Slashdot Mirror
Nurses In Australia Face Punishment For Promoting Anti-Vaccination Messages Via Social Media (medicalxpress.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Medical Express reports that nurses and midwives promoting anti-vaccination messages in Australia could face punishment including being slapped with a caution and having their ability to practice medicine restricted. Serious cases could be referred to an industry tribunal, where practitioners could face harsher penalties such as having their registration suspended or cancelled. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia released the vaccination standards in response to what it described as a small number of nurses and midwives promoting anti-vaccination via social media. The statement also urges members of the public to report nurses or midwives promoting anti-vaccination. Promoting false, misleading or deceptive information is an offense under national law and is prosecutable by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. "The board will consider whether the nurse or midwife has breached their professional obligations and will treat these matters seriously," the statement said. However Dr. Hannah Dahlen, a professor of midwifery at the University of Western Sydney and the spokeswoman for the Australian College of Midwives, worries the crackdown may push people with anti-vaccination views further underground. "The worry is the confirmation bias that can occur, because people might say: 'There you go, this is proof that you can't even have an alternative opinion.' It might in fact just give people more fuel for their belief systems."
Good.
Implement this in more countries please.
There was actual harm done because of the sticky stupid of antivaccine activists, so of course their Board will purge in response. People who make themselves allies of the first Horseman of the Apocalypse (Pestilence/plague) do not belong in the healthcare business.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
WTF is the point of spending years training to become a nurse / midwife if they just decide to ignore evidence of the efficacy of vaccination and promote woo? Anyone pushing antivax nonsense should be barred from practicing as a nurse or midwife. It should be that simple.
Allow them to keep their licenses provided they retake their nursing exams. Obviously they haven't been keeping up with science.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
On one hand the measles vaccines should be sufficiently tested by now considering how long we've had them. On the other hand it's very dangerous to pretend that all vaccines are equally safe and well tested.
Donald Trump had his kids vaccinated: https://www.quora.com/Has-Dona...
Maybe we deserve this world ?
When you say we can't trust any vaccines, that's not a sound professional opinion. However, when you jump into attacking people who don't want to get Gardasil (which is far less safe than most vaccines) or Anthrax (many military veterans have had serious problems with it) because we can trust the Polio and MMR vaccines you're even worse than the anti-vaxxers. Know why? Because all it takes to disprove an anti-vaxxer is show the real harm that the core vaccines that are battle-tested prevent. Some science popularizing elitist wingnut who borrows from the legitimacy of those vaccines to hound people who don't accept that vaccines as a category are safe (because no medicine as a category, is categorically safe) is directly tying the reputation of proven medicine to unproven medicine.
the spokeswoman for the Australian College of Midwives, worries the crackdown may push people with anti-vaccination views further underground
good, they have no right to be practising medicine, fuckwits like those should be dead and buried like those that suffer under their idiotic advise.
Shh, this could be a great way to deal with a whole mess of stupid people.
...
I'm glad to see the Aussies are still brave enough to call out bullshit based upon evidence backed science.
Now if only we could also get rid of the religious mumbo jumbo too while we are at it.
Jewish Zombies who are their own father, murderous desert pedophile prophets, fat guys sitting under trees all day contemplating their navels, sky fairies with elephant heads.
All nonsense for the mentally weak.
If what they are promoting goes against the evidence and leads to harming patient then they should be barred.
Having an opinion is one thing. Holding a position on a verifiable matter, that leads to putting patients at increase risk is at odds with the goal of your profession is a completely different matter.
They want to push some thoroughly debunked agenda? feel free but don't pretend you're a medical professional
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
There can be bad side effects but it is better for everybody that nearly everybody else are vaccinated. It might be better for each person not to be vaccinated, when most everybody else are though (the probaility to get any of these diseases is quite low right now because of the vaccines). Not getting vaccinated without a good reason (such as very weak immune system), ensures that most people aint vaccinated however, so I think this is one of the examples where we need goverments to enforce a non-stable outcome (it is not stable since each person are better off not doing it).
The Dangers of Consensus.
Watch the fun ensue.
To quote Isaac Asimov who put it more eloquently than I can: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
People with anti-vaccination agendas should be pushed 6 feet (2m) underground, and covered with dirt.
Captcha: expert
Ever know someone who walks into the bar and tells you a story along the lines of "... and she comes home from work early and I'm in the sack with her sister - and now she wants a divorce!" in the expectation of sympathy and all he gets is crickets chirping?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
good point (but I think specific anti-vax don't fall in this rule)
On the one hand it's good that they don't let people in these positions propagate false information to people who depend on them for their information.
On the other hand, what if at one point we find out that vaccines do have some side effects?
Do we have good procedures in place for handling that, or will we end up in a situation like in the US, where even studying marijuana is illegal to find out if it has potential health benefits?
Like what ? It's like trying to promote lies as a perfectly valid alternative to truth. Not everything has two sides.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Good, because the anti-vaccination cult is full of a bunch of fucking idiots.
Grow up and develop a thicker fucking skin. It's a marketplace of ideas, defend yours vigorously and stop fucking whining (yes, I know you're talking about trump and immigrants).
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The great thing about authoritarian rule is it is efficient and forces compliance.
The bad thing is when it enforces a wrong policy and causes more harm.
And the trouble is, in life we can never really know whether an idea is correct. So there is always a risk.
Which is why flexibility is needed to some extent, and you always have to step back and say, ok, how can we be so sure?
Right now for example, Australia has been banning a surgeon who has been saying that maybe it isn't such a good idea that diabetics eat sugar.
So whilst vaccinations may seem a perfectly good example of a place where the authorities must take control and implement a view for public safety, it doesn't mean that's always the right call, by default.
It is always and often a risky call. Group-think bias is common amongst anyone who is a human being, expert or not.
Whilst taking action, we need ways to keep checking and keep open the possibility that the experts might be wrong. And we need to take action. And they could be wrong. Anything other than that is just more group-think.
It really isn't enough to say "it is science". You always need to ask, what specifically did they do to figure that thing out? In plain language. How realiable was that method of figuring it out?
Then be as authoritarian as you like in enforcing it.
It does work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
But it's fuckwit's like you that stop us having the benefits of it.
few things as stupid as idiots like you
You're a troll who already knows about herd immunity and is hoping someone writes and angry post to you about it. Spotted. Sorry bud. Try harder.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Burn the witches!
:T:R:A:N:S:
... is neither proven, nor logically sustainable.
The insane amount of autistic children should in that case be associated with an insane amount of autistic parents, which is clearly not the case.
So that genetic 'argument' (fallacy I would call it) is hereby debunked, thank you.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
What is the evidence that this was thanks to vaccines and not improvements in hygiene and nutrition?
Good job virtue signalling about how much you hate Trump,
$0.02 cuck dollars have been deposited to your account.
You are just stating your opinion, not more than that.
What if we'd prosecute you for your opinion?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Precisely.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-vaccines-are-scientific-fraud/
The pro-vaccinators are 'useful idiots' for Big Pharma, which makes BILLIONS of dollars off their filthy 'vaccines' every year.
If 'vaccines' work, then your children are IMMUNE, aren't they?
"But" they bleat, "my child is allergic to 'vaccines' and can't be vaccinated, so YOUR unvaccinated child is putting MY unvaccinated child at risk."
To which you reply "And isn't YOUR unvaccinated child putting all OTHER unvaccinated children at risk too, then? And therefore shouldn't be allowed in school?"
You see how ridiculous this is - the argument is SO easy to refute, as I have just done, yet the idiots on here continue to repeat it over and over again.
The simple fact is - if unvaccinated children who CHOOSE not to be 'vaccinated' are a 'threat' and should be kept away from other children, then EXACTLY the same applies to unvaccinated children who are 'allergic' to vaccines, does it not? Or are they special because they 'think the right thoughts'. LOL.
Doesn't "herd immunity" affect those not vaccinated though? So what does it matter to you, if you do vaccinate your kids and believe vaccines are effective and not at all harmful?
You are right, you can NOT have an alternative opinion, because this is not about an opinion. If I put a knife in your kids head and you say that that killed your kid, I am not aloud to say "But that is, like, just your opinion." So if you do the same with my kid, I will not allow you that excuse either.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Surprisingly enough it isn't tested. There is no 'golden standard' scientific test carried out (randomised double blind controlled trial) that proves either the efficacy or the safety of the 'measles vaccines', let alone the triple cocktail of MMR, which many facts suggest is responsible for many cases of autism if administered at a too young age.
When the brilliant and promising Dr. Andrew Wakefield pointed out that he is not against measles vaccination and merely suggested to separate the measles vaccine from the MMR vaccine and postpone the schedule of it by 6 months, he was literally crucified by 'his' medical establishment.
Mind you, he clearly stated that he is not against vaccination and only wanted a schedule which science suggested would be more safe, and that was enough for the 'big pharma' to have him destroyed, and for the British government to refuse separate vaccines to be administered, heck, even to enter the country.
These for me are big red flags!
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Very well said!
Unfortunately I can't mod you up without deleting my previous comments, so I won't.
But that was very well said indeed!
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I do not know if autism is inherited; you assert that it is not. This is may be why genetic testing is not done for autism.
So confident in your opinion that you can't "risk" someone having a different opinion? Are you afraid you might not be able to defend your position against them? Because that is the main reason for censorship.
Look up SV40 polio vaccine from years ago. They bring that up and suddenly your viewpoint begins to crack. There are other more recent ones that have had problems as well, but you don't think people have the right to discuss them because you are anti-science and can't defend your position. Funny thing being that vaccines with issues are very rare, you can't stand letting anyone know about them and promote censorship to keep it hidden.
I'm actually getting sick of these anti-science whackos like you that think scientific discussion should only be what YOU approve. If you can't defend your position with scientific proof, you don't have a valid scientific position and are a fraud depending on censorship and name calling instead.
If you were just HONEST, you would be far more convincing, and convincing people vaccines are good SHOULD be easy. Because you resort to censorship and name calling first, it appears you have something to hide and all you will get is anti-vaxxers yelling SV40 (which hasn't been a problem for decades) and causing more people to look up problems and causing more anti-vaxxers because in reality they disagree with your censorship and it has nothing to do with vaccines.
That's the problem. There isn't any. Give me one randomised double blind controlled trial of sufficient size epidemiologically speaking, that proves both efficacy and safety of any vaccine compared to a pure placebo, like pure distilled water.
And of course it's ok to call bullshit on any opinion that you're in disagreement with, but let's not act like a bunch of brown-shirt fascists and persecute people for their opinion and dissent, because in that case their might soon be a reason to persecute you for any dissenting opinion that you might express in your life.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
While there is thought that certain aspects of 'nurture' may be at play, it doesn't rule out nature. The rise in cancer diagnosis over the past century is due in part to discovery and awareness. Kids in the 50's that were mildly autistic were just looked at as 'weird' and managed coping mechanisms, where the extreme cases were sent to asylums. Those mild cases are a case of misdiagnosis and lack of awareness, and if they were born today would be targeted as ASD.
The vaccinations do not give immunity to everyone that gets them. Also, some people are unable to get them for medical reasons.
he is not a registered nurse whose license requires they do no harm and his "opinion" isn't getting people killed.
That was Stein, not Trump.
I do not know if autism is inherited; you assert that it is not. This is may be why genetic testing is not done for autism.
Autism can and does run in families but I don't know if there is a gene or genes you can check for it. There is a spectrum of conditions, you're not autistic or not autistic, there are shades in-between. It's very likely there is no one cause for autism.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
What is the evidence that this was thanks to vaccines and not improvements in hygiene and nutrition?
I thought most anti vaccine people also felt we would be better off eating more natural and raw foods. So our current nutrition should be making us less healthy.
Last I checked, serious viruses like smallpox don't really care how healthy you are when exposed. Some of the worst kill a disproportionately high percentage of the healthiest people by turning our own immune system against us.
being the parent of an autistic child, but not being classed as autistic simply due to the fact that when I grew up people did'nt understand the range of autistic traits.
(with preliminary tests i score pretty much 100% as autistic, but due to being an adult that manages well even with the traits, the reccomendations are that I am not classified as such unless I need help).
I call bullshit on your pretend debunking....and classify you as a fucking idiot!.
I haven't done any work on MMR but I can assure you that there are exacting standards and practices for vaccine safety and efficacy, and companies pay dearly for the services they receive in validating their products before they can bring them to market.
The vaccinations do not give immunity to everyone that gets them. Also, some people are unable to get them for medical reasons.
And based on what I've read, those who are unable to get immunizations typically constitute a low enough % to keep the disease effectively eradicated. When people choose to become potential disease carriers by voluntarily not being immunized, that % gets high enough that outbreaks can occur among those who choose and those who are forced to not be immunized, and those who are immunized but not effectively enough. Each person voluntarily not being immunized affects many more people than themselves.
"The worry is the confirmation bias that can occur, because people might say: 'There you go, this is proof that you can't even have an alternative opinion.' It might in fact just give people more fuel for their belief systems."
That's right. On this matter there is no room for an alternative opinion because it isn't a question of opinion. Vaccines work and they are safe and are critical to keeping the population healthy. That is a proven and indisputable fact. You have the right to elect to not get a vaccine but you should not be allowed under any circumstances to spread misinformation or discourage others from vaccination. If you want to decline to be vaccinated that is your prerogative but there should be some quarantine consequences to your actions. Nurses who should know better discouraging others from getting vaccinations is particularly odious and to my mind criminal. Such people have no business being in the field of medicine.
The vaccinations do not give immunity to everyone that gets them. Also, some people are unable to get them for medical reasons.
That's even more reason why everyone who CAN get a vaccine SHOULD.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They will be, yes but there is also the need for herd immunity. Some people will fall through the net, some may not tolerate the vaccine, some may find it didn't work (they are outliers but it does happen). If the 99.9% are vaccinated, chances are A) they'll be fine and ideally B) The disease will disappear.
Meanwhile, feel free to mess it up for the rest of the population because evidence means nothing to you.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
You are just stating your opinion, not more than that. What if we'd prosecute you for your opinion?
When the expression of your opinion directly results in people becoming ill and dying then you are effectively an accessory to manslaughter, particularly if your "opinion" is actually a misrepresentation of the known facts.
It's not 100% either way. There is genetics, and there is epigenetics. You could have inherited genes that result in autistic effects but your environment never had the conditions for that to actually express. Autism isn't a single genetic expression, it's more of a description or condition that has multiple root causes.Could vaccines be a trigger? In a population of several billion, it's a near certainty. Is that a big enough risk to mitigate the risks of getting the disease the vaccine stops? Absolutely not, unless you are PROVEN to be one of the very few that whatever vaccine might affect. There is no actual test on that, and it's such a small percentage that real science has yet to be able to pin it down. Real science as in repeatable, provable, etc. If it's not repeatable and your theory doesn't provide for a failure / negative result, then it's pseudoscience.
In reality, we don't have enough knowledge of our genetic structure and how all of that system functions to do comprehensive testing.
"you can lead an idiot to information, but you can't make em think!!"
Suppression of freedom of opinion and expression thereof is never 'very welcome'.
Conscious misrepresentation of known facts by individuals who should know better because of their professional training is not expressing an opinion. Ignorance (willful or otherwise) of a fact does not make an "opinion" about those facts valid when the expression of that "opinion" demonstrably results in illness and death of others.
Autism can and does run in families but I don't know if there is a gene or genes you can check for it.
We don't because autism isn't a single thing as far as we can tell and we don't even have a clear definition of what it is. Any time you hear the word "syndrome" what that really means is that we have a collection of symptoms that we have observed seem to run together but we don't know much about the cause or pathology of them. Autism is clearly a real thing but we don't understand it terribly well and we certainly don't know the cause(s). Genetics seems to play a role but the nature of that role is still being determined.
Wow, you're a real idiot - you've reposted effectively this same bullshit several times throughout the comments. There ARE studies of efficacy and safety. Not only that, they can be found published on numerous health authority websites throughout the world. You can find them on google if you bother. You are posting bullshit, and the bullshit you post, if believed, has the potential to kill children.
If not vaccinating only affected the stupid people who didn't vaccinate, I'd agree with you. However, not vaccinating puts people at risk who either can't be vaccinated (due to age or illness) or whose vaccines didn't "take" (vaccines are 99% effective but there's 1% who get vaccinated and aren't protected). Usually, those who can't be vaccinated or whose vaccines didn't prove effective are protected by everyone whose vaccines are working. This is called herd immunity. But if more and more people choose not to vaccinate, they weaken herd immunity and the at risk groups who didn't have a choice in the matter can get sick or die.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
your taking medical advice from a web site that has this disclaimer: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/sarah/disclaimer/
you fucking idiot!.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
Pretty much a textbook example of what happens when unvaccinated and not fully vaccinated individuals are placed in an environment with carriers.
Apparentley there is no more freedom in opinion in Australia, and also no more freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech does not apply here. Conscious misrepresentation of known and proven facts by medical practitioners who should know better is called malpractice. It's a crime with real consequences for good reason. They are literally harming patients by spreading provably false and dangerous information. People who do that should at minimum lose their license to practice medicine and if anyone is demonstrably harmed they should go to jail for their actions.
Gardasil is by far less dangerous than not being vaccinated (with Gardasil) against HPV.
I care about you vaccinating your kids, not because I'm worried about my vaccinated kids, but because I could well have been one of your kids and I wouldn't want to have been the unlucky kid of an anti-vaxxer who suffered permanent disability because of your idiocy. The same reason I don't want you to be a violent drunk and bash your kids, or to mutilate them as is customary in parts of the world. Until these kinds of idiotic mindsets are eradicated from the world, someone will grow up suffering the consequences of their bad parents foolishness, and they deserve better than that.
that site's "sarah" tells people to use "homopathetic vaccines"
the idiocy is stong in this one
Are you or have you ever been an anti-vaxxer?
If yes, you are blacklisted.
I'm a little undecided on that point. Prior actions should not represent the company you are being hired into, but this may not be true if those opinions remain on public display after you are hired. In this age of anything you say on the internet staying on the internet, what you say has long term, and sometimes unexpected, consequences.
If I go on a major internet rant about how GM is owned by the government and a horrible company, I wouldn't be too surprised if GM does not want to hire me. I'm free to rant all I want about them but I would need to accept the consequence of this activity. Free speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of what I say.
It is sad people like you exist, you express opinions that try to masquerade as logic, you have gapping holes in your understanding and logic, your facts are anything but facts. Herd immunity is about ensuring enough of the population is vaccinated so that those who can't or those that are still too young to be vaccinated aren't at considerable risk. Herd immunity breaks down and fails if people that can safely have the vaccination choose not too as insufficient percentage of the population is then unvaccinated and things like measles cannot be kept at bay. Hence the recent rises in whooping cough, measles etc.
please don't discourage him, his willingness to take that advise is part of natural selection.The unfortunate thing though is he risks others lives in te process. wish we could give these people their own island, then a in a decade when they are all wiped out by something like smallpox we can point to that as proof of what happens when you think science is wrong based on what you have read on some kooks blog.
Herd immunity is the concept that with a sufficiently high enough level of vaccination a disease is unable to move effectively from one host to another due to a lack of hosts. Via this mechanism, individuals who are unable to receive the vaccine (due to a negative reaction or not being old enough) or individuals in which the vaccine does not take (it happens) are still protected from the disease. This threshold varies based on the disease in question but here's some common ones. Influenza (33-44%), Ebola (33-60%), SARS (50-80%), Mumps (75-86%), Polio (80-86%), Smallpox (80-86%), Rubella (83-86%), Diptheria (83-86%), Pertussis (92-94%), Measles (92-95%).
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
If you rant about GM, like I frequently do even before government interference, then yes you probably can't be hired by GM. However, Ford would be more than willing to hire you.
What he was talking about is if you have an opinion against GM because it is owned by the government, you are not allowed to work at ANY car company as mandated by the government. I don't have a problem if a hospital refuses to hire you because you are an anti-vaxxer, but the government saying you are not allowed to work because of that is WRONG, and really not debatable.
Remember, during McCarthism, the government never blacklisted anyone, Hollywood studios did. So this proposal is actually far WORSE. This is just a bunch of whiney little people who can't debate and decided oppression is better.
Accept, this isn't about not working at a single company. This is not being to work in your trained profession at all.
I'm honestly curious about what both sides think on this situation.
My only slightly educated (as in what I read on the internet, I am a software developer, not a medical researcher) is as follows (numbers partially made up based on what I've read).
In brief searches I'm not finding the smallpox infection rate so I'm assuming 1% of the population. Fatality rates depending on the strain are 1-60%. So at best, 1 in 10,000 people would die from smallpox in their life, at worst 1 in 166 would die. Averaging to perhaps 1 in 1000? Additionally I assume that the 1 in 100 people infected run the risk of life long impact of the disease.
Vaccines are shown to have life threatening reactions in 5 in 10,000 people but these typically occur where doctors can treat the reaction and result in 1 in 1,000,000 people dying from the vaccine. Further, 1 in 1000 have some sort of non fatal reaction. The non fatal reaction seriously sucks but living with the results of the reaction is better than dying and would still appear to be less likely as a result of being vaccinated than the likelihood of a long term impact of smallpox if never having been vaccinated.
So what are the other points of view here? Again, not claiming any of my numbers are correct but I think they are in the ballpark of scientific study on the subject.
Well, seeing as how they aren't practicing "medicine" in the first place, this doesn't seem much of a punishment.
They are doing more harm than good by discouraging vaccination.
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
> chances are A) they'll be fine and ideally B) The disease will disappear.
Chances? Yes, most people will be fine but some unlucky ones will be completely fucked for the rest of their life. This is a scientific fact.
And thinking that the disease will disappear is folly. It may become less common but it will not disappear completely. Most likely it will mutate and the current vaccinations will become ineffective anyway. Then it's time for another jab, and another game of Russian roulette...
And if someone isn't vaccinated and you are, then who cares? Even if someone close to you gets smallpox and you are vaccinated, you will be fine (or so you will believe).
People have a right to decide what is best for them. Government and corporations have no business mandating what people put into their bodies.
With more people unprotected, the disease also has more opportunities to mutate into a form that can bypass the vaccine's protection.
(because no medicine as a category, is categorically safe)
Right, because if it were categorically safe, it would be listed as a food, rather than a drug and would not need to be a controlled substance. The hope is that the medicine does less harm than the benefit it provides. All vaccines, antibiotics, pain killers, etc. are unsafe, but when used correctly, they provide a better alternative than not using them.
With vaccines, you are injecting a person with a harmful and dangerous virus (that should have been neutered to some degree) in hopes that their immune system will respond like an "average" immune system and self-develop a defense response. However, if the patient's immune response has been compromised, then you are doing more harm than good by vaccinating. There has been a call for breaking apart the MMR into its constituent components and deliver it spaced out because of patients who did not respond as expected to the cocktail since it overwhelmed their immune system and cause side-effects similar to what it was supposed to defend against. While this is far from "banning all vaccines", it tends to get lumped into that category by both side of the argument and drives both side further apart.
We have this idea in free society that people are entitled to their own opinions and the government should not force people to believe one thing or another. And it’s not like we lack precedents where totalitarian governments actively suppress ideas that might disrupt their regime. So we do need to keep in mind that indvidual people should be free to be wrong and be assholes. That kid in the gorilla costume at Tennessee State was an asshole, but should he be brought up on criminial charges? We need to ensure that “assholes” are not summarily suppressed. Richard Dawkins acts like an asshole but he’s still right about evolution.
Now, when it comes to these nurses, the situation is entirely different. They are entitled to their *personal* opinion. But this is a matter of professional activity. In their capacities as nurses (even on their own time), they represent their employers. As a CS professor, I could be dismissed for a wide range of inappropriate behaviors in my “personal life,” including hooking up with an undergrad and making offensive and racist statements on social media. I can maintain my right to express an opinion, and my employer can exercise their right to not be associated with someone who does not represent their core values. (Although, I will say that I’ve heard that BYU won’t grant tenure to anyone who they see as not sufficiently “Mormon,” and I think that’s reprehensible, so there is some room for debate on this, which is why we have courts.)
There’s also not much room on this subject for “personal opinion.” Science doesn’t have answers for everything, but all attempts to show a solid link between vaccines and autism have failed, and those attempts have been numerous. This isn’t based on a single publication with no replication studies. This topic has been beaten to death. It be shown that their statements are factually wrong. They are also not researchers in this area. If they were, then they would be in a position to conduct further studies to see if they could prove a link. Instead, they are just talking out their arses.
Even more important, they are putting people in danger. And that’s what this is all about. The benefits of vaccines are not in dispute, and the risks are minimal and nebulous. When your scientific illiteracy puts people in danger, you need to be stopped.
I think I have been at least partially swayed by your argument, though probably not in the way you intended. Given their is no law stating that vaccination is mandatory, arguing against it is fully legal so should not affect employment in the health fields. My feelings as of the moment is instead of black listing health care professionals for the anti vaccine opinion, the government should pass a law mandating vaccination. Then health care professionals pushing anti vaccination would be breaking the law.
This forces the government to enforce the stance legally, rather than black listing for an opinion that is not illegal. This of course is my 5 minute poorly thought out opinion. It may have holes large enough to sail a battleship through.
Not to mention I drank most of a Mountain Dew Code Red this morning which tends to result in me saying things before I think them out fully. Doesn't necessarily change my opinion but often results in an inability to fully explain said opinions. Caffeine is a is a evil insidious productivity enhancer.
Actually Nurses know what is going on much more than what doctors do.
I highly doubt that is true for the ones advocating against vaccines.
Why would Trump want to kill all his own voters ? Does not sound like a good way to get re-election... If all the stupid people in America die, Trump gets zero votes.
Yes. zero. You didn't think he or the people who work for his campaign are actually stupid enough to vote for Trump did you ? The Donald is dumb, but he aint dumb enough to vote for himself !
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It is so typical that this negative term is used for people who are critical of the benefits of vaccination.
It should be called Pro-Disease.
Which was when I stopped wanting people to vote for her. OF course, that was when it still looked like the republican nominee would be a typical republican fuckup at worse - not the guy who wants to see the world burn.
At that point, I became pretty anti-any-third-party. You guys are literally voting on the future existence of hte human race, please don't vote for the guy who WILL bring about the extinction of our species.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
the brilliant and promising Dr. Andrew Wakefield
The only thing Wakefield was promising was profit from his own alt-vaccine endeavors. His research has been as thoroughly examined--and as throughly debunked--as just about anything in medicine. There's no global cabal behind this. The science is in, and the "big red flag" is not a conspiracy theorist's recitation. It's the numerous independent determinations by medical professionals around the world that Wakefield's results were the result of scientific fraud, and not a reflection of medical truth.
/., but you don't strike me as a troll. And I dont think there's enough cotton in the world to stuff in your ears that you could still honestly believe Wakefield anything other than a criminally negligent huckster. So... enjoy your checks?
However, you probably already know this, because you seem to be interested in the subject. So I'm left with the conclusion that you're either a) willfully ignorant, b) a very subtle troll who thinks the return of vaccine-preventable diseases would be funny, or c) a shill.
I hate it when people toss the word "shill" around on
Nothing posted to
Are you or have you ever been an anti-vaxxer? If yes, you are blacklisted.
McCarthism was persecuting people for political beliefs which had nothing to do with their job performance. Being an anti-vaxxer in the face of the overwhelming medical evidence that supports vaccines calls into question the ability of the person to be a medical professional.
This. It's not that (or not only that, at least) more people are dying of cancer, or even of specific cancers in this day and age; it's a combination of things like 'instead of having ten people dying of 'consumption' or 'old age' we now break it out into specific cancers' and 'well, a hundred years ago, they usually died of something else, first.'
And yeah, until very recently, kids were 'shy' or 'withdrawn' and would have undesirable traits beaten out of them; metaphorically or literally.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Immediate dismissal and revocation of qualifications. They are at risk of sabotaging medical procedures.
He said ideally the disease would disappear, but in order to achieve that goal you need to insure everyone who can gets vaccinated. As for people deciding what is best for them there were plenty of people who did not want to wear seat belts.
How is this still a thing. I suspect that most of the anti-vaxx comments are coming from midwives as opposed to actual nurses. I know someone who is a big proponent of midwifery, and it is all about the vegan, all natural, oatmeal, tree birth using unicorn tears and good karma if you get my drift. These would be the same people arguing for homeopathy as alternative medicine. Lets call a spade a spade and say that these folks fall into the category of snake oil salesmen (though not all, and those that are may be good intentioned not sinister opportunists) rather than actual medical professionals.
I mean it basically says "lets throw away hundreds of years of medical advances and do it the old medieval way!" because that makes a lot of sense, are we really surprised that the same people might think vaccinations are the work of the devil?
Actually, they aren't entitled to express their opinion when they are a licensed professional in their field and that opinion puts people's lives and health at risk.
What a brilliant rebuttal. Very scientific. Spoken like a true believer, more like.
The Deadly Impossibility Of Herd Immunity Through Vaccination, by Dr. Russell Blaylock
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/
I recieved more vaccines then I can count in the military. I watched everyone else in my unit recieve all of the same vaccines. I never saw or heard of anyone having any complications other then the standard sore muscle in arm and the small pox scabbing up.
I received along with everyone else.
dtap
mmr
yellow fever
anthrax
small pox
more flue shots then you can count
and more.
In fact the anthrax one made me money later when I was selling my plasma, my plasma was worth more then twice the standard persons (over 500 a month for twice weekly visits), and that actually probably kept me from becoming homeless.
Double blind study of sufficient size epidemiologically speaking versus history with sufficient size epidemiologically speaking. I think history is more than a good enough basis of evidence in the case of the measeles vaccine. You did say any vaccine, and if you like we can discuss polio next.
Quick note: I don't believe in the all vaccines are great but I do accept as fact that certain vaccines have been proven to be of greater benefit to both individuals and groups than their proven side-effects.
Before the widespread use of the measles vaccine, its incidence was so high that infection with measles was felt to be "as inevitable as death and taxes."[8] In the United States, reported cases of measles fell from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands per year following introduction of the vaccine in 1963 (see chart at right). Increasing uptake of the vaccine following outbreaks in 1971 and 1977 brought this down to thousands of cases per year in the 1980s. An outbreak of almost 30,000 cases in 1990 led to a renewed push for vaccination and the addition of a second vaccine to the recommended schedule. Fewer than 200 cases were reported each year from 1997 to 2013, and the disease was believed no longer endemic in the United States.[9][10][11] In 2014, 610 cases were reported.[12] Roughly 30 cases were diagnosed in January 2015, likely originating from exposure near Anaheim, California in late December 2014.
The benefit of measles vaccination in preventing illness, disability, and death has been well documented. The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths.[13] During 1999–2004, a strategy led by the World Health Organization and UNICEF led to improvements in measles vaccination coverage that averted an estimated 1.4 million measles deaths worldwide.[14] The vaccine for measles has led to the near-complete elimination of the disease in the United States and other developed countries.[15] It was introduced in 1963.[16] These impressive reductions in death and long-range after-effectiveness were initially achieved with a live virus version of the vaccine that itself caused side effects, although these are far fewer and less serious than the sickness and death caused by measles itself. While preventing many deaths and serious illnesses, the live virus version of the vaccine did cause side effects in a small percentage of recipients, ranging from rashes to, rarely, convulsions.[17]
Measles is common worldwide. Although it was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000, high rates of vaccination and excellent communication with those who refuse vaccination are needed to prevent outbreaks and sustain the elimination of measles in the U.S.[18] Of the 66 cases of measles reported in the U.S. in 2005, slightly over half were attributable to one unvaccinated individual who acquired measles during a visit to Romania.[19] This individual returned to a community with many unvaccinated children. The resulting outbreak infected 34 people, mostly children and virtually all unvaccinated; 9% were hospitalized, and the cost of containing the outbreak was estimated at $167,685. A major epidemic was averted due to high rates of vaccination in the surrounding communities.[18]
The live vaccine has non specific effects such as preventing respiratory infections that may be greater than those of measles prevention. These benefits were greater when used before a year of age. A high titre vaccine resulted in worse outcomes in girls and thus is no longer recommended by the world health organization.[20] As measles causes upper respiratory disease that leads to complications of pneumonia and bronchitis, measles vaccine is beneficial to reduce exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine
Are you or have you ever been an anti-vaxxer? If yes, you are blacklisted.
Sounds like you think resorting to McCarthism is ok as long as you agree with the reasons for it.
Its "McCarthyism", and such an interesting term since the head of the anti-vaxxer movement is one Jenny McCarthy, a woman who isn't a doctor, and her main claim to fame is that she has photos taken of her while not wearing clothing.
You mistake politics for science. "McCarthyism" was a modern day witch hunt, using early cold-war paranoia about communism to advance a political carreer. It destryed the lives of a number of people, including it's perpetrator.
Anti-vaxxing is an unscientific plan to take advantage of the emotional aspects of children with disabilities by blaming it on an unrelated activity. Oddly enough, it ignores that unvaccinated children sometimes die as a result of its adherents.
It isn't politics - its science.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Being an anti-vax nurse is like being a politician with a platform that government can't be effective.
Of course the anti-vaccination thing is ridiculous but that is irrelevant. First of all nobody should face any repercussion for something they say on Facebook, at least not beyond more words from people who read it. Second, people are entitled to hold and share whatever misguided and incorrect view they please particularly when doing so as a private citizen speaking to their friends even when we apply that concept as loosely as in Facebook and no we don't have to pretend we aren't a nurse or doctor when doing so. Finally, they are going the final step and requesting everyone's neighbors inform on them. Terrible. You may not know your neighbor well, you may not like your neighbor, but neighbors should still be allies against common enemies like government and police. Police look for any and every excuse they can think of to ruin someone's life and livelihood when they get called unless something requires half-cocked and rabid armed wolves decending on your neighborhood because you lack the firepower to protect yourself, you shouldn't call them. Snitches are still bad m'kay.
"Promoting false, misleading or deceptive information is an offense under national law and is prosecutable by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency."
TRUTH: There's constant lying on both sides.
These facts are true:
* There's people that have been saved by vaccines.
* There are people that have been killed or whose health has been destroyed by vaccines.
The big truth is science is complicated.
Where any treatment's pros outweigh it's cons, then it should be used in the most appropriate way. But for the sub-population that is extremely likely to have severe reactions, then alternate measures should be used. Unfortunately this rarely happens and many people die or hurt from treatments, including some vaccine cases, that they should have never been given.
Many reports show that Cuba (of all places right?) has one of the most successful vaccine programs with the least amount of severe reactions. Cuba's vaccine program is implemented by it's not-for-profit government agency to reduce health costs.
Compare that with the US. It's for "profit-by-any-means", even lying and skewing of test results, which we've seen companies do time and time again. It's billions of dollars, which is a lot of pressure for employees and management at companies to have drugs and vaccines to be profitable.
I have a friend (she was only 18, but otherwise in excellent health) who was on a newer medicine and died from it. 5 years later it was found the company lied about various risk factors, and it now has a black box warning. My friend was in the subpopulation group for that new warning. If that warning had only been there originally, then it would have never been prescribed to her. As long as profit is the main motivator, health will come secondary to profit and people will needlessly die.
His research has been peer reviewed and approved of, not 'debunked' before it was published.
His research clearly pointed to a relationship between being early in life vaccinated with the MMR cocktail and autism spectrum disorder, or rather the bowel disease that occurred as a result, as he was merely a bowel specialist when he got involved. He just presented his findings and found out the hard way, just like Dr Semmelweiss, that going against the medical establishment and her believes can kill you. In the case of Semmelweiss that was literally the case, in the case of Wakefield and his co-author prof. John Walker-Smith it was the death of their medical career through the actions of the GMC, the UK’s medical regulatory board.
John Walker-Smith apparently had the money to fight the decision in court and convincingly won.
The judge, Justice John Mitting, said that its (GMC's) conclusions were based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion." Of course the same would have applied to Wakefield had he appealed.
So, what is going on here? There is a highly profitable vaccination industry on which various institutions and publishers (including the BMj--British Medical Journal) depend for their income and those institutions and publishers can be used to destroy opponents of that industry if they might threaten their bottom line.
In the case of Seralini it was Elsevier who retracted--against its own standards--his scientific paper, and in the case of Wakefield/Walker-Smith it was the GMC and BMJ. Their is no global cabal, just some highly influential 'global players' who happen to belong to the category of pharmaceutical industry.
Now. to address your qualification of me.
a) I don't consider myself ignorant, but your mileage may vary.
b) disease is never funny, but having the life of your child thoroughly destroyed in an attempt to ward off a mostly harmless although inconvenient infectious desease isn't so funny either. Therefore it is my opinion that parents should have the right and authority to decide whether or not they trust the medical establishment enough to submit their children to that risk.
c) a shill I'm most certainly not. Nobody is paying me or asking or pushing me to vent this opinion of mine. Medical establishment has made errors and always will and is a weapon in the hands of the medical industry in order to defend their bottom line.
What I hate is the medical establishment (or whatever establishment for that matter) controlling a whole population through some mantra and willfully destroying the lives of some victims for their own profits. And believe me, they will literally kill for that.
Every newly introduced and approved vaccine means an additional income of a billion dollars or so. Per year.
The implication that I think it's 'funny' if someone gets polio because I say that it might be good to separate the measles inoculation from the MMR and give it at a later age (as Wakefield merely suggested) is a very stupid suggestion. Oh, and by the way, speaking of polio, ever read the work of Dr Frederick R. Klenner? I guess not...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I care. I care for others, not just myself.
Smallpox? That'll be the disease that was eradicated in 1980 due to widespread inoculation. Despite your claim, there are several diseases that no longer exist.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Andrew Wakefield was against the MMR vaccine because he had a vested financial incentive in the separate vaccinations. It's been proven that he falsified data to support his claims.
Cant wait for the inevitable punishment for someone trying to draw attention to a vaccine actually doing damage to the population, only to be prosecuted by the request of the companies that make the vaccine.
I get everyone's hatred of luddites but, such a blanket ban on free speech from people who may see the result of a problem in their field is very dangerous.
Shall we maintain the flying license of airline pilots who insist the earth is flat? If you insist of maintaining your prior beliefs in face or tremendous documented evidence, then perhaps you should consider some other profession.
I like armchair historians...
Senator Joe McCarthy looked for Soviet Communists in the US State Department only. He had a list, non-confirmed and he was forced to hand over against his wishes. His list only had State Department employees. A few years ago, declassified info showed we had about 200 Soviet agents in the State Department at the time, McCarthy's list had 160 or so of them correctly identified.
Lives being destroyed was by HUAC (House of UnAmerican Activities), McCarthy was a Senator and had nothing to do with it. HUAC was run by the DNC and destroyed lives of people outside of government, again McCarthy had nothing to do with it.
So instead of lecturing me on history, perhaps you could read a book and learn something instead of spewing nonsense lies.
Government barring people from working based on their viewpoints is immoral. The fact you tried to spin HUAC as unacceptable and banning nurses is ok, while using lies, shows that you cannot justify your position with honest debate. McCarthism never banned anyone from working, but this now does.
If you can't be honest, or know what you are talking about, you will lose every debate every time.
We do have large private hospital system. In this case, it is not the government, but the nurses board, which covers both private and govt employed nurses registration.
So if a nurse, who is "in the trenches" everyday and sees adverse reactions to drugs, vaccines and other procedures everyday first-hand, and they can't speak out against it, what does that show/mean?
It means that nobody can criticize something they see that is bad, which leads the public to believe that the "science on vaccines is settled".
first of all, nothing is ever settled
second, if you can't criticize something, then you will never find out what is wrong with it
this is why we have a growing anti-vax movement, that is being covered up by the media - #CDCWhistleblower - yes, William Thompson is an actual person and he said that CDC scientists found a link between MMR and autism in black boys and they threw out some data and changed the way they looked at the data to hide this fact.
So, if you disagree with someone, that's fine, and it you don't disagree with anybody, then you aren't thinking. The mind only works when it is open.
and go and take a booster for every single vaccine that you want a small child to take, ask the doctor to give you all vaccines on the same day and to give you a weight-adjusted dose, not a small dose "intended" for a toddler. Do that, and then maybe you will experience an adverse reaction and know what it feels like.
How quickly you toss the constitution out the window when there is something you disagree with.
Stating that all vaccines are safe for all ages in all situations is patently false and is "promoting false, misleading or deceptive information" so these official control groups should prosecute and fine themselves. Here is one case: Up until a few years ago the U.S. CDC said that pregnant women and children under a certain age (I believe it was either 9 or 6 months) should not get the flu vaccine. There was a reason for this position. Now they have changed that in order to promote their position that vaccines are completely safe for everyone. The result is higher seasonal miscarriage rates, according to the CDC's own statistics. As another example, immunologists know that giving vaccines to infants before their immune systems are developed enough (which may be as late as 9 or 12 months) is at best useless, and may actually cause a rise in autoimmune diseases in subsequent years. As a third example, there is a reason that testing of many vaccines is performed in typically poverty-stricken places like eastern Europe or India -- when people die it isn't as expensive to "fix". The testing weeds out major problems that will appear within hours or days, but not necessarily those that will manifest in months or years when it becomes much more difficult to determine the originating cause. As a forth example, the temporary immunity derived from vaccines is qualitatively different from natural immunity, and there is absolutely nothing in the vaccine development methodology that guarantees a vaccine which successfully stimulates the immune system will not have other totally separate undesirable side effects that may not manifest for quite some time. Is stating these facts an "anti-vaxx" position?
Is there any case where midwives need to give mothers or babies vaccines? Is there any case where mothers-to-be *can't* go to someone else for a vaccine that they want? Is there any case where a midwife's position on vaccines actually affects their ability to deliver a baby? No? Then why persecute the midwives? The only reason is that the government or medical establishment thinks the common people are "too stupid" to ever be exposed to dissenting opinions.
How does a doctor's position on vaccines affect their ability to correctly prescribe medications for common illnesses, their ability to perform surgeries, their ability to interpret diagnostic tests, or any of the other activities doctors perform day-to-day? Saying that a doctor's or nurse's opinion on one very narrow subject invalidates their knowledge and abilities in all other areas is like saying every programmer that doesn't know or like the current hottest language or development fad should be barred from programming. This is as stupid as the current push in the U.S. to force all medical students to perform abortions as a requirement for becoming a doctor. In other words, this is pure politics imposing itself on medicine.
Again it is NOT the govt, it is the nursing board which covers the registration of both private and govt nurses. When they sign for registration, they agree to follow the boards professional standards. If they dont like it, they should find a new profession.
Calm down man.
We are talking about people venting their opinion on the social media while they are medical professionals.
It's not that there's a nurse in the office telling you go home and better not to vaccinate your child.
And I think they do have the right to vent their opinion freely.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Have you ever seen scientific study of the full schedule of vaccines in a double blind?
No and you haven't either. Conducting such a study would be hugely unethical because it would involve exposing large numbers of people to preventable diseases with known means of prevention. Double blind studies are ideal when possible but there are plenty of other valid means of studying diseases without resorting to double blind studies.
A vaccine may be safe, but the full schedule of vaccines has NEVER been studied.
Not true at all. It has been studied extensively. Furthermore there is substantial empirical evidence than any safety concerns about the full schedule of vaccines is a very small effect if it exists at all.
Now, tell me. where is the actual science on the full schedule of vaccines?
In the clinical studies for each and every vaccine and diseases that could conceivably be related to their administration. I suggest you go speak to an epidemiologist since you are in need of a clue about this. I'm sure they'll be happy to fill you in.
In other words, do you have scientific proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Until then, you're just sciency not scientific.
Yes we do have proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Scientific proof in the form of a measurably healthier populace and hugely reduced incidence of disease with barely any measurable side effects despite copious studies about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
The golden standard of 'medical science' is the randomly controlled double blind trial in an epidemiologically significant part of society.
Now I'm going to wake you up to the sad reality that there is no such trial that demonstrates both effectivity and safety of Merck's MMR vaccine.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Yes. But in an age of technocratic fraud, ignorance sometimes really is as good as "knowledge".
There are two elements to public faith in science. Reliability and trust. Science is reliable in the main, but the public is becoming increasingly more mistrustful of institutions and authorities. And I can't say I blame them.
It's no good to simply say "Science works", when it exists in a society where fraud, and in particular "cargo-cult science", e.g. economics, is rampant, pervasive, and destructively adopted. You cannot divorce the public's declining faith in vaccines, etc, from their cynicism towards banks, politicians, and information sources. It's not even the case that science itself is entirely innocent. We could go on about "social sciences" or dietary science, but hey, look at the BICEP2 project. There's only lon you can dismiss cases like these people realising your trust-quota with the public is being eroded.
tl;dr People are getting cynical. Don't blame it all on anti-intellectualism. It's a mass coping strategy.
That would be true only if his main opponent wasn't so evil. I prefer a narsissic clown over an evil proven warmonger.
Trump has a much more isolationists agenda than proven warmonger (Lybia, Ukraine, Arab spring) Clinton. I think the chances of some stupid projects being started by the government are larger with president Trump, but the chances of starting some more wars of aggression are hugely larger with president Clinton.
Ah, thats it let the butt hurt flw sTrumpet, you backed a loser.
Now your so paranoid your seeing what is not there.
Im loving every post from you morons.
Stop confusing things with facts and logic.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I also have no idea what you mean by a guy who was (and still is) trying to promote his own vaccination method.
It could be that you are hinting at Dr. Andrew Wakefield who publicly suggested separating the measles vaccination from the MMR vaccin and giving it 6 months later in order to decrease the amount of autism cases.
I'm also totally at a loss why that would be such a bad advice.
And where, by the way, is the randomly controlled double blind trial in an epidemiologically relevant part of society that shows both the efficacy and the safety of the MMR vaccin?
After carefully profiling your character I decided to come up with a link out of a New York Times article that you might accept as genuine:
Like many vaccines, Prevnar requires multiple jabs. Each shot is priced at $136, and most states require children to get four doses before entering day care or preschool. Pfizer, the sole manufacturer, had revenues of nearly $4 billion from its Prevnar vaccine line last year...
Further I think that there must be something wrong with your be-ing rather than with my e key, which was a mere typo.
There is no provenly safe jab. And therefore parents should have the right to decide, and also healthcare professionals should have the right to vent their opinions.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
You have a right to your own opinions, no matter how ill-founded they may be.
You do not have a right to your own "facts", especially when in a position of authority. Feels do not trump research, and medical practitioners should know better.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Gardasil (which is far less safe than most vaccines)
How's that? Do you have links to new studies? The whole of Rwanda would probably be grateful for the information, as most girls are already vaccinated there.
because we can trust the Polio
Polio vaccine wasn't always as safe as it is now. In the early days the vaccine contained the virus itself, leading to polio for some of the vaccinated.
This is a fun new anti-science claim by anti-vaxxers. It's a complete red herring. It fails to account for ethics, and for the effectiveness of statistics and other scientific tools.
http://www.skepticalob.com/2009/10/latest-argument-of-vaccine.html
There's plenty of evidence-backed science proving the effectiveness of vaccines. The most compelling of this is how, you know, there isn't a need for Polio wards any more. Some of this evidence was indeed proven in placebo-controlled double blind trials. There's about a dozen listed in the following link, and I can find a dozen more with a quick websearch. Perhaps no one study demonstrates both safety and effectiveness, but that's completely unnecessary. EVERY vaccine is clinically trialed for both.
https://www.quora.com/Has-vaccine-safety-been-proven-in-placebo-controlled-clinical-trials-If-so-where-can-I-find-the-data
The ones not using science are those blindly accepting anti-vaxx claims without even bothering to look for answers. Seriously. 1 minute on Google. Less time than it takes to write the denial.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nine-questions-nine-answers/
Bring your kids in when they've got measles, mumps, rubella, polio, whooping cough, ... if they have no records of vaccination, they get no health care. Go home and deal with it yourself, since you think you know more than over a century of medicine does. We'll be sure to follow with a few police cars to ensure your quarantine is secured once home.
Cruel perhaps, but less cruel than allowing their little germ-pods to continue to mill amongst the thousands of people they have willingly, and needlessly, exposed to wholly preventable diseases.
At least if you are a professional in a field.
Because I would expect my professional to be at the level of current science and technology. I do expect my mechanic to think that sand isn't the best lubricant for my gear box, I do expect my doctor to know that it's not a good idea to sprinkle holy water that he got from the holy pond in his garden into my open chest wound and I do expect my IT security guy to know that it's not a good idea to let the new server sit on the ley line in front of our HQ for a night to absorb the good energies.
If you want to believe that, great. But get out of your field of work before you do. If you want to offer "alternative" stuff, move into that profession instead. I am sure there is a market for that too, else people would not have invented that snake oil. But if you are my nurse and responsible for working on my child, I do fucking EXPECT you to give him or her that MMR shots and not avoid it because you "don't believe in it".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"this is proof that you can't even have an alternative opinion"
Not without facts.
science it about facts not unsubstantiated opinions.
Use your State giving title as the proof for you personal opinions then the state should pull it.
Private Citizens can still question that grass is green.
Professional liability applies outside of office hours and applies to your entire field.
In a field where you are a certified professional you ONLY have freedom of opinion on matters where the facts are unknown, if there are facts, you are bound to those facts by virtue of being a certified professional.
Don't like it - you have the freedom to STOP being a certified professional and then you can spout whatever bullshit you like without fear of any repurcussions beyond mockery.
Considering that a nurse who expresses anti-vaxx news has just publicly advertised her complete and utterly incompetence, firing her is just responsible practise. No you can NOT be a competent medical professional AND an anti-vaxxer. It's a scientific field, scientific facts literally define what is or is not competent.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
There are plenty wrong with Clinton - and she will almost certainly launch at least one new war. But at least HER war won't be a nuclear war.
You're a fucking idiot if you would give the fuckign nuclear launch codes to a 'narcisistic clown'. You don't give those to anybody who is not VERY thick-skinned.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You call 4% (USA) a 'small percentage'?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
With dismissal. is that all?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Public advocacy of anti-vax should be treated as prima facie evidence of incompetence, a reliable predictor for malpractice, and an immediate cause for removal from any involvement in medical practice.
sorry, my main language is portuguese: is firing (job) related?
"Poorly thought out" is an extreme understatement.
There are no known "facts" regarding the safety of the full vaccine schedule
You've said that elsewhere and it's still bullshit. There are is plenty of evidence and research about that exact thing and I've given you links in other threads. You just can't be bothered to look for any of it. Stop it with your nonsense. You are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
If the medical field followed your beliefs bloodletting would still be a common practice and speaking of germs would mean loosing your medical license.
Your ignorance is the worst possible kind of ignorance, absolute belief that you are right.
If a police officer said that the best part of his job was "clubbing uppity N---s" on Facebook, don't you think he should lose his job? I'm not for punishing even idiot racists with jailtime for their beliefs, but certainly certain professions require certain standards.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Nope, that's no where near "McCarthyism". It's more like the National Football League banning a player that keeps digging huge holes in the pitch. (A pitch is another word for the gamefield you play on, if any readers aren't aware of that particular term.)
Despite your claim, there are several diseases that no longer exist.
Only smallpox and rinderpest have been eradicated and rinderpest is not a human disease. Polio is close at 74 new cases reported in 2015 all of which were type 1. Type 2 cases were last reported in 1999 and the last reported type 3 case was in 2012. Only Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria are not considered polio free.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
And where do you see anyone doing this? I read an hour of news a day, with anti-vaxxers a regular part of that diet. You are literally the first person I have heard of to suggest that someone is berating people for not using the Anthrax vaccine.
The worldwide discussion that Anti-Vaxxers keep trying to bring up are standard childhood vaccines - MMR, Polio, TDAP, Flu shot.
My daughter and I have PDD, which was added to the spectrum in 2012. It has a range, but it is generally a bit higher functioning than Asperger's, and my daughter and I seem to have a great deal more empathy than both people with Asperger's and neuro-typical people. Just an interesting observation. If it wasn't inherited the odds of us both having the same one would be pretty far out, although obviously not impossible.
Ahh yes, it always ends up in a conspiracy theory... despite the measles vaccine not actually making any money, especially not next to vitamin supplements and erection pills.
And that conspiracy theory is what points out the rest of your post as complete and total bollocks. You have no niece, just soundbites from an anti-vaxxer site.
I have a nephew, I'm glad my sister has made sure he has had the full suite of vaccines required for him. Why? because I've actually seen people disfigured from Polio because they weren't lucky enough to be born in a first world country like me. Vihn's parents didn't get the luxury of refusing a vaccine whilst being protected from debilitating illnesses by the rest who are not so selfish. Nope, Vihn got Polio because 30 years ago in Vietnam, vaccines were rare things, yes only 30 years ago.
Polio cases dropped from 350,000 in 1988 to just 74 in 2015. Vaccines alone did this.
If we stopped vaccinations for measles alone, the cases would increase by 60% worldwide... We'd be looking at more like 90% in developed nations as that 60% figure includes developing nations without extensive vaccination programs (mainly due to local problems like wars and oppressive governments, its getting access to people that's the problem). So I'll give your the benefit of the doubt, consider what your daughter went through and then look out side and tell me, say aloud to yourself... I think 9 more children should have to go through what my niece did. 9 more parents should have to suffer like my siblings did.
But you wont, because it would mean questioning your beliefs. I'll just leave this here:
http://www.unicef.org/pon96/hevaccin.htm
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I just don't go putting my dick in every meth whore I run into. Maybe you should try that.
And there I was thinking you at least were not a paranoid nutjob.
Ignore above, brain fade.
How nurses are concluding a child did not have autism until after a vaccine. I am curious to learn their methods of determining this, especially at 6 months of age. Is there a special test they use that helps them know the 6 month old had or didn't have autism? Thanks.
> Give me one randomised double blind controlled trial of sufficient size epidemiologically speaking, that proves both efficacy and safety of any vaccine compared to a pure placebo, like pure distilled water.
1972: black variola / smallpox outbreak in Yugoslavia. A total of 184 people got infected and 35 of them died (admitted, but probaby more than that due to extensive cover-up). Zero cases in the northern neighbour Hungary, despite 300 miles / 500 km common border. Both countries were communist, but Hungary was an ethnically homogenous country where 99.8% of people were covered by mandatory vaccination, while any vaccine was optional in Yugoslava and most of its muslim ethnic minorities had none in the mountains.
After a few weeks of futile effort at eradication, Yugoslavia let in the UN WHO and on their advice emergency vaccinated 18-20 million people under one month of military curfew, thus stopping the epidemic. This incident led the WHO to initiate a global campaign at smallpox eradication, which was realized by encircling any reported hot spot with a wide ring of fully vaccinated hamlets.
Ah, anti vax propaganda lie 7 eh.
This one is easy, even in societies still without the hygienic, medical, nutrition advantages of the modern societies, vaccines prevent those diseases.
If you had done the slightest amount of genuine research, you would have known this already.
No such trial does not mean there is no evidence or a conspiracy to hide something. Often it is difficult to run certain tests in medical environments in a controlled study and to do so ethically. The current evidence suggests that for vaccines tested there is little threat. With all medical treatments however there is often a small risk to small percentages of people. However even with that, there is little evidence to suggest any link to autism.
No. You're an idiot and everything you said is false. Those ideas were displaced by better science.
That's the RIGHT way to challenge science - the ONLY way - with better science. There is no science backing anti-vaxxers whatsoever. It's not even worse science, it's the complete absence of science.
There have been nurses who successfully overturned the orthodoxy on treatments - and made breakthroughs, but they did it with better science - they defeated the orthodoxy with methodically gathered evidence.
That's the only way that is acceptable.
These nurses are killing people.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Are you referring to the fraudulent, thoroughly discredited and former doctor Andrew Wakefield?
Hygiene played a very important part in health. It was what turned cities from population sinks to population sources. It only goes so far.
The effectiveness of vaccination has been demonstrated numerous times, both from epidemiological studies and just looking at who's been vaccinated and who gets something. Smallpox was eliminated by vaccination performed all over the world, in areas with wildly varying social, hygienic, medical, environmental, and nutritional conditions. Polio is either eliminated or confined to one small area in the world; I haven't been keeping track. Very simply, there's all sorts of evidence that vaccines work.
Dr. Wakefield published a fraudulent paper linking autism to vaccinations, apparently to try to sell his thimerosal-free vaccines (thimerosal is not present any more in first-world vaccines, although it's necessary because of bad transportation and storage conditions in less developed areas). The paper was examined and found to base its conclusions on lies. Since then, there's been a lot of study on vaccinations and autism, finding no link.
I don't know why delaying the measles part would be a bad idea, but I bet the CDC could tell you, except that you don't appear to believe in scientific conclusions. Last time I wondered about a certain vaccination, I found the CDC site had reasons for the recommendation.
An experiment with the MMR vaccine such as you suggest would be highly unethical, and would land the experimenters in a great deal of legal trouble, because it would involve arbitrarily depriving children of safe and very beneficial treatment. Double-blind experiments cannot always be carried out on humans, so we have to study some things in more roundabout ways.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Peer-reviewed papers are not immune from judgment. Peer review is at best a defense against sloppy work, not fraud. When a paper seems sufficiently dubious, other people start examining everything about it carefully, finding (for example) lies about when autism started to make it look like vaccinations had something to do about it. In other words, Wakefield didn't present findings, he presented lies. Other scientists start running their own studies on the same subject, and find that there is no perceptible link between autism and vaccination. IIRC, Wakefield's co-authors didn't keep a careful eye on what he was doing, and disavowed his work.
You are therefore taking a very anti-scientific attitude by arguing in Wakefield's favor. You're showing a lot of bias by claiming that big pharma profits on vaccines (not very much, all things considered) and not looking into what Wakefield was trying to sell as a result of his faked results. I'm not accusing you of being a shill, I"m accusing you of being a "useful idiot" in the Leninist sense. You appear to be willfully ignorant.
As one on the autism spectrum, I object to you claiming that lives are thoroughly destroyed by ASD. I have a pretty good life. I have no way to compare it to the life I'd have without ASD, but I rather like how my life has turned out. (I will confess to jealousy of guys who knew how to get women to have sex with them, but I've been happily married for well over half my life now, so it all worked out.)
One thing I hate is people who, for whatever reason, spread dangerous misinformation that leads to children not only suffering needlessly but threatening the health of other children.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How many children do you want to die to make you believe in the facts?
A large randomized double-blind trial would result in lots of children getting a lot of preventable diseases, and will weaken herd immunity so that people who can't get vaccinated for certain reasons will be endangered. We know this.
And yes, I'm calling bullshit on your opinion. As long as you're not in the medical field, I just hope that people correctly classify you as an idiot and don't pay attention to you. If you are registered in that field, you need to lose your registration stat.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Most people base their belief that the nails are in the coffin for Anti-vaxxers (a derogatory term) on scientific studies released by the CDC. The unfortunate reality is that evidence of correlation was intentionally destroyed. One of the authors of the CDC studies turned Whistleblower, but he is not being allowed to testify.
Despite this possible scientific evidence which needs to be properly adjudicated, we still have to weigh the benefit vs harm of various vaccines. If, at some point in the future, it is found that vaccines increase the incidence of Autism, is it acceptable compared to an epidemic of Polio, Small Pox, Rubella, etc?
Keep in mind that doctors once promoted cigarettes. Keep in mind that Dr Barry Marshall was ridiculed for his discovery of Helicobacter Pylori before being proven correct and earning the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
No. He doesn't. Does "I will end ISIS" sound isolationist to you ?
Hint - boots on the ground in Syria or Iraq would be the worst thing America could do right now. That will mean war with Russia.
And besides, the results of Trump has already begun. This past week 3 terrorists were arrested in Kansas, they had built a pretty major bomb they were planning to set off in a place of worship, and had stockpiled over 2000 rounds of amunition which they were intending to use for a massacre. But you won't hear them called terrorists on Fox because they are white, male and christian. Only the official arrest report calls them that you know, not something reporters should tell the public or anything right ? People who plan to attack civilians for political or religious reasons are terrorists, it doesn't matter *what* religion.
All three are on record as wanting to vote for Trump (they may miss election day though on account of being in jail and rather unlikely to get bail).
In fact - if Trump was serious about terrorism he'd be going after rightwing white militias, not Muslims, since they are by far the biggest threat. Since 2002 far more Americans have been killed by Christian terrorist groups (aka rightwing white militias but lets call them what they are - radicalised Christian terrorists) than all other kinds of terror groups combined (yes, including Muslim terrorists). That's according to the FBI.
A separate study by Westpoint Military academy rated radicalized Christian terrorists the single largest threat to American national security. The right wing tried very hard to censor that report with republican congressmen even threatening to cut their research funding if they didn't retract it.
Why is it that Trump won't even say the words "Radicalized Christian Terrorism" ? Is he in cahoots with them ? Unlike his claims about Obama causing ISIS he actually DOES have a measurable share of blame in this - these groups have gotten significantly more emboldened, dangerous and violent since his campaign started. He has given them a sense of legitimacy they lacked before. Since they were ALREADY the greatest threat to American lives from terror - his actions have pushed them into an entirely new category.
And that's just domestically. Globally - the world has not been in this much of a tightrope situation since 1914. The global powers are fucking itching for a fight. The last time the world was anything like this - it took just one assassination of the wrong person in the wrong place to set of the first world war. And nobody predicted THAT outcome - hell weeks afterwords the markets hadn't even shifted yet, the full horror of what began when the Archduke got shot didn't register until 3 months later when the body bags started returning. Some 10% of the global population was killed over the next 3 years.
Isolationism wouldn't work - for starters it would actually decrease the already extremely low odds of preventing another world war. The two biggest factors in doing so thus far has been the USA and the EU. The EU has been hugely weakened in recent months thanks to Brexit, that weakens their capacity to prevent another landwar in Europe (and they have been GOOD at that, under the EU Europe has had the longest period of peace in it's entire history). Now you want remove the other one ? AT the same time that Russia is flexing it's muscles ? Testing the willingness of other nations to honour treaties. The same time that China is flagrantly ignoring diplomacy and flat-out stealing teritory from other South Asian countries ? Those acts of invasion hasn't escalated yet - but any one could be the last straw.
Already Trump's talks about NATO has caused some EU politicians to call for a European army to be created - because they fear they can no longer rely on the US to provide backup if they need to defend themselves against a power like Russia or China.
And if you think isolationism means the US could let the world fight a war and stay out of it then you're really silly, they tried that - TWIC
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
All relegions are evil. However, since a large portion of the US people descends from protestant extremists fleeing Europe when the population grew tired of their oppression and allowed for a more liberal way of life, they are a domestic problem but one unlikely to grow larger with christian immigrants. Muslim terrorism is likjely to increase with muslim immigrants, so they should be discouraged.
>they are a domestic problem but one unlikely to grow larger with christian immigrants.
[citation needed]
>Muslim terrorism is likjely to increase with muslim immigrants, so they should be discouraged.
[citation needed]
Anyway, even if your unsubstantiated bullshit is true - you haven't dealt with the much bigger issue. The former problem is much more severe - and your proposed solution for the latter (much smaller) problem is provably aggravating the larger problem. That makes it a stupid plan. What makes it even stupider is that your explanation for the former problem - exactly applies to the latter. The Muslims who wish to enter the United states are fleeing oppression by fundamentalists within their own religion, just like your protestant ancestors did - and you would THINK then that those protestants would apply the Golden Rule - the single most important thing that their Jesus ever taught them and do unto others over there. Remembering that they got there after fleeing oppression by another sect of their own religion, should make them WANT to welcome other people doing the same.
Sorry, but this is the most insane idea ever that you are proposing because it fundamentally ignores human nature, both the best and the worst of it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Are 25% of the US women and unsubstantiated part of the men meth whores then?
Let's stick to autism.
Do you have any numbers that suggest a 2.5% of the parents is even 'mildly' autistic?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
It's not whether his opinion is dangerous, it's whether we allow to have people prosecuted for stating their personal opinion.
I'm against.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
It's only because of your condition that I'm taking the effort to reply to your abusively worded post.
You are just one individual case while we're talking statistics here.
And even the fact that your child is classified as autistic does not prove that this is a result of your genes and not from his (probable) MMR shot at young age.
Heck, even the CDC found to their dismay that MMR led to a 3-fold increase of autism in African American children compared to Caucasian Americans.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Hey, is this a deja-vu, or did I really see this exact statement in a posting (long) before? Was that you?
Anyway, the funny thing is that the requirements regarding vaccine testing are not nearly as strict as for 'medicines'. Both fall in totally different categories.
Further, it is the vaccine manufacturer that carries out the safety tests. Not some strictly independent government agency. And the fact that, in the US, the pharmaceutical companies are not liable for any damaging side-effects is also desincentivising their search for the same.
We all know that for instance Monsanto 'studied' the effects of Round-Up on rats just short enough to not find the increased occurrence of cancer that Seralini found.
So much for 'industry commitment'.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
So I'm sure you already found some of those studies? Please put their references here if you'd be so inclined. Just the pubmed numbers would suffice, thank you.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I like armchair historians...
Senator Joe McCarthy looked for Soviet Communists in the US State Department only. .
It doesn't matter if it was called McCarthyism, or Pop-Tarts. It was political paranoia and a witch hunt. It was the "Red Scare", along with another little bit of fun called the "Lavender Scare" whenr they managed to make out homosexuals to be as bad as commies. Funny, just like one gay Brit who had a hellava lot to to with us beating old Adolph and his minions. It took regular Americans and turned them into criminals not for their actions, but for not holding the correct political beliefs.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Now the tech industry needs to do the same to those who don't recommend open source community development for important systems like those in cars, medical equipment, weapons systems, voting equipment, etc. The list goes on. The actual security and quality of code is never going to diminish because the number of people who can inspect it increases. The opposite is not true.
1. Double blinding is not nearly as important for vaccines as for other trials because the time periods involved are very long and the lab tests involved are pretty objective. Safety is indeed tested for extensively, and the lack of blinding almost certainly increases short term nocebo effects.
In other words, if it were double-blinded, vaccines would almost certainly look even better on paper because a significant percentage of the reported fevers, etc. would be shown to be completely unrelated to the vaccine, but we have very, very little reason to suspect that the placebo effect would magically keep people from getting sick (or from reporting it) years later.
2. I don't really require double-blinding to convince me that, for instance, the smallpox vaccine worked. The fundamental science behind the mechanism of action is obviously sound; it's just a matter of differing efficacies.
I fully support the right of nurses to say bullshit in their time off from work as long as they are required (under penalty of losing any nursing license) that they are not speaking in their capacity as a nurse and/or that science has disproven everything that they are about to tell you.
I fully support the right of anyone to say and do want they want about vaccines as long as you wear some sort of special T-Shirt or sign around your neck warning immunocompromised people to stay away from them. Parental rights, unfortunately, should be respected except in fairly extreme cases, but at the very least special classrooms should be maintained so that they cannot come in contact with immunized children (unless they have a doctor's note stating that they suffer from a disease that makes vaccination too dangerous.)
Your right to punch ends where my face begins, etc.
Andrew Wakefield is a proven fraud. If you're going to be a crackpot, at least come up with a story that a 10 second Google can't debunk.
British government to refuse separate vaccines to be administered
Separating vaccines is moronic and cruel. The body's immune system is "on/off". It doesn't give a shit about being "ganged up on". I've heard firsthand how kids who get separate vaccines, if they are prone to side effects like a mild fever, will get those side effects after every single vaccination instead of just the one time, and this makes perfect sense to anyone who understand how our bodies actually work.
...autism in the rates the anti-vaxxers are suggesting is preferable to the diseases the vaccines help prevent...
Not so fast. If I, in a developed country with good health care, had a child to be vaccinated with the MMR, I would realise that getting the measles is not by far as bad as making him autistic by trying to prevent him from getting the measles. I would never be able to forgive myself if such thing happened.
In the USA nowadays 1 in 25 children becomes autistic and I'm sure that even if everybody got the measles, only 1 in 1,000 or so would be severely damaged by it. The other 999 would recover just fine.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Discouraged = desencorajado,
:)
dismissal = despedimento,
fired = despedido (do trabalho sim).
De nada amigo.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Seeing a decline after some action in a graph of a phenomenon that already was showing a declining trend is not really hard proof of being caused by that action.
And your comment about 'ethics' was understood but also confirms that proof has not been established, i.e. that I was right.
The 'ethical argument' shows there is more belief in, than proof of the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Nothing thick about that.
It goes like this: "We believe vaccines are working but we have no proof of that. To obtain real scientific proof according to the golden standard we would have to administer no vaccines to some part of the population and because we believe vaccines work, we also
believe
that this would cause them getting the infectious disease the vaccines are meant to prevent, and therefore we find it unethical to carry out such study."
Ok, I can find myself in that argument. But then they continue: "And everybody who does not believe that vaccines are 100% safe and effective should shut up, be fired when they as a professional vent their belief, and are by the way a bunch of irresponsible dangerously stupid thickheaded fucking dipwits and nutjobs, or in short: anti-vaxxers."
And that last part is what I do have a problem with.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I've heard of 'macro view' in economics and of 'macro epidemiology' with respect to vaccinations, but never of 'macro-view epidemiology'.
But ok, I think I know what you mean. (Comparative use of influenza vaccine between different countries or regions, states or provinces within countries. Pubmed 16039762)
As I already stated earlier, measles and other infectious diseases were already showing an enormously declining trend before the various vaccination schedules were started, so 'massive drops' don't prove anything. It is quite well accepted that improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions had already contributed to a serious decline in the infectious diseases.
Andrew Wakefield has been proven not to be a fraud in the juridical case that his co-author, prof. John Walker-Smith, thanks to his legal insurance coverage, was able to initiate against the British medical council (GMC) that axed both of them down, but was subsequently axed down by the judge as being highly unprofessional and also wrong for that matter in revoking his license, and had to re-instate the same. Sorry to break you main stream 'knowledge' party.
Separating vaccines is up to the parents who can find out quite early in the process whether their child is indeed prone to those side effects and can decide to use the cocktails from then on. I would suggest to find this out with a 6 months delayed separate measles vaccination per Wakefield's advise (whom you--yes I know--consider to be a fraud).
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Safety is indeed tested for extensively, and the lack of blinding almost certainly increases short term nocebo effects.
Wow, this is a clever obfuscation of the fact that their is no double blind placebo controlled study regarding the safety of the vaccines.
There are two sides on this matter: Efficacy and safety.
The problems parents have is not with the efficacy, it is with the safety.
Vaccines cannot be 100% safe, and that's why the Vaccine Injury 'Court' has already granted more than 4 billion dollars in damages, some indeed for 'autism caused by the vaccination'. You can look that up.
It is quite possible that smallpox vaccines work and there is indeed a biologically plausible explanation for that. That is not the problem.
There are broadly two mechanisms at hand: Better hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions on the one hand, and vaccinations on the other hand.
The question for me is: How many cases of smallpox are prevented by the smallpox vaccine that would have occurred in spite of the decline caused by better overall conditions?
Further: how safe is the vaccine exactly, and how serious is smallpox as a disease.
We do know that vaccines cannot be 100% safe, so you have to accept that there are some detrimental side effects.
Now a balanced decision would have to compare the seriousness of for instance smallpox with the seriousness of the side effects of vaccination, and the number of cases that
the vaccine
would actually prevent.
A honest discussion about the overall public health effects would indeed also have to touch on the risks for the few immuno-suppressed people that are walking around on this globe and indeed could encounter a non-vaccinated person, or even a recently measles vaccinated person that unknowingly is shedding the measles virus around--especially with the newest nasal vaccines...
And the fact that you are convinced that I'm punching you in the face is not really proof of the same.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
"The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."
Gerbering, head of the CDC at that time, not surprisingly, now has a high position at Merck.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Era 'desestimulado' que tentei falar (e obrigado ^^)
No, you maybe? You state vaccines are (generally) proven effective but and to assert they are safe.
Ok, I should have asked 2 questions:
1. are flu vaccines effective?
2. are HPIV vaccines safe?
What moving goal posts?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
That's a nice story, thanks, and I would be very interested in the link pointing to it, thanks again.
I have asserted in this thread various times that the mortality of infectious disease depends on the hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions. I assume that poor conditions sorts in the Yugoslavian mountains could have contributed to the high mortality, where the mortality in our modern western society under discussion (Australia) could be much and much lower.
Further, my opinion is that in the underdeveloped world, take Pakistan, where economic circumstances don't allow proper education in hygiene and proper measures to increase hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions, the only option to reduce deaths from infectious diseases is indeed to vaccinate, while almost totally disregarding the safety aspects.
However, in the developed western world I think the mortality numbers would be much lower, and might reach a point where it is worth to compare them with the number of vaccine damages in order to make a balanced decision leading to optimal public health.
And as I don't believe in health care professionals who happen to have a dissenting opinion being some kind of evil-doers who wish to eradicate humanity by evangelizing a total absence of vaccination, I think there is some smoke and therefore some fire, indicating there are some aspects in our vaccination procedures that might need some more scrutiny. Not eradication of the hard working, well meaning professionals who express those opinions. They must have a good reason to do so and I would be interested to hear them.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
It is quite well accepted that improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions had already contributed to a serious decline in the infectious diseases.
These diseases, and others, have for periods been completely eliminated in some countries that have passed a certain threshold of vaccination. You cannot find a single credible voice who has proven that this was the result of better hand washing .
It is "quite well accepted" that vaccines work. There's no reason at all to think that they don't work. They've been shown to be highly effective even in third world countries where running water is a luxury.
Andrew Wakefield has been proven not to be a fraud in the juridical case... axed down by the judge as being highly unprofessional and also wrong for that matter in revoking his license, and had to re-instate the same.
Nope. I took ten minutes out of my busy day to examine this and it's completely untrue:
1. It was widely reported in 2010 that he lost his license.
2. As of March of this year, he still hasn't been reinstated. Note that the Walker-Smith stuff you allude to happened in 2012.
3. Then I saw an article from just two months ago explaining at length that not only has he not been exonerated, but we can be fairly sure he will NEVER be exonerated despite the legal happenings involving John Walker-Smith that you allude to.
Do you have any sources showing otherwise? Are you going to own up to that little mistake / lie or are you going to carry on like nothing happened? Your intellectual credibility, such as it's worth, is on the line here.
Even if his license were eventually reinstated through some horrible technicality, that does not excuse his highly suspect and unethical behavior. The most charitable possible interpretation is that he was extremely reckless in misusing terminology to support his extraordinary theory, but the evidence points much more strongly towards an obvious intent to deceive, particularly when taken in combination with his later statements and actions. I would dissect that entire incident at length for your benefit, but at present I'm not entirely convinced you'd be interested or willing to hear me.
That last link was messed up; it should have been this: http://www.bmj.com/content/340...
Wow, this is a clever obfuscation of the fact that their is no double blind placebo controlled study regarding the safety of the vaccines.
No, if you care to re-read what I just said, you'll notice that I'm fully embracing this argument of yours. You don't understand the implications of your own argument. The argument you are making helps my side, not your side (i.e. the side of liars, charlatans and poor deluded parents. I'm hoping you are one of the latter, otherwise we're just wasting our time here.)
Add double-blinding to any study and the reported prevalence of side effects like, for example, fever will drop in frequency (as in decrease, become smaller, etc.) once these numbers are corrected with the placebo controls. This number will not go up if placebo controls are added. Please explain to me how the presence of a placebo control could plausibly results in an INCREASE in the adjusted number of fevers, seizures, "regressions" or whatever other horrible symptoms you're thinking of.
The problems parents have is not with the efficacy, it is with the safety.
Let me try to restate what I just said even clearer: if you can find someone willing to waste money on a double-blind study I say go for it. It will only strengthen what I'm saying. It cannot conceivably help your case here. I don't mean, "I'm so sure that I'm right!"; I mean even if I'm completely wrong about vaccines and they were crazy dangerous, there is no way that adding placebo controls could make them look anything but safer.
The only reason your side could plausibly be concerned about the lack of double-blinding is due to efficacy concerns (which I've already shown is ridiculous given the wealth of data we have on this vaccine's effects.) If you add double-blinding then one of two things happen:
1. The vaccine looks just as safe as it looks now.
2. The vaccine looks even safer because it might turn out that a lot of parents in the placebo group are reporting (for example) fevers, and thus we'll immediately know that X% of the fevers in the vaccine group are actually not caused by the vaccine.
Buzzword bingo doesn't work on me, sorry. I fully understand why placebos exist and they have nothing to do with detecting an otherwise hidden safety concern. It causes me physical pain somewhere around my solar plexus when I think about the likelihood that there are loads of intelligent (but lazy) people out there who nonetheless believe that a lack of placebo controls means that vaccine safety is questionable.
that's why the Vaccine Injury 'Court'
I was already aware of the vaccine court fund. It was not founded for scientific reasons, but bureaucratic / political ones. The CIA spent a lot of money investigating mind control techniques in the 60s; that doesn't mean they actually work. Various parts of our military have spent money investigating UFO reports; that doesn't mean that aliens are real. Bureaucracies do dumb shit sometimes. This was one such dumb idea, although to the extent that it probably was intended to encourage more vaccine development by alleviating legal liability I suppose it was good-intentioned.
The question for me is: How many cases of smallpox are prevented by the smallpox vaccine that would have occurred in spite of the decline caused by better overall conditions?
Do you realize that smallpox is eradicated? It used to be everywhere. You couldn't prevent it through regular handwashing; it was extremely virulent.
And now it is literally nowhere except in a test tube in some guarded vault somewhere. Smallpox used to be in parts of Africa where they didn't have running water. They still don't have running water there, and they still get all kinds of horrible infections, but guess what? Smallpox is gone, just GONE. Because vaccines work. My father had a s
You've already admitted that efficacy isn't parents' big concern here, but rather the safety. Double blinding can only make things look safer. Double blinding cannot expose hidden dangers. See this post for a longer explanation.
This buzzword bingo of yours isn't going to work on anyone with basic scientific literacy. The "gold standard" you reference has nothing to do with safety.
'Ethically'? There are millions of people walking around who are unvaccinated. And are they all dying from infectious diseases? I don't think so.
If you want to study unvaccinated people without 'being unethical', then this is truly a vast cohort to study, won't you think?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
He was 'career-suicided' by the establishment. That's what he was warned against on beforehand and that's what happened.
He didn't have the resources to fight the GMC's (British 'General Medical Counsel') decision (to withdraw his license) in court, but his co-author Prof. John Walker-Smith did have a legal insurance that allowed him this and he won convincingly against the same decision the GMC had submitted him to.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I think it's a gotspe to state that the decline in infectious diseases due to improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions stopped exactly at the moment that the vaccines were introduced.
So nobody in his right mind can claim that the further decline is uniquely caused by vaccination.
Smallpox was declared to be eradicated because it became clear that many people got the disease from the vaccines. And by the way, smallpox is a relatively benign infection with a low mortality in healthy children, so a massive and population-wide 'immunization'* campaign isn't really indicated. Only vaccinating the not so healthy children would suffice, I reckon.
The suggestion that Wakefield was selling mercury free vaccines is totally ridiculous. Please back this up with a proper reference if you're really convinced that you're telling the truth here.
I will tell you why delaying the measles jab is a bad idea: Money. If the Health Services would have to order separate vaccines the current contracts would have to be cancelled at a high cost, Merck (whose cocktail was already forbidden in Canada by the government exactly due to health concerns) would have lost its million dallars investments in the cocktail, so there was a huge financial incentive to silence Dr. Wakefield, forbid the importation of separate measles vaccines into the UK (yes, they actually did this) hereby leaving the parents the choice either to be 'a nutter because of not vaccinating' or to accept the cocktail.
Disgusting.
I wonder why an experiment with unvaccinated people would be so unethical given the fact that there are still millions of people walking around without being 'immunized'*.
* 'immunization' and 'immunized' in single quotes because it's not a real lifelong immunization. Another indication that vaccination is different from 'the real thing'?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The global vaccines industry was valued at $24 billion in 2009 and is expected to reach $52 billion in 2016...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
If you don't carry out a large trial you'll never know whether you were right or not, so in absence of 'golden standard' proof I'd be a lot more cautious in my approach than starting a witch hunt against people with a slightly different opinion.
On the other hand, there are still millions of unvaccinated people running around this globe, why not use those as a study cohort?
It's well known that religious believes clashing with different believes normally lead to the type of abusive language to which also you choose to resort. Anyway, it doesn't fail to classify the category of people in which you clearly seem to belong.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Not so fast. If I, in a developed country with good health care, had a child to be vaccinated with the MMR, I would realise that getting the measles is not by far as bad as making him autistic by trying to prevent him from getting the measles. I would never be able to forgive myself if such thing happened.
So you could forgive yourself if they got neural damage from measles, and acted as a vector to give it to other children making you a total shitbag of a parent, but not if they became autistic?
In the USA nowadays 1 in 25 children becomes autistic
Who told you that? It's 1 in 68.
and I'm sure that even if everybody got the measles, only 1 in 1,000 or so would be severely damaged by it.
Measles causes the most vaccine-preventable deaths of any disease. You're a colossal dumbass.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I work in biomedical research where we independently verify safety and efficacy under strict government regulation. I may have had similar replies elsewhere. There isn't any difference in how we design studies to evaluate drugs versus vaccines at our facility, anyhow. The manufacturers generally don't have the sort of facilities and expertise they'd need to do their own testing. Then once they think they are done the FDA makes some offhand comments that end up requiring us to do a great deal more work for them. The liability shielding is needed because vaccines are not very profitable: the companies have already started moving away from making new ones unless the government has grants out. It is easier to make money on Rogaine or Viagra if you're a drug company. Treating someone once a decade with a single injection? Can't make epipen level profits on that!
As for charts, the fall off in incidences of disease exactly correspond with the uptake in vaccination. As does the opposite, that when vaccination rates decline, outbreaks increase. Denying it is pathetic.
Individual freedom with personal responsibility is the only way.
You'd have a much better response if you just educate people. If you just try to force them, they will resist even more.
Leave the constitution intact.
perpetuated*, Christ almighty... what is wrong with me? I'm officially going to blame inattentive use of the spellchecker, but I've a sneaking suspicion it's actually the internet rotting my brain.
...result of better hand washing...
I call malign intent of you by falsely equating 'better hand washing' with all the improvements in hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions had already contributed to a serious decline in the infectious diseases, before the vaccinations campaigns were even started. Or at least you are 'innocent' but somehow just fell prey to a false equivalence fallacy. It is distorting my argument in a demeaning way, trying to dismiss the value of my argument.
Discussion pollution is what I call that.
So, because vaccination was introduced while the decline in infectious diseases had already set in, then how are you going to prove that this was thanks to the vaccination? This is clearly your claim, so one might expect some proof from you.
Points 1. and 2. that you bring up are totally unnecessary as no one was claiming the opposite of neither the one nor the other.
Your point 3. is highly interesting. It mentions an article by Harrison who starts by citing a lot of people, 'anti-vaccinationists' he calls them, which are totally irrelevant and a waste of time but cleverly done because it associates Dr. Wakefield with some unspecified people that he is free to accuse of the most irresponsible, stupid and irrational behaviour, letting the associative powers of the mind do the rest so the reader can already start thinking that, therefore, Wakefield also must be a 'anti-vaccinationist'.
Well, to start with, he isn't. I have spent various hours of my precious time listening to his side of the story, including the famous press conference at which the panel was asked, and Walker-Smith directed the question to Wakefield, well knowing what kind of answer he could expect, what they themselves would do as a parent.
Wakefield's answer was, maybe contrary to your expectations, not to skip vaccination, but that he would try to separate the measles vaccination out of the MMR and delay the administration of it by 6 months.
So let's make us very clear that Wakefield is not at all against vaccination.
The first result of this statement was, as can be expected, that parents started requesting exactly that: individual measle vaccines.
So what did government and healthcare officials do in response?
They played the following trick on those parents: collude with the producer to stop production of the vaccine and bar the importation thereof in Britain.
A disgusting display of disrespect for the choice of parents regarding which type of medical treatment they prefer for their children.
Now, of course one can expect that parents who are concerned about the possible health effects of MMR will do next: They will re-consider the MMR altogether, and that's why there was a down-tick in the number of vaccines administered.
As a result of government meddling with the wishes of the parents, all for financial reasons of course.
Then the author brings the following complaint against Wakefield: That he subjected kids to tests without prior approval.
If you'd have listened to the various interviews of Wakefield you would know that he admitted this. However, this doesn't 'prove' that his results were incorrect.
Just not authorised by the medical ethical board of the hospital.
Next the author, very unscientifically, attributes some also totally unproven malign intentions to Wakefield for not pursuing the appeal while just before that he wrote that Wakefield would probably not be supported by his insurance company. With this, to me, author himself (again) shows malign intent and no real objectivity in his analysis of the case.
So, to cut it short, this paper is a hit piece, characteristic for a medical establishment that has a history of this kind of blunders and witch hunts as proven in the cases of Drs. Ignacio Semmelweiss and Barry Marshall.
Wakefield is not an 'anti-vaccinationist', no matter how hard author tries to
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I see you're still spreading this lie. A lack of placebo controls cannot be argued to imply that there are lingering safety concerns, period.
Placebo controls do not reveal hidden safety concerns. It is literally impossible for placebos to do what you are claiming. There have been large trials on safety and they are more than sufficient. Your babbling about double-blind "gold standards" demonstrates a profound ignorance of how medical studies actually work and what the purpose of placebo controls are. Adding a placebo control would either do nothing or make vaccines appear even safer, depending on what is being measured and how.
Brian Deer is an investigative journalist, not a scientist, interested in stirring up as much controversy as possible in order to sell his stories for the highest price.
I really don't understand how this paper could ever be published in the BMJ unless there is some special interest in giving such a scientific peer reviewed status to his paper, like further condemning Dr. Wakefield because he just doesn't give up.
The medical establishment can be very nasty, and I think they are showing this again in their continued witch hunt against Dr. Wakefield, who not even is against vaccinations.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
And are they all dying from infectious diseases? I don't think so.
Moronic babble from someone who doesn't understand the first things about statistics, or is hoping the reader doesn't. 70+ years ago, hundreds of millions of unvaccinated people didn't die from smallpox, either. And hundreds of millions of unvaccinated people did die from smallpox. The vaccine clearly worked, which is why smallpox was completely eradicated from the face of the earth immediately following an aggressive vaccination campaign, no thanks to the scientifically illiterate fear-mongers like you.
Quick, go ahead and imply that better hand washing eradicated it again. Go look at the Wikipedia page and see the Bangladeshi child. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that smallpox was eradicated in places like Bangladesh through "better hygiene", and that it had nothing to do with the massive vaccination campaign?
You are a liar and a peddler of nonsense. You have continued to pump out moronic lies about the purpose of placebo-controlled studies even after I explained at length why you were wrong.
Therefore, I will no longer be debating these other issues you (even though you are still obviously wrong and/or lying about them), but will instead be simply warning people about you and directing them to the appropriate posts. Anyone is free to read the actual text of the Walker-Smith judgment to see how it is completely inapplicable to Wakefield. If it were applicable to Wakefield as you tried to claim, he would've been able to get his license back by now. But he has not been able to.
This is not a true comparison, because if the were negative side effects from vaccines, they could have been caused by the adjuvants and the comparison would see no difference between the two because both groups will show the same frequency of (side) effects.
A proper control would then be vaccines controlled against for instance distilled water, that's why I put emphasize on (true) placebo controlled studies.
...hand washing...
Why am I still debating with you as you clearly show mal intent in your dismissive non-arguments. Again you are falsely equating steadily improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions with 'hand washing'.
...smallpox is eradicated...
Do you realise that there was a problem with the varicella vaccines? For instance, debunk this.
And yes, the ruling governments prefer to have the poor people, who live in unhygienic conditions with no access to clean water, proper nutrition nor healthcare, vaccinated.
If you would have paid attention to the thread of this discussion you would have found out that I'm not fighting the claim that vaccines may work, but the claim that in the western world, with the improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions, the vaccines are the sole cause of the decline in the infectious diseases. Either you failed to read this properly although I have repeatedly stated this, or you didn't want to understand it.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
You're a colossal dumbass.
You are colossally abusive, so that ends the discussion with you.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Can't make epipen level profits on that!
Now there you mention something unethical!
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
You are wrong. There are studies that compare vaccines (modified virus proteins plus adjuvants) against adjuvants.
No, you are changing the subject. My point is in no way wrong. There are many studies that compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Placebo controls are not necessary in these studies for purposes of uncovering safety concerns--in fact, I wish there were more placebo controls in these studies because it would make vaccines look even safer than they are.
This is not a true comparison, because if the were negative side effects from vaccines, they could have been caused by the adjuvants
The vast majority of studies in this area (including but not limited to epidemiology studies) examine un-vaccinated individuals as well. Unvaccinated individuals are just as good as placebo-injected individuals for discovering safety concerns--in fact, you will routinely get plenty of false safety concerns if you don't include a placebo group.
You are arguing against your own cause.
A proper control would then be vaccines controlled against for instance distilled water, that's why I put emphasize on (true) placebo controlled studies.
Distilled water should never be injected into the bloodsteam, you scientifically illiterate jackass.
I wish there were more placebo controls in these studies because it would make vaccines look even safer than they are.
I meant to say, "would [correctly] make vaccines appear even safer than they currently appear to be."
but the claim that in the western world, with the improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions
Smallpox was prevalent in third world nations as well. It is gone now, even in places where there have been very little gains in hygiene or nutrition. Congratulations for changing the topic once again and refusing to admit that you have been making the most absurd, provably false claims.
My other response details your misunderstandings about the purpose of placebo controls. You clearly have no idea how or why placebos are used, to the point where you're even advocating that distilled water be used for the placebo. I'll let you discover on your own why this is a wonderful demonstration of your ignorance in these matters.
You are colossally abusive, so that ends the discussion with you.
You mean, you can't handle facts? Whatever excuse you have to use to go on living, kid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your ignorance is the worst possible kind of ignorance, absolute belief that you are right.
Your ignorance is of a highly entertaining kind because you've openly demonstrated that you have zero critical thinking ability and no desire to actually understand what things imply. A lack of placebo controls in these studies helps OUR side, the side of scientists arguing that these vaccines of safe. It actually hurts your side, the side that is arguing that these vaccines are dangerous.
Rest assured, if you try to spread this child-killing dreck in any threads in the future, I will make sure people remember just how thoroughly intellectually dishonest and incurious you and your kin were here.
Says the man who was no earthly clue how placebo controls work, but is sure that a lack of them indicates that something must be untested or unsafe.
As usual, you are wrong, you cant mod AT ALL if you have already commented.
You really are stupid of the highest order.
Sorry, I'm not going with you along this path.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
It doesn't matter, you're on my blacklist due to totally inappropriate and abusive language, thank you.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
You're on my blacklist now due to totally inappropriate and abusive language, sorry and thank you very much.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
If you weren't addressing me with such totally inappropriate and abusive language, I would have explained that it is possible to mod in a thread in which one has commented. Only all those comments will be deleted at the first mod in the thread.
I suggest you talk some more to yourself that way, because what you said seems to totally apply to yourself.
By the way, you are also blacklisted now due to inappropriate abusive language.
You can take your faeces somewhere else, thank you very much.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The "inappropriate language" was the word "jackass". He posted these messages immediately after I demonstrated his lies and profound ignorance regarding placebos, Andrew Wakefeld, smallpox and other topics.
For posterity: The "inappropriate language" was the word "jackass". He posted these messages immediately after I demonstrated his lies and profound ignorance regarding placebos, Andrew Wakefeld, smallpox and other topics.
You're on my whitelist. The "inappropriate language" was the word "jackass". He posted these messages immediately after I demonstrated his lies and profound ignorance regarding placebos, Andrew Wakefeld, smallpox and other topics.
His definition of "inappropriate" language includes the word "jackass" and any post that points out his lies involving Andrew Wakefield, or his profound ignorance involving how placebos work, how smallpox was eradicated, etc. He has refused to respond to any of this issues raised.
Yup, it's very clear that you are not interested in traveling down any facts-laden paths.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking the time and effort to deflate this willfully-ignorant cretin. I genuinely appreciate your effort, and the clear, concise writing.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
4% of what? 4% of the people who have autism can prove it was because of a vaccine? 4% of people to get vaccines later develop autism? Approximately 1 in 68 children in the US have autism, but that's 1.4% per the CDC. Around 10-12% (3.5M out of 300M) people in the US suffer from autism. So, are you saying that 14,000 of these people can prove that this is a result of vaccines?