Thinking of getting vaccinated? [Archive]

flyingcrocodile46

8th July 2013, 18:11

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 18:35

Oakie

8th July 2013, 19:22

Bwa ha ha. Didn't even have to follow the link. Just the www name starting 'activistpost.com' was all I needed to know (but I had a look anyway just to confirm my impression)

'Thinking of getting vaccinated?' Been doing it for years. I even arranged flu vaccinations for 15 of my work colleagues last year and 29 of them this year. Aiming for 50 flu jabs next year and it will be done without a moment of doubt.

mashman

8th July 2013, 19:23

Oakie

8th July 2013, 20:11

Did they save your life?

If I didn't reply, would you be worried?

flyingcrocodile46

8th July 2013, 20:32

So, exactly how many hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved for each life damaged?

And how many billions of lives would be saved by the extinction of parasitic transmissible diseases?

You've come over all activistic, dude. Get better numbers, those ones are crap.

I didn't say not to get a vaccination. I was attempting to allow you to educate yourself with facts that support the concerns raised by many, so that you could make decisions based in knowledge rather than ignorance. :yes: Carry on

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 20:40

I didn't say not to get a vaccination. I was attempting to allow you to educate yourself with facts that support the concerns raised by many, so that you could make decisions based in knowledge rather than ignorance. :yes: Carry on

Ignorance is it? I live with someone who did their masters thesis on disease vectors and vaccination strategies. She says to tell you you're an idiot.

There's a place for those who don't want to vaccinate. Somewhere else.

Somewhere easily cauterised when the inevitable happens.

mashman

8th July 2013, 21:15

If I didn't reply, would you be worried?

If you had have posted any other response, no.

flyingcrocodile46

8th July 2013, 21:26

Ignorance is it? I live with someone who did their masters thesis on disease vectors and vaccination strategies. She says to tell you you're an idiot.

There's a place for those who don't want to vaccinate. Somewhere else.

Somewhere easily cauterised when the inevitable happens.

Well Golly gee. You and your mom are almost (but not really) as well qualified as lead researcher-developer of vaccines.. 'Dr. Diane Harper' (the whistle blower) who is telling people that the vaccines she created aren't needed and likely kill a percentage of people for no good reason.

You can't get any nearer to the horses mouth than that. So I guess as your view is the opposite of hers, you would have to be at the opposite end of the horse. However, that's your informed choice and as the vaccine is related to cervical cancer... Well, Why wouldn't ya? ;)

Road kill

8th July 2013, 21:26

I've never been vaccinated against anything in my life.
I managed to skip the TB shots that most high school kids got simply by being bought up mostly in social welfare boys homes an they didn't waste money on people like me at that time,,,oddly enough I still haven't died from TB.

I have read a lot of both sides of the vaccination argument and what really bothers me is that people that have not been vaccinated will eventually be excluded from some parts of society,,,like children attending schools today.

It's happening in Australia today but the Australian press is being very quiet about it for some reason.

That leads me to think that maybe some people don't really have the faith they claim in their vaccinations because if they did then their off spring surely wouldn't be in danger from unvaccinated kids,,wouldn't it be the other way round ?

Another way of looking at it is that Monsanto will eventually control your food if they get their way,and the American MDA will own your arse.

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 21:38

'Dr. Diane Harper' (the whistle blower) who is telling people that the vaccines she created aren't needed and likely kill a percentage of people for no good reason.

Well if her vaccine was ineffective and/or dangerous I'd tend to agree with her, but the vast majority of them aren't. And face it, they don't have to be very good to be better than the disease they prevent, now do they?

GDOBSSOR

8th July 2013, 21:41

Think about it very carefully.

Real facts about court rulings that found vaccines have caused Autism and brain damage. Companies fined and forced to pay compensation.
[/IMG]

... I think I'd rather be protected against shit like meningitis ta. Oh, and I have Aspergers. You don't catch it through vaccinations. You're born with it.

noobi

8th July 2013, 21:48

Real facts about court rulings that found vaccines have caused Autism and brain damage. Companies fined and forced to pay compensation.

I surely hope you're not referring to Andrew Wakefield and the claims he made that linked the MMR vaccine with Autism?

As pretty much everything he said on the topic was proved to be false and completely made up. His results were discredited and he had his licenses revoked and, I think charged with fraud.

As for having never had a vaccine and not getting the disease that the vaccine protects against. Read up on herd immunity.

scissorhands

8th July 2013, 21:55

... I think I'd rather be protected against shit like meningitis ta. Oh, and I have Aspergers. You don't catch it through vaccinations. You're born with it.

Hereditary/genetic disorders can be made worse.

Many children are given so many shots in such a short space of time, whilst young, that genetically compromised/different than normal immune systems cannot cope

The internet is full of stories of woe from parents of children who were never the same after a vaccination

An elderly friend of my mums died shortly after the illness that was triggered by his vaccinations he received as he was travelling to India. He never made the journey

Certain genotypes are more susceptible to vaccine injury.

Poor immunity in children may also result in harm

scissorhands

8th July 2013, 21:59

flyingcrocodile46

8th July 2013, 22:02

I surely hope you're not referring to Andrew Wakefield and the claims he made that linked the MMR vaccine with Autism?

As pretty much everything he said on the topic was proved to be false and completely made up. His results were discredited and he had his licenses revoked and, I think charged with fraud.

As for having never had a vaccine and not getting the disease that the vaccine protects against. Read up on herd immunity.

Geeze. Read into it what you want. As I said, Think about it (i.e do some investigation into the need for and performance of any vaccines you are pointed to) because there is some very real evidence that it isn't always the best or even a necessary choice (i.e don't be a sheep). I never said "don't take vaccines".

FFS, some of you people need some serious education in language comprehension. Perhaps I should have started with that link. :facepalm:

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 22:09

Hereditary/genetic disorders can be made worse.

Many children are given so many shots in such a short space of time, whilst young, that genetically compromised/different than normal immune systems cannot cope

The internet is full of stories of woe from parents of children who were never the same after a vaccination

An elderly friend of my mums died shortly after the illness that was triggered by his vaccinations he received as he was travelling to India. He never made the journey

Certain genotypes are more susceptible to vaccine injury.

Poor immunity in children may also result in harm

All doubtful or unquantified risks arguing against immunisation. They definitely should factor in a decision whether to vaccinate or not, but compared to the reduction in risk most vaccines represent they come nowhere near representing a valid argument.

And if the reason to vaccinate is to eliminate a particular threat then widespread refusal defeats the purpose. Smallpox is the only one we've nailed, which is a pretty poor record given the resources that could be applied and the consequences of allowing our parasitic baggage to survive.

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 22:11

Natural immune boosting/lifestyle should be the priority.

No, making the pathogens extinct should be the priority.

flyingcrocodile46

8th July 2013, 22:12

All doubtful or unquantified risks arguing against immunisation. They definitely should factor in a decision whether to vaccinate or not, but compared to the reduction in risk most vaccines represent they come nowhere near representing a valid argument.

And if the reason to vaccinate is to eliminate a particular threat then widespread refusal defeats the purpose. Smallpox is the only one we've nailed, which is a pretty poor record given the resources that could be applied and the consequences of allowing our parasitic baggage to survive.

Are we talking about the bugs or people who don't take the vaccines? :msn-wink:

Hitcher

8th July 2013, 22:12

Think about it very carefully.

I hope you and your unvaccinated brethren are not smitten by Smallpox, a disease completely eradicated by vaccination.

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 22:16

I never said "don't take vaccines".

That's true, apologies for any unintended collateral damage.

It's important to recognise, though that every mother's decision to vaccinate or not, no matter how well researched is less well qualified than almost any medical professional's. And there's a great deal of poorly informed bullshit wherever they look, which helps not at all.

noobi

8th July 2013, 22:16

Andrew Wakefeilds being discredited only mean he was discredited.

Its all very political....

Natural immune boosting/lifestyle should be the priority.

His findings could never be replicated, and in the science community, that means it is nothing more than a cool story at best.
No legitimate research into the possible link ever concluded the same as Wakefield's paper.

From the co authors of the paper
"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."

He made something up, and it was proved to be rubbish, but to this day, people still think that there is a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

People having adverse affects due to a vaccine is such a small percentage(~0.05% for the HPV vaccine for example), but the stories get blown into the spotlight because of how easy it is to put things up on the internet. No one ever tells stories about how they were perfectly fine after the vaccines and consequently didn't develop polio or measles.

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 22:17

Are we talking about the bugs or people who don't take the vaccines? :msn-wink:

The bugs. Although in fact in terms of how you strategically manage them there's no difference.

scissorhands

8th July 2013, 22:20

.... the consequences of allowing our parasitic baggage to survive.

you mean those who profit from an unhealthy population?:msn-wink:

Certain professions would have their income slashed by up to 90% :eek: if everyone became healthier.....

mashman

8th July 2013, 22:22

I hope you and your unvaccinated brethren are not smitten by Smallpox, a disease completely eradicated by vaccination.

It would seem that there are those who disagree with you (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/02/smallpox-declared-eradicated-while-still-alive-and-well-by-viera-scheibner-phd/)

scissorhands

8th July 2013, 22:24

No, making the pathogens extinct should be the priority.

A new one will form.
Natural immunity building makes more long term sense, as a weak body is vulnerable to many new things that will come, but as yet unknown.

keep making more and more vaccines??:wacko:

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 22:25

you mean those who profit from an unhealthy population?:msn-wink:

Certain professions would have their income slashed by up to 90% :eek: if everyone became healthier.....

Yeah, doctors would be completely out of business. And you'll never find a single one of them that wouldn't pull the trigger on polio in a second.

mashman

8th July 2013, 22:27

Yeah, doctors would be completely out of business. And you'll never find a single one of them that wouldn't pull the trigger on polio in a second.

Mr Microsoft Gates already has that in hand reportedly. 97% and counting I think he last reported.

Ocean1

8th July 2013, 22:31

A new one will form.
Natural immunity building makes more long term sense, as a weak body is vulnerable to many new things that will come, but as yet unknown.

keep making more and more vaccines??:wacko:

Extinct is extinct, dude, they only come back if some pocket of anti-immunisation idiots keep a breeding stock. The only virus that's jumped species in modern history is Ebola, there isn't any form of immunity, natural or otherwise that has a chance of working there, you kill the fucker dead. If another one turns up then you kill that too.

scissorhands

8th July 2013, 22:39

Rabies in Australia jumps from bats to peeps and horses... 60min tonight Prime TV

Creatures mutate, you cannot realistically expect to ban them forever.

Nature is opportunistic, reducing opportunities is key.

Maori were in fine health when colonialists arrived
Same as nearly all ethnic people before colonisation

Strong genes is the answer
Not gene weakening therapies that make you reliant on [trying to] killing germs and bugs

Vaccination creates reliance on profit focused corporations. Who benefit financially upon sick populations.....

Strong natural immunity is free to all, and how nature was meant to work

Oakie

8th July 2013, 22:47

Geeze. Read into it what you want. As I said, Think about it (i.e do some investigation into the need for and performance of any vaccines you are pointed to) because there is some very real evidence that it isn't always the best or even a necessary choice (i.e don't be a sheep). I never said "don't take vaccines".

FFS, some of you people need some serious education in language comprehension. Perhaps I should have started with that link. :facepalm:

I think that when you write sentences like:

Real facts about court rulings that found vaccines have caused Autism and brain damage

Companies fined and forced to pay compensation.

What is confirmed is that 44 girls have died after vaccination for HPV and many more have suffered serious bizarre side effects

Yet another conspiracy come true

....we are entitled to assume you are saying "don't vaccinate" ... yes even though you didn't say that.

For me, yeah I did do the study prior to getting myself done and then my workmates. It allows me to explain to them why they are safe from the flu vaccination ... unless of course they have an allergy to eggs.

noobi

8th July 2013, 23:02

Rabies in Australia jumps from bats to peeps and horses... 60min tonight Prime TV

Strong genes is the answer
Not gene weakening therapies that make you reliant on [trying to] killing germs and bugs

Vaccination creates reliance on profit focused corporations. Who benefit financially upon sick populations.....

Strong natural immunity is free to all, and how nature was meant to work

Do you understand how vaccination works?

mansell

8th July 2013, 23:02

About 20 years ago one of my friends believed this anti vaccination bullshit and decided against vaccinating her children. A low and behold her youngest caught whooping cough. After hearing a baby less than a year old struggling to breath you soon start to realise that most of the anti bullshit comes from the sort of uneducated liberals who believe they know more than experts in the field. Both my boys have had all their vaccinations and for the first time this year I had a flu shot - oops it hasn't affected me in any way. The fundamental stats in the initial research were so bloody flawed that I think the researchers really needed to repeat Stats 101

scissorhands

9th July 2013, 00:17

Do you understand how vaccination works?

yes, how about you?

noobi

9th July 2013, 00:23

yes, how about you?

Yes. Quite well.

Akzle

9th July 2013, 02:01

everyone seen 'equilibrium'?

Yeah. Thats you guys in a hundred years.

The whooping cough jab nearly killed baby-me.

The only shit i want to inject is heroin, and thats only on weekends and holidays and throughout may.

Never had a flu shot, never had a flu.
Tetanus 'out of date' despite dirty gash to the bone, rusty metal cuts etc, never had tetanus.
No cjd, no vaccine, and i was in yurp when we were getting it.
No tb, plenty of possum blood mixed with cuts on my hands.
Milkmaids were immune to pox. NATURALLY due to ther exposure to cowpox developing immunity.

mashman

9th July 2013, 07:55

Paul in NZ

9th July 2013, 08:13

No vaccine or medical procedure is 100% safe. However they are almost all 99.99% better than doing nothing. The small number that have adverse reactions or even die is nothing against the vast number that benefit. That is of course small comfort to those who DO have an adverse reaction... And the vast majority who don't develop small pox etc are left wondering if it was worth it because they never got it...

Its a bit like advanced rider training - pfft - waste of money cos I never crashed or came close to crashing...

As a type 1 diabetic I'm 100% for all the medical research we can muster - face it, as recently as a 100 years ago I'd be dead long ago...

scissorhands

9th July 2013, 08:55

MisterD

9th July 2013, 09:02

And kids that do get vaccinated can still get whooping cough.

Yes, but the point is that the small proportion of the population for whom the vaccine is ineffective are protected by the much reduced risk of encountering the infection because of those for whom it works.

That's why people who know what they're talking about get so pissed off with the anti-vaccine types. You're not just endangering yourself or your children, you're compromising the overall effectiveness of the vaccine program and putting others at risk.

Akzle

9th July 2013, 09:15

That's why people who know what they're talking about get so pissed off with the anti-vaccine types. You're not just endangering yourself or your children, you're compromising the overall effectiveness of the vaccine program and putting others at risk.

dude, if the govt thought thered be any benefit for themselves, theyd put it in the water.

Must comply with an unsafe medical procedure?
Do you support organ harvesting in china? After all, thats for the benefit of the politically reliable/compliant...

I hope you get a superbug. Better, i hope you get one off me. You cant vaccinate against nature.
People value their lives too highly.

unstuck

9th July 2013, 09:21

Do you know Xmas is/was actually a magic mushroom festival? I guess there is a lot that most people do not really know eh?
Carry on as you were....

Really, I thought it came from the Christ Mass, you learn something new every day. Now the yule tide festival could be considered a mushroom festival.:Punk::Punk:

scissorhands

9th July 2013, 09:54

Really, I thought it came from the Christ Mass, you learn something new every day. Now the yule tide festival could be considered a mushroom festival.:Punk::Punk:

rosy cheeks and laughing good will...

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3136.html

The Psychedelic Secrets of Santa Claus
Modern Christmas traditions are based on ancient mushroom-using shamans.

Although most people see Christmas as a Christian holiday, many of the symbols and icons we associate with Christmas celebrations are actually derived from the shamanistic traditions of the tribal peoples of pre-Christian Northern Europe.

The sacred mushroom of these people was the red and white amanita muscaria mushroom, also known as "fly agaric." These mushrooms are now commonly seen in books of fairy tales, and are usually associated with magic and fairies. This is because they contain potent hallucinogenic compounds, and were used by ancient peoples for insight and transcendental experiences

Grizzo

9th July 2013, 10:19

mansell

9th July 2013, 10:32

mashman

9th July 2013, 10:49

Yes, but the point is that the small proportion of the population for whom the vaccine is ineffective are protected by the much reduced risk of encountering the infection because of those for whom it works.

That's why people who know what they're talking about get so pissed off with the anti-vaccine types. You're not just endangering yourself or your children, you're compromising the overall effectiveness of the vaccine program and putting others at risk.

I appreciate the risks etc... but if you are pro-vaccination, then what are you concerned about? You will have been vaccinated and should be fine. That being the case, people who don't have themselves or their children vaccinated will have weighed up that risk. So them getting pissed off is really only bad for their blood pressure.

MisterD

9th July 2013, 12:31

I hope you get a superbug. Better, i hope you get one off me. You cant vaccinate against nature.
People value their lives too highly.

You can't vaccinate against stupid either, and there's the living, typing, proof.

I appreciate the risks etc... but if you are pro-vaccination, then what are you concerned about? You will have been vaccinated and should be fine.

Example: The MMR vaccine is about 95% effective on the first dose, what if your child is in that 5% and they catch it from a child who should have been immunised, but wasn't?

mashman

9th July 2013, 16:17

Example: The MMR vaccine is about 95% effective on the first dose, what if your child is in that 5% and they catch it from a child who should have been immunised, but wasn't?

If my child is in that 5% then my child is in that 5%. It's up to the parent. Do you have any figures for the number of children/adults that haven't been immunised for MMR that actually die from one of them? or indeed the number of those who were immunised and contracted one of them. I understand your point, but a child not catching measles/mumps/rubella after being vaccinated does not mean that that child would have gone on to catch M/M/R. Yes it lowers the risks. Meh.

mashman

9th July 2013, 17:06

Example: The MMR vaccine is about 95% effective on the first dose, what if your child is in that 5% and they catch it from a child who should have been immunised, but wasn't?

Kids dinner out of the way... are you saying that people should take the chance that a vaccination won't kill/maim their children? It is documented that people die from the vaccination and whilst it may well be 1 in 10,000,000, you may be willing to take that chance, however you must respect the decision of those who choose not to? After all, to vaccinate or not is risky either way.

flyingcrocodile46

9th July 2013, 17:06

Some dipshit cried about my post being fearmongering.

Fucking tard is completely oblivious to the fact that it is fearmongering for $ on the part of the pharmaceutical companies that is used in their marketing. Moron.

The majority of people who vacinate their kids based on the fearmongering... (instead of evidence of the presence of actively spreading bugs).. well they are just fearful bleating fuckwit sheep that are sucked into believing in problems that don't even exist.

Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa

granstar

9th July 2013, 17:49

needle jab Fck that, it might hurt! <_<

MisterD

9th July 2013, 17:59

Kids dinner out of the way... are you saying that people should take the chance that a vaccination won't kill/maim their children? It is documented that people die from the vaccination and whilst it may well be 1 in 10,000,000, you may be willing to take that chance, however you must respect the decision of those who choose not to? After all, to vaccinate or not is risky either way.

The risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine is tiny, much much less than the risk of dying from the disease itself. My problem with the anti-vac crowd is that a) they're not making a rational decision, which offends my inner scientist and b) they're bludging off the increased protection that those of us that do take those tiny risks of vaccinating afford to the rest of the community. I hates bludgers.

mashman

9th July 2013, 18:08

The risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine is tiny, much much less than the risk of dying from the disease itself. My problem with the anti-vac crowd is that a) they're not making a rational decision, which offends my inner scientist and b) they're bludging off the increased protection that those of us that do take those tiny risks of vaccinating afford to the rest of the community. I hates bludgers.

So what's the ratio of deaths caused by X v's maimings caused by X? You mean an individual should get vaccinated as a social service? What about freedom of choice?

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 18:22

Akzle

9th July 2013, 18:59

100% correct. A total fraud and shit spinner. The anti immunisation crowd are fucking freaks. Should all live together in a commune far far away from the rest of us.

OR all you vacciney, monetary, capitalist types could fuck off far far away from us healthy folk.

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 19:03

OR all you vacciney, monetary, capitalist types could fuck off far far away from us healthy folk.

With ya polio and ya German Measels and ya whooping cough and fuck knows what else. Tui anyone? To think immunisation hasn't changed the world dramatically for the better health wise is retardedness in the extreme. But I'm not surprised you're anti it.

Ocean1

9th July 2013, 20:31

With ya polio and ya German Measels and ya whooping cough and fuck knows what else. Tui anyone? To think immunisation hasn't changed the world dramatically for the better health wise is retardedness in the extreme. But I'm not surprised you're anti it.

Aye. If they're true to form a lot of them will be mobile dormitories for tapeworms, tics, fleas, lice, roundworms and scabies, 'cause, y'now, all them antibiotics and shit are dangerous.

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 20:38

Aye. If they're true to form a lot of them will be mobile dormitories for tapeworms, tics, fleas, lice, roundworms and scabies, 'cause, y'now, all them antibiotics and shit are dangerous.

Correct. Yet they all slag off tree hugging greenies. Well most of 'em. Bet they don't have any pain killers when having teeth drilled/removed, or serious operations either. Can't be having those drugs the drug companies push eh!? Their wifes have never had an epidural or gas when having their vages torn to their assholes...and they sure as fuck never drink alcohol either. Drugs are bad you see.

flyingcrocodile46

9th July 2013, 21:01

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 21:18

Well that sure is a narrow radius pipe line you are living in. The tips of your ears will be brown for sure.

And you're awesome. I'd love to be like you. Read a few things on the interweeeeeb...and all of a sudden be better than trained medical professionals that've been doing it all their lives. Fuck...your awesomeness is making me freak out. And talking of brown tips... Do you actually know anyone badly affected by immunisation? Any families that have been? Ever seen a baby with whooping cough? Ever had any drugs yourself to ease the pain etc? You'll have kidney stones removed without them right? Where do you draw the line with drug companies?

mashman

9th July 2013, 21:27

And you're awesome. I'd love to be like you. Read a few things on the interweeeeeb...and all of a sudden be better than trained medical professionals that've been doing it all their lives. Fuck...your awesomeness is making me freak out. And talking of brown tips... Do you actually know anyone badly affected by immunisation? Any families that have been? Ever seen a baby with whooping cough? Ever had any drugs yourself to ease the pain etc? You'll have kidney stones removed without them right? Where do you draw the line with drug companies?

I hear Evening Primrose Oil is supposed to be good for your current condition.

flyingcrocodile46

9th July 2013, 21:30

And you're awesome. I'd love to be like you. Read a few things on the interweeeeeb...and all of a sudden be better than trained medical professionals that've been doing it all their lives. Fuck...your awesomeness is making me freak out. And talking of brown tips... Do you actually know anyone badly affected by immunisation? Any families that have been? Ever seen a baby with whooping cough? Ever had any drugs yourself to ease the pain etc? You'll have kidney stones removed without them right? Where do you draw the line with drug companies?

Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Nope, Yup, Prolly - like the fingers and slipped discs, Tightly around their necks like a leash.

And Nope, Nope, Nope, Yup, Yup and Nope to your previous hysterical stereotyping too.

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 21:52

I hear Evening Primrose Oil is supposed to be good for your current condition.

lol. Was fucking glad to have decent drugs after my latest op don't worry. Got to the stage now where I may poor a deep bath and enjoy some oils...

Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Nope, Yup,

And Nope, Nope, Nope, Yup, Yup and Nope. I don't believe depression and or anxiety etc needs drugs. I don't think schizophrenia needs em...the drug companies rule the world...and I've only seen *the constant Gardner* fifty times. I don't believe in aspirin, penicillin, morphine or any other man made drug. Bar alcohol. Because I've never used that. I just believe in it.

And what do you yourself...personally think of immunization? And why.

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 21:55

Some dipshit cried about my post being fearmongering.

Fucking tard is completely oblivious to the fact that it is fearmongering for $ on the part of the pharmaceutical companies that is used in their marketing. Moron.

The majority of people who vacinate their kids based on the fearmongering... (instead of evidence of the presence of actively spreading bugs).. well they are just fearful bleating fuckwit sheep that are sucked into believing in problems that don't even exist.

Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa

Ever seen a baby with whooping cough? Serious question. It ain't baaaa baaa baaa. It coughs it's self to death. Moron.

scissorhands

9th July 2013, 21:58

Aye. If they're true to form a lot of them will be mobile dormitories for tapeworms, tics, fleas, lice, roundworms and scabies, 'cause, y'now, all them antibiotics and shit are dangerous.

since when are antibiotics given for the above parasitic infections? Shows some of the thinking here....

Correct. Yet they all slag off tree hugging greenies. Well most of 'em. Bet they don't have any pain killers when having teeth drilled/removed, or serious operations either. Can't be having those drugs the drug companies push eh!? Their wifes have never had an epidural or gas when having their vages torn to their assholes...and they sure as fuck never drink alcohol either. Drugs are bad you see.

Reactionary bullshit.

The OP quoted a vaccine scientist speaking out about the monster she has created....

flyingcrocodile46

9th July 2013, 21:59

And what do you yourself...personally think of immunization? And why.I'd probably take most of them if there was a genuine and imminent threat, but I wouldn't and don't take any unnecessarily (in fact I don't recall having taken one for maybe more than 30 years). It's an informed choice that shouldn't be approached with a heard mentality by sheep. We all know what happens to sheep.

flyingcrocodile46

9th July 2013, 22:05

Ever seen a baby with whooping cough? Serious question. It ain't baaaa baaa baaa. It coughs it's self to death. Moron.

Well, I guess as I haven't seen one (and I'm guessing you have) I have kept better company (whether vaccinated or not). Now what does that tell us? Seems less likely that one not exposed to such events is the moron eh! I hope you aren't labouring under the illusion that taking vaccinations now will undo past mistakes. They wont.

mashman

9th July 2013, 22:07

lol. Was fucking glad to have decent drugs after my latest op don't worry. Got to the stage now where I may poor a deep bath and enjoy some oils...

Sounds pretty 'orrid... apart from the drugs bit that is. Shame the couldn't fix the crash damage ;)

Hoon

9th July 2013, 22:27

I'm vaccinated against almost everything under the sun. My kids will be to. Yep I've read all the pros and cons, weighed up the volume of advice and the quality of their sources and come to the conclusion that the minute gains outweigh the infinitesimally small risk.

Anyone that disagrees with my choice is welcome to provide additional evidence in an attempt to sway me otherwise but those that do not accept my choice and instead choose to ridicule it will find themselves relegated from trusted advisor to hysterical crackpot.

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 22:30

I'd probably take most of them if there was a genuine and imminent threat, but I wouldn't and don't take any unnecessarily (in fact I don't recall having taken one for maybe more than 30 years). .

That's fair enough. I was given them as a child...and escaped most of the nasties. But I certainly don't bother with all of this *flu strain shit*

[QUOTE=flyingcrocodile46;1130577453]Well, I guess as I haven't seen one (and I'm guessing you have) I have either kept better company (whether vaccinated or not). Now what does that tell us? Seems whilst I think I'm incredidibly clever I'm actually a moron ! /QUOTE]

Yes I have. What does it tell us? Work it out. Moron you say? Get back to me when you've witnessed an innocent child suffer because of some fucked up self righteousness by uneducated parents. If it was your child...you'd shit your fucking pants.

Akzle

9th July 2013, 22:40

Correct. Yet they all slag off tree hugging greenies. Well most of 'em. Bet they don't have any pain killers when having teeth drilled/removed, or serious operations either. Can't be having those drugs the drug companies push eh!? Their wifes have never had an epidural or gas when having their vages torn to their assholes...and they sure as fuck never drink alcohol either. Drugs are bad you see.

both my children were birthed at home drug free.

I hug trees.

I have not had teeth removed. Im healthy.

The only pain relief iv had at hospital is lignocaine.
You may be surprised its derived from cocaine, which is natural.

Alcohol is a nuero toxin, not a drug.
Its also natural.

I use cannabis and opiates when i need pain relief, which is about twice a year.

Bet im healthier than you.

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 23:11

both my children were birthed at home drug free.

Bet im healthier than you.

Was your sister ok with that too?

Mentally you're not...no. And physically? Maybe. But only because I've munted my body so badly racing motorcycles that I can't do as much as I'd like to nowadays. Bet I can still ride a motorcycle better than you despite that. And this is after all...a motorcycling site right?

noobi

9th July 2013, 23:32

The only pain relief iv had at hospital is lignocaine.
You may be surprised its derived from cocaine, which is natural.

Alcohol is a nuero toxin, not a drug.
Its also natural.

I use cannabis and opiates when i need pain relief, which is about twice a year.

I don't think it is prepared from cocaine, but whatever.

Natural so its OK right?

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 23:36

since when are antibiotics given for the above parasitic infections? Shows some of the thinking here....

Reactionary bullshit.

The OP quoted a vaccine scientist speaking out about the monster she has created....

Well, I guess as I haven't seen one (and I'm guessing you have) I have kept better company (whether vaccinated or not). Now what does that tell us? Seems less likely that one not exposed to such events is the moron eh! I hope you aren't labouring under the illusion that taking vaccinations now will undo past mistakes. They wont.

both my children were birthed at home drug free.

I hug trees.

I have not had teeth removed. Im healthy.

The only pain relief iv had at hospital is lignocaine.
You may be surprised its derived from cocaine, which is natural.

Alcohol is a nuero toxin, not a drug.
Its also natural.

I use cannabis and opiates when i need pain relief, which is about twice a year.

Bet im healthier than you.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9ZmMYBXRniY?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iAWSf8enVgo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tree hugging rules.

idb

10th July 2013, 00:14

Yep, nothing like a bit of good old mercury among friends.:tugger:

If my employer did that I will tell them to fuck right off.

Did you know that the salt you buy in the supermarket contains Sodium and Chloride.
Google them to see what they do to your body!

idb

10th July 2013, 00:25

both my children were birthed at home drug free.

I hug trees.

I have not had teeth removed. Im healthy.

The only pain relief iv had at hospital is lignocaine.
You may be surprised its derived from cocaine, which is natural.

Alcohol is a nuero toxin, not a drug.
Its also natural.

I use cannabis and opiates when i need pain relief, which is about twice a year.

Bet im healthier than you.

You know that hemlock's natural too, eh?

Akzle

10th July 2013, 00:29

Was your sister ok with that too?

Mentally you're not...no. And physically? Maybe. But only because I've munted my body so badly racing motorcycles that I can't do as much as I'd like to nowadays. Bet I can still ride a motorcycle better than you despite that. And this is after all...a motorcycling site right?

really, thats the most intelligent rebuttal you can come up with?

Move along dweeb.

Akzle

10th July 2013, 00:31

You know that hemlock's natural too, eh?

yes. And at least 120 other plants that are medicinal or psychoactive.
I could kill you with most of the shit i cultivate...

Semi related, tolerance within the body can be developed against hemlock.

idb

10th July 2013, 00:38

yes. And at least 120 other plants that are medicinal or psychoactive.
I could kill you with most of the shit i cultivate...

Semi related, tolerance within the body can be developed against hemlock.

Oh good, then it can't be harmful at all then, can it?

I wonder what drugs aren't made out of natural products........

Crasherfromwayback

10th July 2013, 01:13

really, thats the most intelligent rebuttal you can come up with?

Move along dweeb.

Says the fag that has this "giz a burn on your missus
/Akzle" as his sig.

Fuck yeah. I can't compete. You're oh so intelligent. How long did it take you to come up with that?

Akzle

10th July 2013, 01:41

I wonder what drugs aren't made out of natural products........

paracetamol for one. Id suspect ibuprofen, diclofenac, viagra, diazepam, amphetamine, methylphenidate...
Y'know, the pharmac shit everyone has a cupboard full of...

MisterD

10th July 2013, 09:54

paracetamol for one. Id suspect ibuprofen, diclofenac, viagra, diazepam, amphetamine, methylphenidate...
Y'know, the pharmac shit everyone has a cupboard full of...

Have a guess how related a packet of Aspirin is to actual Willow Bark these days...:weird:

Ocean1

10th July 2013, 11:13

since when are antibiotics given for the above parasitic infections? ..

Very rarely. But they're all parasites and as you're happy to live with parasitic viruses I assumed you'd be well lousy also.

Akzle

10th July 2013, 11:58

Have a guess how related a packet of Aspirin is to actual Willow Bark these days...:weird:

yeah. i get that. pharma make a lot of synthetic shit. which is why i don't obtain/use much of it. i grow it.

unstuck

10th July 2013, 12:36

paracetamol for one. Id suspect ibuprofen, diclofenac, viagra, diazepam, amphetamine, methylphenidate...
Y'know, the pharmac shit everyone has a cupboard full of...

Nope, not in my cupboards.:Punk::Punk:

Crasherfromwayback

10th July 2013, 13:01

the most intelligent rebuttal you can come up with?

.

If you really believe in yourself...you can do anything!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g0cosKhRdbA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

unstuck

10th July 2013, 13:13

If you really believe in yourself...you can do anything!

That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.:killingme:killingme:killingme

If he really believed in himself, he wouldn't be trying to prove it to anyone else.:facepalm::wings::wings::wings:

scissorhands

10th July 2013, 13:42

If he really believed in himself, he wouldn't be trying to prove it to anyone else.:facepalm::wings::wings::wings:

maybe hes trying to help others? rather than prove self?

Crasherfromwayback

10th July 2013, 13:49

maybe hes trying to help others? rather than prove self?

Either way...he's no longer a believer.

unstuck

10th July 2013, 15:22

maybe hes trying to help others? rather than prove self?

They say that laughter is the best medicine, so maybe he did help someone feel better.. What mean you by Prove self? Care to ellaborate?:msn-wink:

idb

10th July 2013, 18:35

paracetamol for one. Id suspect ibuprofen, diclofenac, viagra, diazepam, amphetamine, methylphenidate...
Y'know, the pharmac shit everyone has a cupboard full of...

What's un-natural about the ingredients in them?

Akzle

10th July 2013, 19:03

What's un-natural about the ingredients in them?

that they do not occur in nature?

idb

10th July 2013, 19:23

that they do not occur in nature?

Really?
These companies have created new elements?
They must be like God or something!

noobi

10th July 2013, 19:24

that they do not occur in nature?

Occurs in nature means its ok, and derived from natural things is ok. Then what is everything else, as they are derived from things which occur naturally?

Besides, its all organic chemistry, see its organic, ergo safe and healthy.

scissorhands

10th July 2013, 22:44

They say that laughter is the best medicine, so maybe he did help someone feel better.. What mean you by Prove self? Care to ellaborate?:msn-wink:

hes a modern day jester
good medicine is bitter

maybe....

Italian court reignites MMR vaccine debate after award over child with autism http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/italian-court-reignites-mmr-vaccine-debate-after-award-over-child-with-autism-7858596.html

The controversial row surroundings alleged links between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism is set to be reignited following a court ruling in Italy.....
Valentino Bocca was 15 months old when he received an MMR jab in 2004. His parents said the change in him, after the jab, from a healthy boy to one who was in serious discomfort, was immediate.

Luca Ventaloro the family lawyer, said yesterday: “This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino. It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.”

Please update this article: the doctor who published the story in the Lancet (Dr. Wakefield), who was "discredited" has since been vindicated in a court of law. He was right all along......

Suck on that sheeple brains:confused:

scissorhands

11th July 2013, 00:22

wrong planet discussion here: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt234791.html

*remember when viewing discussion that 'Wrong Planet' [USA's main autism support site] is full of industry misinformation drones

noobi

11th July 2013, 00:38

I bet the same Ministry would also say that smoking cannabis causes anxiety and is generally not great. But I'm sure most of you anti-vaccine types would say the opposite.

As for un-discrediting Wakefield? So a court thinks they know more about science and biology than every single doctor who tried and failed to replicate Wakefield's findings. Ill say it again, slowly this time.

If. It. Cannot. Be. Reliably. Replicated. It. Isn't. Science.
That's how scientific process works.

scissorhands

11th July 2013, 01:47

Akzle

11th July 2013, 07:56

Massive Fail Again Sheeple Brain

Ganga means in Hindi: Stress out of the body
Noobi?:laugh:

yea, and weed in english means....
:scratch:
...Ahh who fuken cares. It goes good with bacon hollandaise and hashbrowns!

F5 Dave

11th July 2013, 13:07

Some dipshit cried about my post being fearmongering.

Fucking tard is completely oblivious to the fact that it is fearmongering for $ on the part of the pharmaceutical companies that is used in their marketing. Moron. . .

Which is exactly what Wakefeild was using on behalf of a competing phama company to discredit the approve MMR vaccine & I think he profited ~300K for his bogus efforts.

Problem is the effects of ASD come on about the same age as these Vaccinations happen. So people state cause & effect & an Italian court hearing doesn't prove fuck all. In fact if you trust an Italian court outcome, well, just :crazy:

Wakefeild was an evil man performing a slanted test on just 12 kids, all with known issues to start with. He then performed some very invasive tests permanently & unnecessarily injuring some of these kids. Money was his motive. The foil hat brigade did the rest.

noobi

11th July 2013, 18:03

Massive Fail Again Sheeple Brain

Ganga means in Hindi: Stress out of the body
Noobi?:laugh:

I don't know, why don't you ask any official ministry of health about their stance on cannabis.
Which was the point, you agree that they are incorrect about cannabis, but they probably know just as much about the causes of ASD, and you think that their opinion is awesome.

noobi was a measure of my riding ability when I started riding and using this site. Not so much now.

unstuck

11th July 2013, 20:31

Ganga laughed too much.......Tis what got her turned into the river in the first place. Not a good idea to laugh at the Rishi Durvasa, apparently.:laugh::laugh:

Brett

14th July 2013, 21:54

Think about it very carefully.

Real facts about court rulings that found vaccines have caused Autism and brain damage. Companies fined and forced to pay compensation.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/courts-rule-vaccines-containing-mmr-and.html

And a whistle blower (Vaccine creator) who has broken sillence to clear her conscience.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/lead-gardasil-vaccine-creator-confesses.html

Yet another conspiracy come true http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Wow...there is so much misinformation here...where on earth to start. How about with this...the bloke responsible for the autism test in particular, had his medical council membership revoked due to the study being so incredibly incorrect. There is so much agenda being pushed against vaccines with little to NO legitimate support other than 'Hippy' mothers and 'child experts' who claim it bad. There is the extremely odd case where children have an ANAPHYLACTIC reaction to a drug/vaccine and any responsible medical professional will explain this, but this "vaccines cause autism" thing has so little water to it that it really is bizarre it gets the attention it does. For pity sake, I know A LOT of doctors, GP's in particular given that I am married to one, and I can say with the absolute and utmost certainty that if there existed any shred of evidence to support these claims, ALL...ALL of the GP's I know would take it extremely seriously.

Honestly, this is akin to the rumor that dolphins pack rape humans... (don't believe me....? http://au.businessinsider.com/dolphin-assisted-birth-is-dangerous-2013-5 I swear, I know people who actually believe this as well.)

Brett

14th July 2013, 22:00

Well Golly gee. You and your mom are almost (but not really) as well qualified as lead researcher-developer of vaccines.. 'Dr. Diane Harper' (the whistle blower) who is telling people that the vaccines she created aren't needed and likely kill a percentage of people for no good reason.

You can't get any nearer to the horses mouth than that. So I guess as your view is the opposite of hers, you would have to be at the opposite end of the horse. However, that's your informed choice and as the vaccine is related to cervical cancer... Well, Why wouldn't ya? ;)

Shit mate... (and please...I'm honestly not attacking YOU here...just the notion that so many people supporting these vaccine rumors purport.)

My name's Dr Michael Vosschmienklervonstein and I was a lead researcher on various widely distributed vaccines. I have come online now to finally clear MY conscience on the fact that I believe that the vaccines that I helped to design and manufacture are responsible for the homosexual epidemic we see today. I would like to publicly state that my vaccine is strongly linked to people being homosexuals.

Please see this article below which supports my claims

www.thisreallyreallyreallyisalegitimatesourceandis peerreviewed.bullshit.com

Crasherfromwayback

14th July 2013, 22:05

scissorhands

14th July 2013, 22:08

Wow...there is so much misinformation here...where on earth to start. How about with this...the bloke responsible for the autism test in particular, had his medical council membership revoked due to the study being so incredibly incorrect. There is so much agenda being pushed against vaccines with little to NO legitimate support other than 'Hippy' mothers and 'child experts' who claim it bad. There is the extremely odd case where children have an ANAPHYLACTIC reaction to a drug/vaccine and any responsible medical professional will explain this, but this "vaccines cause autism" thing has so little water to it that it really is bizarre it gets the attention it does. For pity sake, I know A LOT of doctors, GP's in particular given that I am married to one, and I can say with the absolute and utmost certainty that if there existed any shred of evidence to support these claims, ALL...ALL of the GP's I know would take it extremely seriously.

Honestly, this is akin to the rumor that dolphins pack rape humans... (don't believe me....? http://au.businessinsider.com/dolphin-assisted-birth-is-dangerous-2013-5 I swear, I know people who actually believe this as well.)

So many different autisms.....
Recent research suggests mothers autoimmune issues [during pregnancy] may account for 25% of autisms...
So many different vaccine injuries....
BTW Andrew Wakefield has been vindicated [just recently] if you are up to speed with vaccine news

Oakie

14th July 2013, 22:37

BTW Andrew Wakefield has been vindicated ...

Is that like being vaccinated?

scissorhands

15th July 2013, 09:13

many good doctors have been struck off for speaking the truth....Gwen Olsen was a sales rep for pharma, she now speaks out against drug companies....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AazObF_pHSU

F5 Dave

15th July 2013, 12:23

. . .
BTW Andrew Wakefield has been vindicated [just recently] if you are up to speed with vaccine news

So has Hitler.
Several times, old crusty German men have come out to proclaim 'there was no Holocaust'.

And with a similar level of believability.

scissorhands

15th July 2013, 15:51

F5 Dave

15th July 2013, 16:25

oh that's pretty weak to say the least. A ruling in a court of law doesn't mean that there is a right or a wrong. It means that the legal proceedings favoured one direction in the manner they were argued or interpreted.

The scientific method was designed to remove bull & hyperbole from 'Scientific studies'. But when it is breached the so called studies are not worth more than a marketing brochure.

idb

15th July 2013, 17:51

In a court of law, sheeple brain

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/editorial-by-jenny-mccarthy-mmr-doctor-exoneratedwhos-guilty-now.html

MMR Doctor Exonerated—Who’s Guilty Now?

The parent autism community is buzzing with excitement over a ruling by a British judge clearing Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s colleague and co-author of all charges against him that arose from a study of the relationship between gut disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine.......

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9262180.htm

Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Co-Author on Controversial Lancet “MMR Paper” Exonerated of All Charges of Professional Misconduct
Prof. John Walker-Smith won his appeal today against the GMC, the UK’s medical regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in the 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician in the UK......

Not quite.
The court hasn't ruled that the research and conclusion was right.
They've ruled that Walker-Smith's main role was in the treatment of the children in the study - not in the study itself, otherwise the General Medical Council would have been right to strike him off.
As I read it, the court has said the GMC did not prove that Walker-Smith was responsible for the research and conclusions so he was undeserving of the punishment.

Walker-Smith's clinical role focused on treatment related to sick children, while his academic work included collaborating in research with Wakefield.

"It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure.

"If not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician.

"Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination. The panel's decision cannot stand. I therefore quash it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/07/mmr-row-doctor-appeal

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 17:54

MMR Doctor Exonerated..

... of medical malpractice.

In other words Walker-Smith, (not Wakefield himself) has been cleared of injuring his patients.

No mention whatsoever of the veracity or accuracy of their research, which a decade and a half later seems not to have been reproduced.

flyingcrocodile46

15th July 2013, 17:55

and Monsanto are really just misunderstood good guys too. Those very few people who keep blowing their whistle have got it all wrong. :lol:

Believe what you want but keep an open mind to the possibility that the good guys maybe aren't good at all. After all it ain't hardly like big business, industry, police, scientists, etc don't lie... often. Nah! Can't be. They are the good guys, everyone else are just schmucks.

<article class="post instapaper_body" id="quote_2175"> <article class="waveform Noise tumble instapaper_body"> All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

—
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

</article> </article>

BTW. As I have stated before. I ain't saying don't get a vaccination. I am saying make bloody sure you need it if you are going to take a risk, make sure there is a real equal or greater risk to you if you don't take a vaccine.

If you can't see the logic in that then frankly you are an idiot.

flyingcrocodile46

15th July 2013, 18:04

... of medical malpractice.

In other words Walker-Smith, (not Wakefield himself) has been cleared of injuring his patients.

No mention whatsoever of the veracity or accuracy of their research, which a decade and a half later seems not to have been reproduced.

do you think that it might just be ever so slightly possible that Wakefield might be victim of a campaign to discredit him? Nah! Couldn't be. What would be the motive? and it ain't like that sort of thing has happened before... frequently. :laugh:

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 18:07

The only virus that's jumped species in modern history is Ebola, there isn't any form of immunity, natural or otherwise that has a chance of working there, you kill the fucker dead. If another one turns up then you kill that too.

Rabies in Australia jumps from bats to peeps and horses...

I missed this.

Yes many virus have multiple species in their vector, and we have some immunological reactions to some of them, depending on race. What I meant is that humans had never been a part of Ebola's vector... until all of a sudden there's a minor mutation and we were. Zero immune response. 80-95% fatality rate.

Your "natural" immunity is good for a few percent of us, the first time around. The next minor mutation: who knows?. You can stick your "natural immunity, I want that fucker dead. Dead and gone.

idb

15th July 2013, 18:09

do you think that it might just be ever so slightly possible that Wakefield might be victim of a campaign to discredit him? Nah! Couldn't be. What would be the motive? and it ain't like that sort of thing has happened before... frequently. :laugh:

The motivation might be that he's wrong and endangering the lives of untold numbers of people.

Crasherfromwayback

15th July 2013, 18:09

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 18:11

do you think that it might just be ever so slightly possible that Wakefield might be victim of a campaign to discredit him? Nah! Couldn't be. What would be the motive? and it ain't like that sort of thing has happened before... frequently. :laugh:

No idea. The fact that his research hasn't been replicated speaks far louder than any paranoid musings you can find on t'interwebs. You can find proof of absolutely anything on teh webs.

idb

15th July 2013, 18:13

and Monsanto are really just misunderstood good guys too. Those very few people who keep blowing their whistle have got it all wrong. :lol:

Believe what you want but keep an open mind to the possibility that the good guys maybe aren't good at all. After all it ain't hardly like big business, industry, police, scientists, etc don't lie... often. Nah! Can't be. They are the good guys, everyone else are just schmucks.

BTW. As I have stated before. I ain't saying don't get a vaccination. I am saying make bloody sure you need it if you are going to take a risk, make sure there is a real equal or greater risk to you if you don't take a vaccine.

If you can't see the logic in that then frankly you are an idiot.

Personally I'd rather accept the concensus opinion of the trained professionals.
Those guys really know a lot about medicine ya know!

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 18:20

BTW. As I have stated before. I ain't saying don't get a vaccination. I am saying make bloody sure you need it if you are going to take a risk, make sure there is a real equal or greater risk to you if you don't take a vaccine.

If you can't see the logic in that then frankly you are an idiot.

The problem is, dude, that every fuckwit with the web at his fingertips thinks he's informed, possibly even an expert. The web isn't the place to find science, it's a festering pot of random opinion, often politically spun so fast you can smell the reek from the screen.

So you end up with a whole bunch of fuckwits who think they know the truth, and they're gunna stick it to the man. And all they do is prevent a massively resourced scheme to make some of humankinds most dangerous parasites extinct from succeeding.

Write your great grandchildren a wee explanatory note, eh? Tell 'em your sorry they're sick.

skippa1

15th July 2013, 19:09

mashman

15th July 2013, 19:42

Write your great grandchildren a wee explanatory note, eh? Tell 'em your sorry they're sick and can't afford healthcare or are 96,213th on the list.

Fixed that for ya.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 19:47

Fixed that for ya.

We've already done this, dude, it's yet another subject you know fuck all about.

mashman

15th July 2013, 19:49

We've already done this, dude, it's yet another subject you know fuck all about.

I reckon people in the US would see it somewhat differently... but you wouldn't know fuck all about that.

flyingcrocodile46

15th July 2013, 20:01

The problem is, dude, that every fuckwit with the web at his fingertips thinks he's informed, possibly even an expert. The web isn't the place to find science, it's a festering pot of random opinion, often politically spun so fast you can smell the reek from the screen.

So you end up with a whole bunch of fuckwits who think they know the truth, and they're gunna stick it to the man. And all they do is prevent a massively resourced scheme to make some of humankinds most dangerous parasites extinct from succeeding.

Write your great grandchildren a wee explanatory note, eh? Tell 'em your sorry they're sick.

Dude. You need to develop some reading skills that don't involve the insertion of your fear and personal prejudices in the form of invented content into the content of what you are reading. Until then your observations and conclusions are always going to be tainted by pre selected and incomplete logical. With that approach you ain't going to learn fuck all more than you already know. Likely you are content with that.

Weak fucks play the man while pretending they are playing the ball. Play the ball fella! Or I'll make it messy.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:02

I reckon people in the US would see it somewhat differently... but you wouldn't know fuck all about that.

What you reckon isn't worth shit.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:04

mashman

15th July 2013, 20:06

What you reckon isn't worth shit.

Do I? News to me. Perhaps people in NZ with pre-existing conditions or recurring injuries might feel the same?

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:09

Weak fucks play the man while pretending they are playing the ball. Play the ball fella! Or I'll make it messy.

Ah, the edit. Show me where I've addressed something other than the subject in hand without obvious provocation.

And threats, yet. :sweatdrop

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:12

Do I? News to me.

No it's not, I've pointed it out several times.

Perhaps people in NZ with pre-existing conditions or recurring injuries might feel the same?

I assume you're bleating about the lack of medical cover for some people? That unlimited healthcare isn't available to everyone?

Again?

flyingcrocodile46

15th July 2013, 20:12

S'funny, I thought I just suggested the very same thing.

No Fuckwit. You didn't. You attributed a motivation to me which I have not promoted. Pretty fucking weak imo. Shows a lack of ability to properly respond to challenges like an intelligent adult. You have deliberately chosen to read more into what I have stated so that you could use it as a platform to attack what I have said. Because you are too weak to build one based directly on what I stated. Fucking pathetic.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:14

No Fuckwit. You didn't. You attributed a motivation to me which I have not promoted. Pretty fucking weak imo. Shows a lack of ability to properly respond to challenges like an intelligent adult. You have deliberately chosen to read more into what I have stated so that you could use it as a platform to attack what I have said. Because you are too weak to build one based directly on what I stated. Fucking pathetic.

Show me....

flyingcrocodile46

15th July 2013, 20:15

Ah, the edit. Show me where I've addressed something other than the subject in hand without obvious provocation.

And threats, yet. :sweatdrop

If you want to deny it it is pointless rubbing your nose in it. I ain't wasting time on you.

mashman

15th July 2013, 20:21

No it's not, I've pointed it out several times.

I assume you're bleating about the lack of medical cover for some people? That unlimited healthcare isn't available to everyone?

Again?

And each of those several times you were wrong. You never learn... but I guess that's what is being pointed out elsewhere. Hey ho.

Just in case you forget.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:23

If you want to deny it it is pointless rubbing your nose in it. I ain't wasting time on you.

Rub away mate, I'm interested to see where you think I directly abused you. As in singular personal abuse. Such as you just demonstrated.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:24

And each of those several times you were wrong. You never learn... but I guess that's what is being pointed out elsewhere. Hey ho.

Just in case you forget.

So, you're not bleating on about the lack of unlimited healthcare?

mashman

15th July 2013, 20:30

So, you're not bleating on about the lack of unlimited healthcare?

Of course I was. It should be a right. Not conditional.

idb

15th July 2013, 20:34

I reckon people in the US would see it somewhat differently... but you wouldn't know fuck all about that.

Well, this is a comment apropos of nothing in this thread as far as I can see.
Can you please expand?

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:35

Of course I was. It should be a right. Not conditional.

Man you must have a fucking big money printer.

Infinitely large would almost do it.

mashman

15th July 2013, 20:36

Well, this is a comment apropos of nothing in this thread as far as I can see.
Can you please expand?

Just having a private dance with Ocean.

mashman

15th July 2013, 20:39

Man you must have a fucking big money printer.

Infinitely large would almost do it.

Money being infinite n all I leave that to those with the printers and the principles to not print enough money that would allow pharma to tailor many vaccinations towards the physiology of the individual instead of the 1 cap fits all cheap arsed solution that may well cause side effects.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:41

Just having a private dance with Ocean.

Who has also got no idea what Americans are doing in here.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 20:42

Money being infinite n all I leave that to those with the printers and the principles to not print enough money that would allow pharma to tailor many vaccinations towards the physiology of the individual instead of the 1 cap fits all cheap arsed solution that may well cause side effects.

It's a trap, innit? Nobody's that thick, shirly.

mashman

15th July 2013, 20:49

It's a trap, innit? Nobody's that thick, shirly.

So the economists are liars then? Money isn't infinite? Banks don't just pluck it out of thin air, add interest and multiply it's creation exponentially after tucking the reserve requirement away? You'd rather limit vaccines to what can be afforded instead of developing them truly safely, including pre-testing individuals that may have adverse reactions? Coz that's what your system promotes.

flyingcrocodile46

15th July 2013, 20:59

Rub away mate, I'm interested to see where you think I directly abused you. As in singular personal abuse. Such as you just demonstrated.

There ya go again. You don't seem to be able to simply read what is written without translating it into something else. Pointless when you are shifting goal posts and platforms with your every post.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 21:02

So the economists are liars then? Money isn't infinite? Banks don't just pluck it out of thin air, add interest and multiply it's creation exponentially after tucking the reserve requirement away? You'd rather limit vaccines to what can be afforded instead of developing them truly safely, including pre-testing individuals that may have adverse reactions? Coz that's what your system promotes.

Firstly, I don't have a system. Various countries have vaccination policies, is that what you mean?

Secondly, vaccine development isn't a static discipline, new ones hit the market all the time, and every one of them is tested to fuck long before it's finally released. Each one of those variations costs at least tens of millions to develop, there isn't a money machine big enough to tailor make one for everyone, for every contagion. Many, many individuals, however are tested for adverse reactions.

Thirdly, yes, you along with everyone else has to live within your means, and that means you don't get to spend whatever you want on whatever you want. Deal with it like an adult.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 21:12

There ya go again. You don't seem to be able to simply read what is written without translating it into something else. Pointless when you are shifting goal posts and platforms with your every post.

I'm trying, dude. Here's what I got:

S'funny, I thought I just suggested the very same thing.

By which I meant the observation that people seek proof of what they already "know".

You attributed a motivation to me which I have not promoted.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't...

Show me where I've addressed something other than the subject in hand without obvious provocation.

Can enlighten me?

mashman

15th July 2013, 21:14

Secondly, vaccine development isn't a static discipline, new ones hit the market all the time, and every one of them is tested to fuck long before it's finally released. Each one of those variations costs at least tens of millions to develop, there isn't a money machine big enough to tailor make one for everyone, for every contagion. Many, many individuals, however are tested for adverse reactions.

That being the case you're only ever going to get substandard solutions and you'll never get the eradication of the viruses you seem to want. We are technically able to provide vaccines that don't damage us, yet we don't, because it costs too much thin air. So what's the goal? Living to our means or taking a giant leap forwards in regards to vaccination development? which could would reassure those who won't take the risk of vaccination to take it.

Ocean1

15th July 2013, 21:32

That being the case you're only ever going to get substandard solutions and you'll never get the eradication of the viruses you seem to want.

But they're not sub-standard. In fact they meet and/or exceed a vast number of standards before they're even released. Again, without wanting to put words in your mouth I assume you mean they don't fail to cause zero harm to 100.000% of the population. Which almost certainly isn't possible.

As for eradication of viruses, that's a long term possibility for some viruses, I understand, but the other obvious benefit is the protection they offer each individual.

We are technically able to provide vaccines that don't damage us, yet we don't, because it costs too much thin air.

No, we're not. Both because an inoculation is designed to elicit a specific reaction from our immune system. That's almost a good definition of harm in itself. The effects are supposed to be minor, though, as the wee beastie's been neutered. Which brings us to the other reason they can't not damage us. We're all different, and in spite of your money machine it's simply not possible to do anything at all to most of the population without hurting some small percentage.

So what's the goal? Living to our means or taking a giant leap forwards in regards to vaccination development? which could would reassure those who won't take the risk of vaccination to take it.

The goal's immediately the protection of the individual from a specific threat. Every threat evaluation I've ever read relating to inoculations has the reduction in that threat of far, far greater benefit than the possibility that the inoculating agent might harm someone. In short, reassurance comes from the numbers, make sure the numbers are real ones that haven't been fukt with and then decide.

mashman

15th July 2013, 22:08

But they're not sub-standard. In fact they meet and/or exceed a vast number of standards before they're even released. Again, without wanting to put words in your mouth I assume you mean they don't fail to cause zero harm to 100.000% of the population. Which almost certainly isn't possible.

As for eradication of viruses, that's a long term possibility for some viruses, I understand, but the other obvious benefit is the protection they offer each individual.

No, we're not. Both because an inoculation is designed to elicit a specific reaction from our immune system. That's almost a good definition of harm in itself. The effects are supposed to be minor, though, as the wee beastie's been neutered. Which brings us to the other reason they can't not damage us. We're all different, and in spite of your money machine it's simply not possible to do anything at all to most of the population without hurting some small percentage.

The goal's immediately the protection of the individual from a specific threat. Every threat evaluation I've ever read relating to inoculations has the reduction in that threat of far, far greater benefit than the possibility that the inoculating agent might harm someone. In short, reassurance comes from the numbers, make sure the numbers are real ones that haven't been fukt with and then decide.

I do mean 100%. Yet you say it isn't possible? Why not? Surely each year when someone dies from a drug lessons are learned and physiology's are checked for clues as to why? Surely similar happens for those a drug fucks up? Acceptable losses without even trying by the sounds of things... or to be fair, without it being financially viable to bother.

I get the idea behind why we inoculate and how it is supposed to work, but I also understand why some people will refuse to because there are risks. We are all different and that's why we should be tailoring vaccines or at least being pre-tested for suitability as I would say that that would do more for uptake than the numbers. Tis all about the $ and that $ either slows us down or makes us cut corners. If we're smart enough to create a general vaccine, then we must be smart enough to identify people who aren't suitable for a certain strain of vaccine?

noobi

15th July 2013, 22:30

I do mean 100%. Yet you say it isn't possible? Why not? Surely each year when someone dies from a drug lessons are learned and physiology's are checked for clues as to why? Surely similar happens for those a drug fucks up? Acceptable losses without even trying by the sounds of things... or to be fair, without it being financially viable to bother.

There is no such thing as the 100% percentile.

If you were tailoring vaccines for different classes of people, then they are different vaccines aren't they. They are just designed to have the same effect. The same reason there are more than one types of pain killer, contraception and hair loss treatment.

If you ignore sensationalist media for a second. Finding cases where a person died, and the death is beyond refute caused by the vaccine, is actually really difficult.

Maybe, in the future, it might be possible to have some sort of 'active' vaccine, which takes into account different physiologies, but surely the money developing such a thing is better spent on eradicating current heath problems, instead of looking for that extra 1%.

idb

15th July 2013, 23:09

This thread has moved from conspiracy theory to philosophy.
Unfortunately, I've been vaccinated against both...

idb

15th July 2013, 23:13

Dude. You need to develop some reading skills that don't involve the insertion of your fear and personal prejudices in the form of invented content into the content of what you are reading. Until then your observations and conclusions are always going to be tainted by pre selected and incomplete logical. With that approach you ain't going to learn fuck all more than you already know. Likely you are content with that.

Weak fucks play the man while pretending they are playing the ball. Play the ball fella! Or I'll make it messy.

I'm pretty sure that's what he said;

The problem is, dude, that every fuckwit with the web at his fingertips thinks he's informed, possibly even an expert. The web isn't the place to find science, it's a festering pot of random opinion, often politically spun so fast you can smell the reek from the screen.

So you end up with a whole bunch of fuckwits who think they know the truth, and they're gunna stick it to the man. And all they do is prevent a massively resourced scheme to make some of humankinds most dangerous parasites extinct from succeeding.

Write your great grandchildren a wee explanatory note, eh? Tell 'em your sorry they're sick.

F5 Dave

16th July 2013, 09:36

This thread has moved from conspiracy theory to philosophy.
Unfortunately, I've been vaccinated against both...

yeah I'm, with you. Sure is a lot of hate being dispensed in this thread. Time to unsubscribe [again]. There's a lot of you I hope I don't meet in real life.

mashman

16th July 2013, 16:21

There is no such thing as the 100% percentile.

If you were tailoring vaccines for different classes of people, then they are different vaccines aren't they. They are just designed to have the same effect. The same reason there are more than one types of pain killer, contraception and hair loss treatment.

If you ignore sensationalist media for a second. Finding cases where a person died, and the death is beyond refute caused by the vaccine, is actually really difficult.

Maybe, in the future, it might be possible to have some sort of 'active' vaccine, which takes into account different physiologies, but surely the money developing such a thing is better spent on eradicating current heath problems, instead of looking for that extra 1%.

How do you know that there isn't a 100% if you don't try tailoring solutions towards the physiology of an individual?

Absolutely.

I generally do ignore sensationalist media as I'm more than capable of sensationalising what I read :D... people die, people get sick and some suffer life long side effects. Other than chucking on the conspiracy hat to say that I doubt all cases are reported as well as some that are "misdiagnosed" as something different, I don't care if it's 10 or 20 people that suffer the mix of death, illness and other, people deserve the consideration in my book... even the bad ones.

I lolly every time I hear it can't be done because it costs too much. The deaths of others obviously much less important than the cost. The sort of healthcare we need will never be able to be afforded, but would yield amazing results if it were implemented i.e. you give a blood sample every 3 months and compare it to all prior samples when an illness strikes. That will likely lead us to a point where we can see the illness happening in the body before it happens. That will likely lead to more gentle vaccines being created with less chance of a fuck up etc... but no, irrespective of the fact that it is entirely doable, it costs too much :facepalm:

noobi

16th July 2013, 18:33

How do you know that there isn't a 100% if you don't try tailoring solutions towards the physiology of an individual?

Absolutely.

I generally do ignore sensationalist media as I'm more than capable of sensationalising what I read :D... people die, people get sick and some suffer life long side effects. Other than chucking on the conspiracy hat to say that I doubt all cases are reported as well as some that are "misdiagnosed" as something different, I don't care if it's 10 or 20 people that suffer the mix of death, illness and other, people deserve the consideration in my book... even the bad ones.

I lolly every time I hear it can't be done because it costs too much. The deaths of others obviously much less important than the cost. The sort of healthcare we need will never be able to be afforded, but would yield amazing results if it were implemented i.e. you give a blood sample every 3 months and compare it to all prior samples when an illness strikes. That will likely lead us to a point where we can see the illness happening in the body before it happens. That will likely lead to more gentle vaccines being created with less chance of a fuck up etc... but no, irrespective of the fact that it is entirely doable, it costs too much :facepalm:

Its more a statistics thing, there is no such thing as 0th and 100th percentile as they represent an infinite. It doesn't really have a physical representation.

If you have unlimited funds, you can pretty much do whatever you want with enough time. Then again, why spend millions of man hours of that extra '1%' instead of doing something else.
Without getting into the politics of why the current money scheme is the way it is. Currently you can't just print more money as it devalues the dollar and causes inflation, see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill. I'm sure you know that though.

Ocean1

16th July 2013, 18:51

Without getting into the politics of why the current money scheme is the way it is.

Don't do it...

Currently you can't just print more money as it devalues the dollar

Don't...

see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill.

Nooooo...

I'm sure you know that though.

:facepalm:

noobi

16th July 2013, 18:53

see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill

http://www.jack-frost.co.uk/fonejacker/fonejacker_george_agdgdgwngo_2.jpg

mashman

16th July 2013, 19:28

Its more a statistics thing, there is no such thing as 0th and 100th percentile as they represent an infinite. It doesn't really have a physical representation.

If you have unlimited funds, you can pretty much do whatever you want with enough time. Then again, why spend millions of man hours of that extra '1%' instead of doing something else.
Without getting into the politics of why the current money scheme is the way it is. Currently you can't just print more money as it devalues the dollar and causes inflation, see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill. I'm sure you know that though.

Fair enough. Although if there are 7 billion people on the planet and everyone is inoculated, isn't that 100% ;).

Why bother with unlimited money. Why not go in the opposite direction and have none (same thing given 0 and 100% are both infinitesimal :D). No inflation, no fluctuating interest rates, no need to cut tasks here in order to be able to afford tasks there etc... and those bright folk who are pre-occupied with banking/finance/accountancy etc... may well top up the number of scientists available for developing vaccines. So why spend millions of hours on something that not only takes brains away from meaningful pursuits but limits what can be done because of what it is? :niceone:

mashman

20th July 2013, 11:04

IF you had the choice between your child being autistic or having the measles, which would you choose?

Crasherfromwayback

20th July 2013, 11:42

IF you had the choice between your child being autistic or having the measles, which would you choose?

What about whooping cough or polio?

skippa1

20th July 2013, 12:00

IF you had the choice between your child being autistic or having the measles, which would you choose?
Hmmm those not vaccinated against measles risk deafness, eye disorders, brain damage or possibly death....

just sayin...

Akzle

20th July 2013, 14:41

you get over diseasue. Or die. Apparently you dont get your over autism.
Or let anyone else get over your autism.

skippa1

20th July 2013, 15:35

you get over diseasue. Or die. Apparently you dont get your over autism.
Or let anyone else get over your autism.
You don't get over death either. Bit early for the home brew innit?

Ocean1

20th July 2013, 16:41

IF you had the choice between your child being autistic or having the measles, which would you choose?

You're not fucked in the head enough to believe it's that simple. I think.

Asses the risk properly.
What are the chances of damage from measles or autism if immunised?
What are the chances of damage from measles or autism if not immunised?
If you're serious about understanding the risk of immunisation you need those numbers.

Another thing, for immunisation to work in protecting the population 95% of that population need to be immunised.
What are the ethics involved in a personal decision to allow everyone else to take whatever risks immunisation may involve while taking advantage of the passive protection it gives the whole population? What if 6% of the population decide to allow everyone else to take those risks for them?

Akzle

20th July 2013, 16:45

You don't get over death either. Bit early for the home brew innit?

its been a long day!

Hakuna matata!

mashman

20th July 2013, 17:13

What about whooping cough or polio?

Are any of the vaccines for whooping cough and polio linked to autism? Edity: more people die of starvation and the it 100% avoidable.

Hmmm those not vaccinated against measles risk deafness, eye disorders, brain damage or possibly death....

just sayin...

They do. Surely that's their choice. Just sayin too :D

You're not fucked in the head enough to believe it's that simple. I think.

Try not to think, it doesn't suit you.

Asses the risk properly.
What are the chances of damage from measles or autism if immunised?
What are the chances of damage from measles or autism if not immunised?
If you're serious about understanding the risk of immunisation you need those numbers.

Another thing, for immunisation to work in protecting the population 95% of that population need to be immunised.
What are the ethics involved in a personal decision to allow everyone else to take whatever risks immunisation may involve while taking advantage of the passive protection it gives the whole population? What if 6% of the population decide to allow everyone else to take those risks for them?

I agree to an extent, but I don't blame people for their reasoning that artificial inoculation just ain't right... and given that science cannot put it's hand on it's heart and confirm that 100% (ok 99.99% recurring :D) of people will not have an adverse reaction, then I can't blame them. They run the risks of their kids catching measles etc... (according to mum I've been inoculated and have had measles 5 times, Dad has had mumps and still lives). However it is their choice to take the risk of inoculation or not.

I fail to see how the population that has been inoculated has a concern, because they have been inoculated... and if those who haven't had their kids inoculated, they know the risks. People take risks every day that affect the lives of others. I see no reason why the decision to vaccinate or not is any different.

Ocean1

20th July 2013, 17:44

Try not to think, it doesn't suit you.

Praise indeed, from the resident imbecile.

I agree to an extent,

I wasn't expressing an opinion. I was simply pointing out that without the numbers you don't actually know. So either find the numbers or stfu.

I don't blame people for their reasoning that artificial inoculation just ain't right... and given that science cannot put it's hand on it's heart and confirm that 100% (ok 99.99% recurring :D) of people will not have an adverse reaction, then I can't blame them.

Becha the "reasoning" about inoculation not being "right" would vanish pretty fucking fast if an epidemic arrived.

And "science" can indeed confirm that 99.99% of the population will not have an adverse reaction to the most common inoculations.

according to mum I've been inoculated and have had measles 5 times.

That is possible. Maybe. Numerically. Still, best you check out the east window of your house for weird looking stars.

I fail to see how the population that has been inoculated has a concern, because they have been inoculated... and if those who haven't had their kids inoculated, they know the risks. People take risks every day that affect the lives of others. I see no reason why the decision to vaccinate or not is any different.

They're concerned because as I said, with less than 95mumble% uptake the viral vector is still viable. The likelihood that virus is still resident in the population is still high. Yes they've been inoculated and are relatively safe, but that's not as ideal as having the virus completely eradicated. In refusing to inoculate you're essentially requiring everyone else to cover your arse. You're also requiring future generations to require inoculation, whereas successful eradication removes that requirement for everyone.

Found those numbers yet?

mashman

20th July 2013, 18:20

I wasn't expressing an opinion. I was simply pointing out that without the numbers you don't actually know. So either find the numbers or stfu.

Your pointing anything out IS opinion.

Becha the "reasoning" about inoculation not being "right" would vanish pretty fucking fast if an epidemic arrived.

And "science" can indeed confirm that 99.99% of the population will not have an adverse reaction to the most common inoculations.

Why would it?

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... stick with 100% then (the 99.99% recurring was a wee giggle at an earlier noobi comment)

That is possible. Maybe. Numerically. Still, best you check out the east window of your house for weird looking stars.

I can only see Uranus.

They're concerned because as I said, with less than 95mumble% uptake the viral vector is still viable. The likelihood that virus is still resident in the population is still high. Yes they've been inoculated and are relatively safe, but that's not as ideal as having the virus completely eradicated. In refusing to inoculate you're essentially requiring everyone else to cover your arse. You're also requiring future generations to require inoculation, whereas successful eradication removes that requirement for everyone.

Found those numbers yet?

Right, so once a virus has been removed, it'll never come back again? I warned you about that thinking thing. It's a beautiful idea, everyone inoculated, the virus gone, no need to vaccinate in the future etc... and I'm sure it is believed to be possible. Where do measles come from?

Ocean1

20th July 2013, 18:44

Why would it?

Because all of a sudden the risk involved in not being inoculated reverts to you're preferred "natural" default setting. Without it you're fukt.

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... stick with 100% then (the 99.99% recurring was a wee giggle at an earlier noobi comment)

I know. I'd have thought you'd have though twice about exposing your ignorance of statistical matters after that hideous fail.

Hint: She was 100% correct.

Right, so once a virus has been removed, it'll never come back again? I warned you about that thinking thing. It's a beautiful idea, everyone inoculated, the virus gone, no need to vaccinate in the future etc... and I'm sure it is believed to be possible. Where do measles come from?

Measles come from an unvaccinated, infected person.

The virus gone is a nice idea, eh? And it is believed to be possible. Probably because it's already been done.

Found those numbers yet?

mashman

20th July 2013, 18:59

Because all of a sudden the risk involved in not being inoculated reverts to you're preferred "natural" default setting. Without it you're fukt.

You seem so sure of what everyone else would do. Funny how people don't get themselves inoculated for the simplest of things. Without it you're taking a risk, but certainly that's no guarantee of being fukt.

I know. I'd have thought you'd have though twice about exposing your ignorance of statistical matters after that hideous fail.

Hint: She was 100% correct.

It must be annoying when you read percentages greater than 100%. You're the one using statistics, I'm using numbers.

Measles come from an unvaccinated, infected person.

The virus gone is a nice idea, eh? And it is believed to be possible. Probably because it's already been done.

Found those numbers yet?

And where do they come from before that?

It has already been done?

Nope, not looking either.

Ocean1

20th July 2013, 19:28

You seem so sure of what everyone else would do. Funny how people don't get themselves inoculated for the simplest of things. Without it you're taking a risk, but certainly that's no guarantee of being fukt.

No guarantee. Just several hundred times the risk. Today. Almost infinitely higher risk for future populations.

It must be annoying when you read percentages greater than 100%. You're the one using statistics, I'm using numbers.

No. Unless you're referring to a specific numerical set.

And I must admit the numbers suit you. Moronic.

And where do they come from before that?

Last free one, from now on you can do your own research.

Historically, measles was prevalent throughout the world, as it is highly contagious. According to the National Immunization Program, 90% of people were infected with measles by age 15. Before the vaccine was introduced in 1963, there were an estimated 3–4 million cases in the U.S. each year.[87] In roughly the last 150 years, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide.[88] In 2000 alone, measles killed some 777,000 worldwide. There were some 40 million cases of measles globally that year.

It has already been done?

Twice. It's been mentioned several times in this thread. Smallpox. Extinct. As a result of immunisation a parasite that has killed and blinded people for more then 10000 years is gone, and billions upon billions of future generations won't suffer it's effects.

Nope, not looking either.

Then you've no right to expect anyone to take your opinion seriously, do you?

mashman

20th July 2013, 20:02

No guarantee. Just several hundred times the risk. Today. Almost infinitely higher risk for future populations.

True. No doubt some will take that risk. No doubt some will die that are inoculated. No doubt some will live who aren't. The projected numbers for that may well spur what you class sensible people to get the vaccine... however some will run that risk.

[QUOTE=Ocean1]
No. Unless you're referring to a specific numerical set.

And I must admit the numbers suit you. Moronic.

I am. Every single person on the planet. I'm not dealing in projections and even at that, the percentages that are derived are derived against a numeric dataset.

If looking at statistics instead of human life gets you hard and gives you the answers you seek, then on ya man, nobody dies and nobody gets hurt where it's all statistics.

Last free one, from now on you can do your own research.

So, not from hoomans then. Coz if that's the case, will there ever come a time where hoomans won't need to be inoculated?

Twice. It's been mentioned several times in this thread. Smallpox. Extinct. As a result of immunisation a parasite that has killed and blinded people for more then 10000 years is gone, and billions upon billions of future generations won't suffer it's effects.

"However, supposing the eradication of smallpox was one big hoax to completely convince the public that a vaccine had eradicated a disease. In doing this the WHO could brainwash the world into believing that vaccines could eradicate all diseases and therefore push worldwide vaccination. Many believe that smallpox is still with us but under a new name. Meryl Doyle ï¿½ Australian Vaccine Network is convinced that smallpox is still around and she is not alone. She says: -

ï¿½At that time (1960s) , testing for the (smallpox) virus became more sophisticated. You no longer were suffering necessarily from smallpox. They would test it and find that it had different DNA. Youï¿½d have monkeypox or camelpox or some other form of pox. But it was still called variola, which is smallpox. And thatï¿½s what monkeypox in Africa is called. Clinically, the disease is exactly the same as smallpox. It has the same progression. It looks exactly the same. If you put a smallpox victim next to a monkeypox victim, you will not be able to tell the difference. As a matter of fact, with this outbreak of monkey pox in Africaï¿½I think there have been over 500 cases in a very short timeï¿½.ï¿½Meryl Dorley - See more at: http://vactruth.com/2011/03/28/news-of-smallpox-outbreak-in-india-raises-fear/#sthash.deDrlu8Q.dpuf" (http://vactruth.com/2011/03/28/news-of-smallpox-outbreak-in-india-raises-fear/)

Research indeed (there are plenty of other report should you wish to get yer head out of uranus)... baa baa baaaaaaaa

Then you've no right to expect anyone to take your opinion seriously, do you?

Nope. And I don't. They read and then make their own minds up. Some have a little look around at where the diseases comes from as well as the fact that people who are vaccinated still die and have the realisation that those who are swallowing the official story and using it as a hammer as nothing more than mindless fucknuggets and shouldn't be taken any more serious than those who don't care about the numbers.

Akzle

20th July 2013, 20:05

you two need to spend a night in a motel room.
With a suitcase full of cocaine and midgets.

Ocean1

20th July 2013, 20:17

If looking at statistics instead of human life gets you hard and gives you the answers you seek, then on ya man, nobody dies and nobody gets hurt where it's all statistics.

So, you're still batting from a platform of ignorance and rumour eh?

I can see why you're scared of the numbers, dude. they make you look like a complete idiot.

mashman

20th July 2013, 20:26

you two need to spend a night in a motel room.
With a suitcase full of cocaine and midgets.

Acid and hookers... may as well see who's got what it takes ;)

So, you're still batting from a platform of ignorance and rumour eh?

I can see why you're scared of the numbers, dude. they make you look like a complete idiot.

:killingme... you're entitled to your opinion. She really must have scared you with her analysis eh.

Kickaha

22nd July 2013, 15:52

http://hollywoodlife.com/2010/02/26/jenny-mccarthy-says-her-son-evan-never-had-autism/

Berries

22nd July 2013, 19:44

Where do measles come from?
I blame the Germans.

mashman

22nd July 2013, 22:52

I blame the Germans.

Measles is now on the list with chippy's.

Indoo

23rd July 2013, 16:56

[B][U]"However, supposing the eradication of smallpox was one big hoax to completely convince the public that a vaccine had eradicated a disease. In doing this the WHO could brainwash the world into believing that vaccines could eradicate all diseases and therefore push worldwide vaccination. Many believe that smallpox is still with us but under a new name. Meryl Doyle ï¿½ Australian Vaccine Network is convinced that smallpox is still around and she is not alone. She says:....

Research indeed (there are plenty of other report should you wish to get yer head out of uranus)... baa baa baaaaaaaa

So your telling other people to research and stop being sheep while blindly believing an article on 'vactruth' that claimed small pox had resurfaced, a claim that turned out to be nothing more than a baseless rumor spread by superstitious villagers - [url]http://www.sify.com/news/no-small-pox-in-jharkhand-officials-news-health-ldxuknedjcc.html (http://vactruth.com/2011/03/28/news-of-smallpox-outbreak-in-india-raises-fear/).

Try doing a bit of research next time rather than just being another mindless sheep.

scissorhands

23rd July 2013, 18:00

Vaccine vaccine
Prick my balls
Whos got the biggest PR machine
Of them all

Bottom line, the internet and IRL is full of story's of woe from parents, who observed permanent harm to their children, after vaccination

It like calling out Jesus
in a world full of religious nut jobs....
the doctor is the new priest
and mass, is the reading of the news

mashman

23rd July 2013, 18:01

So your telling other people to research and stop being sheep while blindly believing an article on 'vactruth' that claimed small pox had resurfaced, a claim that turned out to be nothing more than a baseless rumor spread by superstitious villagers - http://www.sify.com/news/no-small-pox-in-jharkhand-officials-news-health-ldxuknedjcc.html.

Try doing a bit of research next time rather than just being another mindless sheep.

So you decided to debunk the entire article because of a story that was shown not to confirm the original reports, despite the article itself stating "According to the Indian news channel ZeeNews. the Health Secretary AK Sarkar said that the health department was in the process of authenticating reports. However, he later added that he was not in a position to confirm or deny whether the outbreak was smallpox.".

Bravo.

Indoo

23rd July 2013, 20:11

So you decided to debunk the entire article because of a story that was shown not to confirm the original reports,

Because once you disregard the sensationalist and fear-mongering title, the article actually has nothing remotely resembling evidence or fact, to support your claim that small pox still exists.

Unless of course you are claiming the quote from Meryl Dorey to be evidence worthy of debunking? the same person caught ripping off the public with her anti-vaccination propaganda - http://luckylosing.com/2011/11/04/australian-vaccination-network-selling-whats-available-for-free/, and whose had to make public apologies as a result of blatantly false claims she has made http://www.australianimages.com.au/opinion/images/AVN-apology-to-AMA.jpg.
Whose supported by a self proclaimed medical Doctor and 'expert' Dr Kris Gaublomme, but who is in fact nothing more than a Homeopath, who peddles his 'expert' articles for $2.50 a download via Ms Doreys website.

Given the comedic value of the former experts, do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously?

mashman

23rd July 2013, 20:34

Because once you disregard the sensationalist and fear-mongering title, the article actually has nothing remotely resembling evidence or fact, to support your claim that small pox still exists.

Unless of course you are claiming the quote from Meryl Dorey to be evidence worthy of debunking? the same person caught ripping off the public with her anti-vaccination propaganda - http://luckylosing.com/2011/11/04/australian-vaccination-network-selling-whats-available-for-free/, and whose had to make public apologies as a result of blatantly false claims she has made http://www.australianimages.com.au/opinion/images/AVN-apology-to-AMA.jpg.
Whose supported by a self proclaimed medical Doctor and 'expert' Dr Kris Gaublomme, but who is in fact nothing more than a Homeopath, who peddles his 'expert' articles for $2.50 a download via Ms Doreys website.

Given the comedic value of the former experts, do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously?

Now discredit what she said about monkeypox, camelpox, smallpox etc... you know, the content.

Indoo

23rd July 2013, 20:51

Ocean1

23rd July 2013, 20:58

do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously?

We've already done this bit.

Found those numbers yet?

Nope, not looking either.

Then you've no right to expect anyone to take your opinion seriously, do you?

Nope. And I don't.

mashman

23rd July 2013, 21:09

But there are no sources to back up her claims, so all you have is the word of an unqualified and publicly acknowledged fraud making claims without any basis or foundation.

You know that is generally how these things are supposed to work, if you make a claim, it's up to you to substantiate it, not the other way around.

Here's one. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734207).

Your attacking me is comical, but is what I have come to expect from KB. Your attacking her and dismissing what she has written without being able to provide any evidence other than, she's trying to make money (comedic at best given big pharma is called that for a reason), is also comedic where the content of the article is what is important. The above link supports the position put forwards by the wicked witch of the west.

As for me. I only find it hard to believe that smallpox has been eradicated because it comes from "infected" animal human contact. Have we inoculated all of the animals yet?

Ocean1

23rd July 2013, 21:32

The above link supports the position put forwards by the wicked witch of the west.

I didn't notice that she was of the opinion that "MPV is not the direct ancestor of VAR and is unlikely to naturally acquire all properties of VAR."

Sounds more like a well qualified rebuttal to me.

I only find it hard to believe that smallpox has been eradicated because it comes from "infected" animal human contact. Have we inoculated all of the animals yet?

Wrong. http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CFcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfcdcp.org%2Fdocument.html%3F id%3D77&ei=50vuUczuDO-QiAeD3YHoAg&usg=AFQjCNGo8iRsJF7ZBr8YeYKv0rLNO32XfA&sig2=5QwQoe4NecRwPGCEMHshew

"Before global eradication, the only reservoir for variola virus was humans. Vectorborne
transmission does not occur. Smallpox is transmitted person-to-person mainly via inhalation of
droplet nuclei, though inhalation of airborne particles and direct contact with skin lesions or
infected body fluids have also been shown to transmit disease."

idb

23rd July 2013, 21:36

Here's one. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734207).

Your attacking me is comical, but is what I have come to expect from KB. Your attacking her and dismissing what she has written without being able to provide any evidence other than, she's trying to make money (comedic at best given big pharma is called that for a reason), is also comedic where the content of the article is what is important. The above link supports the position put forwards by the wicked witch of the west.

As for me. I only find it hard to believe that smallpox has been eradicated because it comes from "infected" animal human contact. Have we inoculated all of the animals yet?

Sorry Mashman, you'll have to try again.
From your own link

Our data indicate that MPV is not the direct ancestor of VAR and is unlikely to naturally acquire all properties of VAR.

MPV = Monkey Pox Virus
VAR = Variola (smallpox) virus

Indoo

23rd July 2013, 21:39

Your attacking her and dismissing what she has written without being able to provide any evidence other than, she's trying to make money

You seem to be missing a simple concept, all she has provided is an unsubstantiated claim with no evidence behind it, there is nothing to debunk. Do you actually have anyone at all supporting your view who isn't an unqualified fraudster akin to a snake oil salesman, you know someone who is remotely qualified, can actually present evidence and argue a point?

mashman

23rd July 2013, 21:40

I didn't notice that she was of the opinion that "MPV is not the direct ancestor of VAR and is unlikely to naturally acquire all properties of VAR."

Sorry Mashman, you'll have to try again.
From your own link

MPV = Monkey Pox Virus
VAR = Variola (smallpox) virus

“At that time (1960s) , testing for the (smallpox) virus became more sophisticated. You no longer were suffering necessarily from smallpox. They would test it and find that it had different DNA. You’d have monkeypox or camelpox or some other form of pox. But it was still called variola, which is smallpox. And that’s what monkeypox in Africa is called. Clinically, the disease is exactly the same as smallpox. It has the same progression. It looks exactly the same. If you put a smallpox victim next to a monkeypox victim, you will not be able to tell the difference. As a matter of fact, with this outbreak of monkey pox in Africa–I think there have been over 500 cases in a very short time”.–Meryl Dorley"

idb

23rd July 2013, 21:47

“At that time (1960s) , testing for the (smallpox) virus became more sophisticated. You no longer were suffering necessarily from smallpox. They would test it and find that it had different DNA. You’d have monkeypox or camelpox or some other form of pox. But it was still called variola, which is smallpox. And that’s what monkeypox in Africa is called. Clinically, the disease is exactly the same as smallpox. It has the same progression. It looks exactly the same. If you put a smallpox victim next to a monkeypox victim, you will not be able to tell the difference. As a matter of fact, with this outbreak of monkey pox in Africa–I think there have been over 500 cases in a very short time”.–Meryl Dorley"

Sooooo....it looks and acts like smallpox but actually isn't smallpox at all.
In fact it has a completely different DNA.
Did you read your quote?
It doesn't confirm that there is still smallpox at all...that's what your trying to say isn't it?

mashman

23rd July 2013, 22:04

Sooooo....it looks and acts like smallpox but actually isn't smallpox at all.
In fact it has a completely different DNA.
Did you read your quote?
It doesn't confirm that there is still smallpox at all...that's what your trying to say isn't it?

"The nucleotide sequence within the central region of the MPV genome, which encodes essential enzymes and structural proteins, was 96.3% identical with that of variola (smallpox) virus (VAR)." isn't important?

"there were considerable differences between MPV and VAR in the regions encoding virulence and host-range factors" were the differences. Where does it say the DNA is completely different?

The basis for my statement comes from the wicked witch saying that testing improved, which to me would suggest that smallpox may not have been the only killer out there. Still wading through Ocean's PDF though, so there's time for me to change my mind :D

Ocean1

23rd July 2013, 22:12

"The nucleotide sequence within the central region of the MPV genome, which encodes essential enzymes and structural proteins, was 96.3% identical with that of variola (smallpox) virus (VAR)." isn't important?

Not very. How much DNA material do you suppose you share with a Rhesus monkey? A sloth?

"there were considerable differences between MPV and VAR in the regions encoding virulence and host-range factors" were the differences. Where does it say the DNA is completely different?

Right there, between the quotes. What do you suppose "considerable difference" means?

The basis for my statement comes from the wicked witch saying that testing improved, which to me would suggest that smallpox may not have been the only killer out there. Still wading through Ocean's PDF though, so there's time for me to change my mind :D

It's not the only killer. Fuck knows how you draw the conclusion that the existence of killer viruses means smallpox still exists. The ability to distinguish differences in DNA is very recent, but other differences between strains of virus has been known for fookin ages.

Berries

23rd July 2013, 22:28

Measles is now on the list with chippy's.
Crisp unt light brown?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UQ6iD76esB4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Indoo

23rd July 2013, 22:40

"But it is not a direct ancestor to, nor a direct descendent of, the Variola virus which causes smallpox. The monkeypox virus causes a disease that is similar to smallpox, but with a milder rash and lower death rate."

So quite clearly her claim that it's just small pox renamed is like usual, blatantly false.

mashman

23rd July 2013, 22:59

Not very. How much DNA material do you suppose you share with a Rhesus monkey? A sloth?

I take your point.

Right there, between the quotes. What do you suppose "considerable difference" means?

Your article states "Monkeypox in humans is similar to discrete or semiconfluent ordinary smallpox, but is generally milder than smallpox, and is distinguished by the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy.". Why doesn't it make any further distinction if there are considerable differences?

Virulence: The capability of a microorganism to cause disease.
Host-Range: The host range of a virus is the group or class of hosts that the virus can survive in.

Your article states that smallpox is human to human, so Host-Range would rule that out... however, all I can find in regards to Smallpox and Monkeypox is "Smallpox is not known to be transmitted by insects or animals". Why is there not an out and out denial if it is only human to human?

It's not the only killer. Fuck knows how you draw the conclusion that the existence of killer viruses means smallpox still exists. The ability to distinguish differences in DNA is very recent, but other differences between strains of virus has been known for fookin ages.

Whilst the information you have (interesting read as it is) leads you to deny the existence of eradication, the "not known", "distinguished by the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy" being classed as considerable does not float my boat towards the same conclusion.

mashman

23rd July 2013, 23:01

mashman

23rd July 2013, 23:40

If smallpox has always been on the planet and the planet was here before humans, then how did humans contract smallpox? And why hasn't the human race died out before now given that smallpox is highly communicable and a killer? I see these as important questions, as well as reasons to suspect that smallpox has not been eradicated.

mashman

23rd July 2013, 23:43

Crisp unt light brown?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUcK0E3Nql0

Indoo

23rd July 2013, 23:47

Where did you get your quote from?

From a very public and very well regarded source. Can you not place it?, I mean you must have read all this information as part of your research before posting your article?

mashman

24th July 2013, 09:00

From a very public and very well regarded source. Can you not place it?, I mean you must have read all this information as part of your research before posting your article?

:rofl:... why do I need to research anything to have a personal opinion based on the evidence presented or read?

Ocean1

24th July 2013, 22:03

Your article states "Monkeypox in humans is similar to discrete or semiconfluent ordinary smallpox, but is generally milder than smallpox, and is distinguished by the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy.". Why doesn't it make any further distinction if there are considerable differences?

Because it's not an in depth medical text. It says they're different and gives a couple of examples, that covers it's intended purpose. If you want to know what the exact differences are you'll need to find epidemiological texts.

Your article states that smallpox is human to human, so Host-Range would rule that out... however, all I can find in regards to Smallpox and Monkeypox is "Smallpox is not known to be transmitted by insects or animals". Why is there not an out and out denial if it is only human to human?

It's not my article. And they don't have unequivocal evidence that smallpox has never ever been contracted through contact across species, so they can't say it's never happened. What they can say is that it's never been seen to happen. They can say that because it's never been reliably documented by a recognised authority to the required scientific standard. To the layman it might as well mean that it's never happened, because there's been a rather large shitload of infections observed over the years, a very high percentage of which are known to have been contracted through human contact. Scientists, however, unlike yer average foamy-mouthed conspiracy theorist tend to say exactly what they mean, not what they'd really really like to be the case.

Whilst the information you have (interesting read as it is) leads you to deny the existence of eradication, the "not known", "distinguished by the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy" being classed as considerable does not float my boat towards the same conclusion.

It didn't lead me to believe anything. In fact it's extremely unlikely that smallpox doesn't exist in a laboratory somewhere, but I already knew that it hasn't been found in circulation anywhere within the human population on this planet and hasn't been know to have killed anyone at all for the best part of a lifetime.

And nobody gives a fuck whether your boat sinks without a trace, dude. Indeed I suspect most would consider it inevitable, given the vast quantity of factual holes in your logic through which a veritable tidal wave of knowledge continually leeks.

flyingcrocodile46

31st July 2013, 16:51

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/penta22jul

In a hard hitting editorial (http://www.omsj.org/reports/Puliyel%202013.pdf), the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME (http://www.omsj.org/corruption/www.ijme.in)) has accused the WHO of promoting Pentavalent vaccine “by stating falsely that no adverse event following immunization (AEFI) has ever been reported with the vaccine.” The journal says this is contrary to facts. The IJME editorial by Dr. Jacob Puliyel (http://jacob.puliyel.com/), head of pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital in New Delhi, is based on his detailed investigation into the deaths of children in Bhutan, Sri Lanka, India and Vietnam following use of Pentavalent vaccine. This vaccine combines the Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus or DPT vaccine — long used in national immunization programs – with Hepatitis-B and H influenza-b or Hib vaccine.
The IJME editorial says that On 4 May 2013 the Ministry of Health of Viet Nam suspended Quinvaxem - the Pentavalent combination used in that country — after 12 deaths and 9 other non-fatal serious adverse events. According to local news reports, all the babies who died were in good health prior to vaccination and had serious trouble breathing before dying shortly afterwards.
The WHO, which investigated the incident, said the deaths were not vaccine-related and claimed that “Quinvaxem was prequalified by WHO and no fatal adverse event following immunization has ever been associated with this vaccine.”
The editorial points out that WHO had not disputed the death of 12 children soon after immunization and “therefore it is patently wrong and misleading for it to conclude that no fatal AEFI have ever been associated with the vaccine.”
This combination vaccine is not licensed for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration nor is it used in other developed countries, the editorial says. But the WHO recommends this Pentavalent vaccine in developing countries, by piggy backing the Hepatitis-B and Hib vaccines on the well accepted DPT to increase uptake of Hepatitis B and Hib according to a write up on the GAVI web site.
Serious adverse reactions and deaths have now been reported with Pentavalentvaccine produced by other manufacturers and in a number of countries, the journal says. Bhutan. Sri Lanka and Pakistan have stopped using the vaccine, “following unexplained deaths soon after immunization.”
Bhutan stopped the immunization program after four deaths but was later persuaded to restart immunization by the WHO. Reintroduction of the vaccine was followed by a further four deaths and Bhutan is not using this vaccine any longer, the journal says.

flyingcrocodile46

31st July 2013, 16:56

Did Bill Gates KNOW His Polio Vaccination Push Would Paralyse Children?
http://truthstreammedia.com/bill-gates-knew-vaccination-push-would-paralyze-children/

If you want to live in denial of real possibilities, Fine. Just shut the fuck up because you really have no fucking idea what you are talking about unless you yourself are a scientist who has studied all the results from vaccination history.

Take with a grain of salt. It is news of real risks which you need to weigh up to make fully informed unbiased decisions when you consider vaccinations.

Akzle

31st July 2013, 21:24

And nobody gives a fuck whether your boat sinks without a trace, dude. Indeed I suspect most would consider it inevitable, given the vast quantity of factual holes in your logic through which a veritable tidal wave of knowledge continually leeks.

holy fucking metaphor!
Pun intended.

flyingcrocodile46

1st August 2013, 18:01

It isn't like drug companies tell lies about these matters eh!

Remember Thalidomide? Sold as a cure for morning sickness, it was soon proven to cause devastating birth defects and was pretty much banned in western nations in the early 60's but the manufacturer continued to sell it in third world countries as a morning sickness cure through to the 80's and beyond. (likely to earn the money needed to pay all the compensation claims in the west).

How does an intelligent person delude themselves into trusting the pharmaceutical industry when it has clearly proven itself to lie, cheat and murder for profit? Answer.. they don't. Only fuckwits believe habitual liars.

The alternative media is justifiably abuzz with a story about the CDC deleting a page on their website admitting that as many as 98 million Americans received polio vaccines contaminated with the cancer-linked monkey virus SV40, with the added twist that although they removed the page sometime after July 11th, a cached version is still available to view online....
http://www.getholistichealth.com/35475/cdc-disappears-page-linking-polio-vaccines-to-cancer-causing-viruses/

Lets just sweep that under the carpet and pretend it didn't happen eh! We can trust the industry because they have our best interests at heart. Yeah right!

mashman

1st August 2013, 19:12

There's nothing dodgy about them Croc... accidents happen.

flyingcrocodile46

1st August 2013, 21:53

There's nothing dodgy about them Croc... accidents happen.

Just a slow reaction time (30 year) huh!

mashman

2nd August 2013, 10:48

Just a slow reaction time (30 year) huh!

Well I guess when you've got excess stock you can always lower the price and find a buyer who doesn't mind breaking a few eggs whilst making their omelette. Even better when you know which stock not to use yourself.

Crasherfromwayback

22nd August 2013, 09:59

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/9071663/Whooping-cough-epidemic-strikes

Ocean1

29th August 2013, 20:51

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/9102100/Haters-gonna-hate-study-confirms

While people who more or less liked taxidermy and crossword puzzles also liked the oven, the haters drenched their fake consumer surveys in haterade. They were also more likely to hate on recycling and vaccine shots.

To be fair, it's hard to be a ray of sunshine when you've got the measles.

mashman

29th August 2013, 20:58

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/9102100/Haters-gonna-hate-study-confirms

You just gotta let people make their own minds up... but great stereotype.

Ocean1

29th August 2013, 21:19

You just gotta let people make their own minds up... but great stereotype.

In what way is a peer reviewed scientific study a stereotype?

And without an answer to this:

So, exactly how many hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved for each life damaged?

And how many billions of lives would be saved by the extinction of parasitic transmissible diseases?

people don’t have enough information to make up their own minds, do they?

mashman

29th August 2013, 22:27

In what way is a peer reviewed scientific study a stereotype?

And without an answer to this:

people don’t have enough information to make up their own minds, do they?

I meant that haters just gonna hate. The decision not to immunise oneself, where immunisation isn't guaranteed, aren't considering the percentages, they're just running a different risk. Yes the odds may well be massively in your favour by inoculating, but again, odds, do not factor in the decision making process. Neither should they matter.

Yes I agree that there isn't enough shouting of GET IMMUNISED... but there will still be those who refuse to take that risk irrespective. Frustrating as it may well be for some, it just ain't gonna happen short of restraining those who say no.

Crasherfromwayback

29th August 2013, 23:07

Frustrating as it may well be for some, it just ain't gonna happen short of restraining those who say no.

No need to restrain them. Place 'em on an Island in the middle of nowhere yes. They can be as free as they like. Fucking leppers.

badlieutenant

29th August 2013, 23:48

Its an interesting perspective for those people who were born at the beginning of the last century.
Talking to my grandparents and their friends they considered it morally wrong not to immunize. Possibly because they grew up seeing what diseases like polio could do.
They seemed to have a better grasp of herd immunity as well.
some stats if we do stop immunizing (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm)

Berries

30th August 2013, 00:44

Who knew that the vaccine for Japanese Encephalitis was made from mouse brains? One of my favourite diseases after learning it was called broken back disease due to the convulsions just before you snuff it.

I get the same from Speights.

mashman

30th August 2013, 08:24

No need to restrain them. Place 'em on an Island in the middle of nowhere yes. They can be as free as they like. Fucking leppers.

:rofl: yeah, but then you end up with the likes of Australia.

Crasherfromwayback

30th August 2013, 08:27

:rofl: yeah, but then you end up with the likes of Australia.

Lol. I reckon!

Ocean1

30th August 2013, 16:45

Yes the odds may well be massively in your favour by inoculating, but again, odds, do not factor in the decision making process. Neither should they matter.

So a proper risk assessment of two courses of action shouldn't factor in a decision on which course is safest?

OK.

Very few people are more protective of individual liberty than me, but there's another factor, here. Someone deciding not to immunise 50 years ago would have been making a definite and seriously life-threatening mistake, there were still a lot of infectious individuals in the general population and their presence and plight would have been convincing enough. Someone making the same choice now is still choosing the more dangerous option, by several orders of magnitude, but it’s not as dangerous as once that option was, nor is the danger as obvious.

But it was a generation and more of people who took the very slight risk of an inoculation instead of the very real possibility or in fact likelihood of infection that made the world that much safer, not the ones that decided not to inoculate or simply weren’t afforded that choice. Not only do those not inoculated not contribute to that huge improvement in illness and death, getting what they possibly see as a “free ride” but as the contagions become less and less common they become increasingly dangerous to themselves and to everyone else.

As of 2009, herd immunity is compromised in some areas for some vaccine-preventable diseases, including pertussis and measles and mumps, in part because of parental refusal of vaccination.

My reaction when confronted by someone who refused to inoculate her kids years ago was that it was her choice, no matter how badly she’d failed her kids. Talking about it with SWMBO later, she asked: “Does she have an ethical right to deny the safety the modern world takes for granted to everyone else, now and forever more?”

So, who's ethics carry more juju?

mashman

30th August 2013, 17:04

So a proper risk assessment of two courses of action shouldn't factor in a decision on which course is safest?

OK.

Very few people are more protective of individual liberty than me, but there's another factor, here. Someone deciding not to immunise 50 years ago would have been making a definite and seriously life-threatening mistake, there were still a lot of infectious individuals in the general population and their presence and plight would have been convincing enough. Someone making the same choice now is still choosing the more dangerous option, by several orders of magnitude, but it’s not as dangerous as once that option was, nor is the danger as obvious.

But it was a generation and more of people who took the very slight risk of an inoculation instead of the very real possibility or in fact likelihood of infection that made the world that much safer, not the ones that decided not to inoculate or simply weren’t afforded that choice. Not only do those not inoculated not contribute to that huge improvement in illness and death, getting what they possibly see as a “free ride” but as the contagions become less and less common they become increasingly dangerous to themselves and to everyone else.

My reaction when confronted by someone who refused to inoculate her kids years ago was that it was her choice, no matter how badly she’d failed her kids. Talking about it with SWMBO later, she asked: “Does she have an ethical right to deny the safety the modern world takes for granted to everyone else, now and forever more?”

So, who's ethics carry more juju?

I smoke cigarettes.

I smoke cigarettes.

Then run a health campaign. Make it free. Tell people that really don't give a shit and who need informing of why they should inoculate. Would that be expensive to do :innocent: But yes, she has the ethical right. It'd be fantastic if people could send their blood to a diagnostics database and receive a recommendation back i.e. take 2 and give blood in the morning, and those sorts of things go away. Better than mass inoculation? dunno, maybe, but alas, Dreams are free. Ideas cost.

The educated ones ethics :D

Ocean1

30th October 2013, 23:24

Akzle

31st October 2013, 13:48

"With the world tantalizingly close to wiping out polio, conflict in Syria has allowed the crippling disease to take hold again, putting at risk the rest of the region as well as plans for global eradication". http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/9342043/Polio-outbreak-in-Syria-confirmed

Way to go guys.

the world needs more polio.

while they're sure finding other drugs to sell, they (jews) loose a lot of money when there's no customers.

Crasherfromwayback

19th December 2013, 18:18

Time to dredge.

http://www.quickmeme.com/p/3vqjb0

oldrider

20th December 2013, 15:43

Yeah and doctors and hospitals don't kill people inadvertently either .... do they? .. How do their statistics stack up against the road toll?

Don't know where to find but was sure surprised last time I saw it published in the "media" :rolleyes: somewhere! :gob:

Ocean1

20th December 2013, 15:59

Yeah and doctors and hospitals don't kill people inadvertently either .... do they? .. How do their statistics stack up against the road toll?

Aye, more people die in hospital than anywhere else. Which is wonderfully shocking and quirky. And completely meaningless of course.

Perhaps what might be a good question if you’re looking to evaluate the health industry’s performance is “how long do we live without ‘em?

Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
• Neanderthal, 20
• Neolithic, 20
• Classical Greece, 28
• Classical Rome, 28
• Medieval England, 33
• End of 18th Century, 37
• Early 20th Century, 50
• Circa 1940, 65
• Current (in the West), 77-81

But you know that, John, you were there for most of that.

oldrider

20th December 2013, 16:04

Aye, more people die in hospital than anywhere else. Which is wonderfully shocking and quirky. And completely meaningless of course.

Perhaps what might be a good question if you’re looking to evaluate the health industry’s performance is “how long do we live without ‘em?

But you know that, John, you were there for most of that.

True we live longer but nobody tells you that is going to "hurt"! :lol: (don't undervalue the technical advances that contribute to our ""longevity"")

Ocean1

20th December 2013, 17:40

True we live longer but nobody tells you that is going to "hurt"! :lol:

They did so, your mother told you, you just didn't listen.

(don't undervalue the technical advances that contribute to our ""longevity"")

Difficult to overvalue this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/9539431/Scientists-find-way-to-stop-ageing

Brett

21st December 2013, 09:57

* Latest News*

Immunisation has been shown to have a direct correlation with HIV/AIDS and cancer.

#time to start a new rumour so that the hippies can keep on believing it's all a conspiracy by Kim Jong Un to bring down the west #misinformed #have ZERO understanding of biology or chemistry #got their education from a wheatbix box.

Akzle

21st December 2013, 14:32

HenryDorsetCase

21st December 2013, 15:20

Has anyone posted the Penn and Teller riposte to the anti vaccination loonies? No? well, here you go:

RLcOz4EKrxg

Crasherfromwayback

21st December 2013, 16:39

Has anyone posted the Penn and Teller riposte to the anti vaccination loonies? No? well, here you go:

Lol. Love it! So fucking true too.

idb

23rd December 2013, 23:13

Aye, more people die in hospital than anywhere else. Which is wonderfully shocking and quirky. And completely meaningless of course.

Perhaps what might be a good question if you’re looking to evaluate the health industry’s performance is “how long do we live without ‘em?

But you know that, John, you were there for most of that.

We could easily lower the death rate in hospitals by keeping sick people out of them.

Ocean1

24th December 2013, 09:06

We could easily lower the death rate in hospitals by keeping sick people out of them.

Absolutely.

And that'll become even more true if we don't get a handle on antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

oldrider

25th December 2013, 12:11

Absolutely.

And that'll become even more true if we don't get a handle on antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

Well, it would help if there was even a smidgeon of recognition that ideas other than the status quo (drug company driven medicine) have some merit! :yes:

For instance:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmhHyq_Fv3s&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ocean1

25th December 2013, 16:21

Well, it would help if there was even a smidgeon of recognition that ideas other than the status quo (drug company driven medicine) have some merit! :yes:

For instance:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmhHyq_Fv3s&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I don't have 26min to spare. But if you don't trust "big pharma" then your obvious choice is to not use their products.

Me, I've observed that their products are the single largest direct cause of our vastly extended lifespan and believe, by extension that their products are probably developed for efficacy first and profit second.

Edbear

25th December 2013, 17:30

I don't have 26min to spare. But if you don't trust "big pharma" then your obvious choice is to not use their products.

Me, I've observed that their products are the single largest direct cause of our vastly extended lifespan and believe, by extension that their products are probably developed for efficacy first and profit second.

I can't bling you twice in a row. That and a better standard of living in the West anyway. With my own 55 years of medical history covering a wide range of life threatening episodes, I would not be alive today without the recourse to conventional Western medicines.

I have spent more than I care to admit on alternative meds and treatments and had I listened to one practicer of the alternative, I would have died very quickly. While certainly not perfect and while mistakes have been made, only conventional Western medicine and treatment has ever worked for me. I owe my life to the Doctors, Surgeons and modern drugs. I have horror stories from personal experience of the dangers of the alternatives. My medical experiences began when I was six years old so I don't speak from only one incident.

Even as recently as two weeks ago, I have seen the results of two families who don't believe in vaccinating their children. I wish I could tell them but what can you say?

mashman

25th December 2013, 18:24

I don't have 26min to spare. But if you don't trust "big pharma" then your obvious choice is to not use their products.

Not much of a funguy are ya... psssst, it has nothing to do with bagging the medical profession in any way shape or form

Ocean1

25th December 2013, 18:35

it has nothing to do with bagging the medical profession in any way shape or form

I was responding to John's post, not his reference clip.

Edit: I might add that development of very promising alternative treatments AND new mainstream pharmaceuticals are significantly hampered, and in some cases rendered commercially impossible by the very regulatory compliance systems designed to protect the market from snake oil salesmen and constructive lab shortcuts. It's a negative side effect of the accumulation of standards compliance minutiae that affects many industries. The more worthy of protection the market the more restrictive the controls.

mashman

25th December 2013, 19:18

I was responding to John's post, not his reference clip.

Edit: I might add that development of very promising alternative treatments AND new mainstream pharmaceuticals are significantly hampered, and in some cases rendered commercially impossible by the very regulatory compliance systems designed to protect the market from snake oil salesmen and constructive lab shortcuts. It's a negative side effect of the accumulation of standards compliance minutiae that affects many industries. The more worthy of protection the market the more restrictive the controls.

Same can be said for his post imho.

I don't disagree with those observations. Although the outcome I care about is dead/injured people and not someone's bottom line... in fact you wouldn't have anywhere near as many snake oil salesmen and "shortcuts" if there were no money to be made, that and there'd be no reason to protect anything, moreover findings could more readily be shared (they don't all share and that is to our detriment, not theirs). That's the main reason for the negative side effects.

Ocean1

25th December 2013, 20:07

Same can be said for his post imho.

Suppose it could. If you were significantly fucked in the head.

in fact you wouldn't have anywhere near as many snake oil salesmen and "shortcuts" if there were no money to be made,

Of course not, they'd have no product to sell. There wouldn't be any product for anyone to sell. Everyone would be frantically trying to reinvent a trade token before they were faced with the impossibility of trying to trade potatoes for penicillin.

Ocean1

25th December 2013, 20:12

How much more of these busybody's interfering bullshit do you suppose we have to endure?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/9551256/Kapiti-miniature-train-attraction-closed

mashman

25th December 2013, 20:42

Suppose it could. If you were significantly fucked in the head.

Of course not, they'd have no product to sell. There wouldn't be any product for anyone to sell. Everyone would be frantically trying to reinvent a trade token before they were faced with the impossibility of trying to trade potatoes for penicillin.

Coming from you. That means absolutely nothing.

:killingme why's that then? Can you prove that that's what would happen? I betcha can't. Your propaganda of ignorant fear only works on the weak minded and is only ever espoused by the weak minded. As for Penicillin, wonder why Phleming didn't patent it?

oneofsix

25th December 2013, 20:50

How much more of these busybody's interfering bullshit do you suppose we have to endure?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/9551256/Kapiti-miniature-train-attraction-closed

That's at least the second time they've tried to close it down. I think it is :bs: revenge by the dept for the club having beaten them over the fair ground attractions requirements. Who would have thought that if you lean off the side of narrow seat you are liable to fall off

Ocean1

31st December 2013, 17:42

It's coming to get you. :doh:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/9567196/Measles-confirmed-in-Auckland

Now bend over...

James Deuce

31st December 2013, 18:07

Ocean1

31st December 2013, 18:51

That really pisses me off. Measles is deadly. I very much doubt the anti-vaccination crowd will be funding the funerals of the invariably poorer victims. Nothing more dangerous than a group of middle-class white women with too much time on their hands, access to the Internet and a plethora of coffee mornings to peddle their pseudo-science.

Difficult to be scared of shit that you not only can't see but that nobody you know has ever seen.

Wee need to offer two choices. Inoculation as currently available, or exposure to the contagions involved.

Controlled conditions of course.

Off shore somewhere.

With video, to show at coffee mornings...