is true even if the non-use of a small portion of humans increases the risks to those who do.

A theoretical risk that might possibly exist in a hundred years time despite there being no evidence that it might exist and no reason to even think it might possibly exist doesn't outweigh a known immediate serious proven risk. It is not true that taking a greater risk is better than taking a lesser risk.

 

[Angilion]

Does hygiene affect our resistance in a negative way over time/across generations ?

*edit: general resistance mechanisms and resistance to specific diseases

I don't know of a way in which it could cross generations. Inherited resistance is genetic. There is a hypothesis that very high levels of hygeine in young children might increase their risk of allergies, but as far as I know that's the only suggested negative effect of hygiene and the evidence for it is far from clear.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

*snip*
Yes we can. That's why we test them, and monitor their effects for many decades after they're introduced.

Stating the obvious isn't particularly helpful. If a vaccine was developed 50 years ago, we can not know what will happen in 100 years time, unless you (or Pharma companies) have a time machine. We can predict and possibly quantify the likelihood of some outcomes. Consequently, there may still be a tiny risk of a catastrophic outcome. Hence, don't vaccinate everyone, because it is putting all our eggs in one basket. It's called hedging.

If you want to discuss it, I'd like to. We could discuss how small that risk is, and to what extent non-vaccination affects those who are vaccinating. I'm not married to my current position. If, however, you are only interested in undermining my current position and supporting yours, I'll let you get on with it.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

A theoretical risk that might possibly exist in a hundred years time despite there being no evidence that it might exist and no reason to even think it might possibly exist doesn't outweigh a known immediate serious proven risk. It is not true that taking a greater risk is better than taking a lesser risk.

As in above post, I am describing hedging against a small, theoretical risk. It's a thing. No matter how small the risk, if the outcome is severe enough one should hedge against it. The eradication of mankind is presumably undesired (otherwise why are we vaccinating at all ?) so is worth hedging. If some people don't want to vaccinate then let them.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The benefits of vaccinating far outweigh the real life risks of not vaccinating, which is more important than whether they outweigh the imaginary risks.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Some vaccines have been around for a long time, like small pox for example. The number of people it has been responsible for saving is insane.

We have been studying the effects of the vaccine both short term and long term, as well as other vaccines for literately lifetimes. We know what to look at when creating vaccines and monitor to see if there is any danger. I can understand why you might think hedging is worth a go but we know that there is no mass severe risk and all data shows the risk for any individual or whole population is reduced as a vaccination levels increase.

We have enjoyed the benefits of vaccines for long enough that people have forgotten how real the risks are in areas where the herd immunisation is on the lower end.

 

[Nasher]

This is to protect the kids which are not vaccinated. If your not vaccinated and are around people who are, your chance of infection is much higher since the vaccinated people can be carriers. Some of the nasty bugs are carried by a large percentage of people.

That's why you normally separate vaccinated animals from non-vaccinated ones.

 

[Sankari]

If a vaccine was developed 50 years ago, we can not know what will happen in 100 years time

These vaccines have been studied for decades. Their effects are well documented. Why would anything change in 100 years time? Your argument is not scientific.

Hence, don't vaccinate everyone

That makes no sense at all.

because it is putting all our eggs in one basket.

No, it's not. What do you propose we do about the people you don't want to vaccinate? How do we explain to them that they have to get polio because Tubby_Glossop thinks they shouldn't be vaccinated?

It's called hedging.

No, it's called unethical.

If you want to discuss it, I'd like to. We could discuss how small that risk is

The risk of not vaccinating is substantial. The risk of vaccinating is so small as to be statistically negligible.

and to what extent non-vaccination affects those who are vaccinating.

Straw man. Non-vaccination primarily affects whose who aren't vaccinating, can't be vaccinated, or aren't yet old enough to be fully vaccinated. That's the issue you need to address.

Non-vaccination also reduces herd immunity, which is a huge problem for everyone.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

snip

You could have just said you are not interested in having a discussion.

 

[shorttricky]

Stating the obvious isn't particularly helpful. If a vaccine was developed 50 years ago, we can not know what will happen in 100 years time, unless you (or Pharma companies) have a time machine. We can predict and possibly quantify the likelihood of some outcomes. Consequently, there may still be a tiny risk of a catastrophic outcome. Hence, don't vaccinate everyone, because it is putting all our eggs in one basket. It's called hedging.

If you want to discuss it, I'd like to. We could discuss how small that risk is, and to what extent non-vaccination affects those who are vaccinating. I'm not married to my current position. If, however, you are only interested in undermining my current position and supporting yours, I'll let you get on with it.

It's an interesting theory - you're basically talking about having a control group for vaccination. Of course, in that case, you need to keep the control group separate from the "test" group, since they have an impact on the herd immunity therefore skewing the results.

Regarding your concerns about long-term effects, why are you only focussing on vaccines? Smallpox vaccines have existed since 1798, BCG since 1921, Tetanus since about 1925, Polio since 1955. Ibuprofen has only been around since 1961, but I don't see anyone batting an eyelid about that.

While I understand that vaccines can have astonishingly rare but tragic side effects, that figure is not even close to the number of side effects of the diseases they vaccinate against - for example, the chances of you reacting to the polio vaccine are less than 1 in 100,000, the chances of you being paralysed by it are around 1 in 100. Fun fact - did you know Polio can't be cured, only treated?

Anti-vaxxers are in a privileged position, in that they can protest about vaccinations within the relative safety of the herd. I would be curious to see how long their beliefs would hold if they were segregated into communities with other unvaccinated people - I'm guessing about as long as the first measles outbreak

 

[Vonhelmet]

I wonder whether any of the people arguing against polio vaccination have ever met anyone who's had it. I have. She can barely walk without a stick. Fun times.

 

[Glaucus]

I wonder whether any of the people arguing against polio vaccination have ever met anyone who's had it. I have. She can barely walk without a stick. Fun times.

my uncle is the same very hard to walk with a stick.
I know my granddad regretted not giving him the vaccine, and i'm not sure why he didn't. Needless to say his other kids (all younger) got it.

Anti vaxxers are mentally ill and need protecting from themselves and god help their kids if they have any. where the state should absolutely step in and ensure minimum welfare of said kids.

 

[StriderX]

Just infect some anti-vaxxer children and their parents would soon change their tune.

 

[platypus]

The parents or the government - considering also that the vaccines are approved by multiple medical bodies independent from the government, as well as pier reviewed in the making.

Medical bodies and government approval such as the use of thalidomide in treatment for pregnant womens morning sickness?

Vaccines are on the whole good - but to suggest that medical bodies and/or governments always have peoples medical best interests at heart is a stretch too far for me.

 

[Werewolf]

thalidomide wasn't tested on pregnant women though, at was approved at a time when the general testing procedures were far less stringent than those in use today.
It's one of many areas where things have tightened up and improved in the last 50 years, largely due to lessons learned.

On the other hand vaccine types have been tested both in the lab and the real world for decades.

 

[StriderX]

Theres also the fact that Vaccines go through hundreds of millions of dollars and years of trialling to even get approval.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057755

To date, vaccination is the most cost-effective strategy to combat infectious diseases. Recently, a productivity gap affects the pharmaceutical industry. The productivity gap describes the situation whereby the invested resources within an industry do not match the expected product turn-over. While risk profiles (combining research and development timelines and transition rates) have been published for new chemical entities (NCE), little is documented on vaccine development. The objective is to calculate risk profiles for vaccines targeting human infectious diseases. A database was actively compiled to include all vaccine projects in development from 1998 to 2009 in the pre-clinical development phase, clinical trials phase I, II and III up to Market Registration. The average vaccine, taken from the preclinical phase, requires a development timeline of 10.71 years and has a market entry probability of 6%. Stratification by disease area reveals pandemic influenza vaccine targets as lucrative. Furthermore, vaccines targeting acute infectious diseases and prophylactic vaccines have shown to have a lower risk profile when compared to vaccines targeting chronic infections and therapeutic applications. In conclusion; these statistics apply to vaccines targeting human infectious diseases. Vaccines targeting cancer, allergy and autoimmune diseases require further analysis. Additionally, this paper does not address orphan vaccines targeting unmet medical needs, whether projects are in-licensed or self-originated and firm size and experience. Therefore, it remains to be investigated how these - and other - variables influence the vaccine risk profile. Although we find huge differences between the risk profiles for vaccine and NCE; vaccines outperform NCE when it comes to development timelines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1551949/

It often takes more than 10 years to deliver a final, licensed vaccine,5 and requires not only excellence during research and product development but also managerial and funding commitment throughout the endeavor. The cost of developing a vaccine—from research and discovery to product registration—is estimated to be between US $200 million and US $500 million per vaccine.6 This figure includes vaccines that are abandoned during the development process. In short, vaccine research and product development is lengthy, complex, and loaded with binary outcome risks.

94% of vaccines seemingly fail to reach the market as well... They aren't just pumping these out.

 

[platypus]

thalidomide wasn't tested on pregnant women though, at was approved at a time when the general testing procedures were far less stringent than those in use today.
It's one of many areas where things have tightened up and improved in the last 50 years, largely due to lessons learned.

On the other hand vaccine types have been tested both in the lab and the real world for decades.

I'm not arguing against vaccines. I'm arguing against blithely accepting medical bodies and governments as having childrens best interests at heart.

 

[Eddie]

You'll be labelled a conspiracy nut with those kind of statements, like I was.

They think we're wolves, when really we're Border Collies.

 

[shorttricky]

I'm not arguing against vaccines. I'm arguing against blithely accepting medical bodies and governments as having childrens best interests at heart.

Why? I'm at a loss to understand how you could come to this conclusion? There is no moral, financial or medical benefit to giving children life-long conditions.

You'll be labelled a conspiracy nut with those kind of statements, like I was.

It does come across that way though - the anti-vax argument is pretty much "it can't be good to inject diseases into kids", "doctors/government don't care about kids" or "vaccines kill, I read a post on facebook once about it" - that's against the effects of polio / measles / diptheria / hepatitis / meningitis / whatever else there is (it's been a while since I had to remember about vaccines). Bearing in mind the immunity rates, there must be 60 odd million people vaccinated against something in the UK. That's a pretty decent test group.

They think we're wolves, when really we're Border Collies.

You're not a real doctor and now you're a Border Collie? That's it, I'm done with trusting people on the internet