Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

There are many aspects to this debate, including more advanced vaccines, however I am agreeing with your last interpretation: that the previous three separate injections, given over a period of time, would be preferrable. You know, like those in the know or with lots of cash, tend to go for. The Americans have done a lot of good work in this respect.

Yes, just like Andrew Wakefield says.

So I'm struggling to figure out why AW (or anyone else who questions the safety of the MMR vaccine for that matter) should be seen as the new anti-christ.

I certainly don't believe pharmaceutical drug choice should be based on the degree of super duper cost saving profit margin it offers.

[YellowDog]

Yes, just like Andrew Wakefield says.

So I'm struggling to figure out why AW (or anyone else who questions the safety of the MMR vaccine for that matter) should be seen as the new anti-christ.

I certainly don't believe pharmaceutical drug choice should be based on the degree of super duper cost saving profit margin it offers.

East one to answer: If you don't vaccinate your kids, you are putting them and others at risk. They could die becuase of your negligence. Why risk it? I would want you banned from bringing your kids to the school my kids attend.

It is very unusual for people in alledgedly developed countries to experience epedemics with such regularity as they do in New Zealand.

[mashman]

East one to answer: If you don't vaccinate your kids, you are putting them and others at risk. They could die becuase of your negligence. Why risk it? I would want you banned from bringing your kids to the school my kids attend.

It is very unusual for people in alledgedly developed countries to experience epedemics with such regularity as they do in New Zealand.

What about the kids that are "resistant" to the vaccination, but not immune to measles? Should they be banned too? And how are you going to test that they're immune to the vaccination? Also, why should I put my kids in harms way for the sake of a minority of kids that have a bad reaction to measles? I'm not anti-vaccination... but you're sounding awful Nazi like.

[RDJ]

What about the kids that are "resistant" to the vaccination, but not immune to measles? Should they be banned too? And how are you going to test that they're immune to the vaccination? Also, why should I put my kids in harms way for the sake of a minority of kids that have a bad reaction to measles? I'm not anti-vaccination... but you're sounding awful Nazi like.

You can test for antibodies.

If the person has the vaccination and does not develop testable immunity, no reason to ban them - note that immunity is hardly ever tested for, only proof of vaccination is requested.

Why should other people who cannot develop immunity or are immunosuppressed be put in harm's way because you don't wish to assume your share of responsibility for suppressing dangerous diseases by reducing the pool of unvaccinated (which is where the virus 'hides out') to the absolute irreducible minimum.

If there had been many more people with your approach Hepatitis B would still be a common danger to NZers; the reason you don't see the illness and deaths from Hep B that we used to routinely see in the 80s is because of the uptake of the Hep B vaccine.

[mashman]

You can test for antibodies.

If the person has the vaccination and does not develop testable immunity, no reason to ban them - note that immunity is hardly ever tested for, only proof of vaccination is requested.

Why should other people who cannot develop immunity or are immunosuppressed be put in harm's way because you don't wish to assume your share of responsibility for suppressing dangerous diseases by reducing the pool of unvaccinated (which is where the virus 'hides out') to the absolute irreducible minimum.

If there had been many more people with your approach Hepatitis B would still be a common danger to NZers; the reason you don't see the illness and deaths from Hep B that we used to routinely see in the 80s is because of the uptake of the Hep B vaccine.

So why not test for antibodies before giving MMR?

I thought the idea was to ban anyone that could communicate measles? If that's going to be the case, then you'll need to come up with a pre-MMR test before you convince me that you're actually doing everything possible to safeguard people. Until then, I'm happy to accept that some simply don't want to run the risk of having their kids vaccinated.

If you can't build up the immunity, stay out of the way, else you're still putting them in harms way from those who are naturally "resistant" to the vaccine irrespective of immunity uptake.

You grossly misrepresent what my approach would be. As outlined above, prove that the vaccine is appropriate for the individual before hammering their immune system with something it either can't handle or simply doesn't need.

[Akzle]

air is good for humans.

i think everyone in town should be injected with it.

[oldrider]

air is good for humans.

i think everyone in town should be injected with it.

Deprivation of air is quite a worry-some experience - it certainly helps to sort ones priorities out!

[husaberg]

Yes, just like Andrew Wakefield says.

.

Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children’s blood samples.
But Dr Wakefield told the GMC panel that he had made up these details to amuse his listeners. “It was the end of a long and rather exacting talk for the parents, and it was an attempt to introduce a little bit of levity,” he said. “It was a quip, just a story.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323045/

[Katman]

Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children’s blood samples.
But Dr Wakefield told the GMC panel that he had made up these details to amuse his listeners. “It was the end of a long and rather exacting talk for the parents, and it was an attempt to introduce a little bit of levity,” he said. “It was a quip, just a story.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323045/

Did you actually read the article?

If so, what's your point?

[husaberg]

Did you actually read the article?

If so, what's your point?

I read it, he finally admits to fabricating stuff, don't worry that will not change your opinion of him, it certainly doesn't change the scientific worlds opinion of him as a total fraud either.
You are just too inept and too buried in your "there has to be a conspiracy" too actually figure out that bit.

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.

In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article,Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing". In November 2011, yet another report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.

Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths, and his continued warnings against the vaccine have contributed to a climate of distrust of all vaccines and the re-emergence of other previously controlled diseases. Wakefield has continued to defend his research and conclusions, saying there was no fraud, hoax or profit motive. In February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions, even though—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked

[Katman]

I read it, he finally admits to fabricating stuff, don't worry that will not change your opinion of him, it certainly doesn't change the scientific worlds opinion of him as a total fraud either.

He admitted embellishing the story about taking the blood samples at his son's birthday party.

Again - what's your point?

[YellowDog]

What about the kids that are "resistant" to the vaccination, but not immune to measles? Should they be banned too? And how are you going to test that they're immune to the vaccination? Also, why should I put my kids in harms way for the sake of a minority of kids that have a bad reaction to measles? I'm not anti-vaccination... but you're sounding awful Nazi like.

I think we are on the same page, however you don't seem to realise it.

If all the kids whom can be safely vaccinated, are vaccinated, then those with special needs will be in a far safer environment and less likely to die needlessly.

[husaberg]

He admitted embellishing the story about taking the blood samples at his son's birthday party.

Again - what's your point?

Embellishing stories is not what exactly respected researchers would do now, is it......
But no one in the scientific community respects Andrew Wakefield so no harm done.

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.

In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article,Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing". In November 2011, yet another report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.

Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths, and his continued warnings against the vaccine have contributed to a climate of distrust of all vaccines and the re-emergence of other previously controlled diseases. Wakefield has continued to defend his research and conclusions, saying there was no fraud, hoax or profit motive. In February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions, even though—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked

[mashman]

I think we are on the same page, however you don't seem to realise it.

If all the kids whom can be safely vaccinated, are vaccinated, then those with special needs will be in a far safer environment and less likely to die needlessly.

We seem to be, but like I said, it's the mandatory thing that gets me.

Fo shizzle, but how many kids are you prepared to potentially break in order to protect a few kids that may eventually come into contact with those who are immune to the vaccine and that are carrying measles? That there's no pre-test for vaccination is my only real reason for questioning the mandatory thing.

[Katman]

Embellishing stories is not what exactly respected researchers would do now, is it......

It was a light-hearted recounting of an insignificant event.