Agree totally.
2 Likes
Headlines are often written by another author. Sometimes when you read the article it then has nothing to justify the bold eye-grabbing claim, occasionally even contradicts it.
Ultimately the problem is that 99% just read the headline.
2 Likes
I had seen that the first case shown in the article had multiple problems and a positive blood culture and guessed that a lot of the others would be similar but didn’t have the time to look in depth. A lot of these are deaths after vaccination not death from vaccination. I could have my flu jab this autumn and die the next day from something unrelated That would not mean the flu jab had killed me Thanks for making the effort Paul
1 Like
Correlation is not causation, innit
3 Likes
The discredited Dr Wakefield is now dating Elle Mc Pherson ( the former super model)
That’s one of those sentences isn’t it !
Well yes the “newspapers” aren’t exactly innocent when it comes to using attention grabbing headlines either…and it was the murdoch family behind the political assassination of dr Andrew Wakefield as they have extensive interests in vaccines and it was the Sunday Times and GSK the manufacturer of the MMR who began the political assassination…old news but they still like to keep him in their attention grabbing headlines… x 
Here’s a white paper questioning vaccine safety…hopefully when I post the link it doesn’t show up with any attention grabbing headline…x
http://icandecide.org/white-papers/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017.pdf
1 Like
Without wanting to rush in foolishly to this debate, David, I would just offer the opinion that evidence should not, scientifically, be characterised as hard, if that is meant to suggest it may not be challenged, and that those who do are saboteurs or deluded.
It is fair to say that the efficacity of vaccination as a measure to reduce susceptibility to infection is well established, but not fair to say that there is no evidence of its being ineffective in some cases, or harmful in others.
This is not saying na-na-na. It is showing legitimate scepticism of broad-brush claims, and the value of establishing a case for further enquiry with open results and transparent methods.
2 Likes
Perhaps hard was the wrong adjective Peter. I know as well as you that anything established by science is only as good as the last experiment; Were that not the case we’d still be believing in the existence of phlogiston. It’s just that I can never get over the stupidity of some people on the internet particularly our American cousins. It’s as if they’ve never been in school. Maybe they haven’t.
2 Likes
“Social media bots and Russian trolls have been spreading disinformation about vaccines on Twitter to create social discord and distribute malware, US researchers say”
First it’s fake news, now one wonders whether the above is fake-news-about-fake-news.
What next, fake-news-about-fake-news-about fake-news ?
One thing I know, I’m faking fed up with the whole faking business! 
3 Likes
here we go again. This one has been round and round a number of times and as usual those who have not taken the time to research the subject are simply shouting ‘down with the anti vaxxers’. So simplistic and unhelpful.
After much research I have concluded the following:
a)vaccines do have an effect; sometimes beneficial and sometimes harmful, but the whole concept of giving the disease in order to stimulate the immune system to protect against that disease is highly suspect.
b) the ‘one size fits all’ approach where all children are given the same combinations of vaccines regardless of their size, background history etc is flawed.
c) the facts that vaccines are not subject to the same testing controls as other drugs and that the manufacturers are immune (no pun intended) to prosecution resulting from vaccine damage lead me to be suspicious.
We must grow up from this ‘vaxxers’ and ‘anti vaxxers’ stance. I advocate full informed consent and freedom of choice. This way, those of you who believe thay you will be protected by vaccines can go your own way, and leave us who question the whole concept of vaccination to go ours. After all, what have you to loose - surely your vaccines will protect you from us unvaccinated ones
regards
geoff
2 Likes
I can not understand anyone who would choose to expose their family to some awful diseases, when they can be protected, but I am certainly, for freedom of choice!
Of course, the cost of the care, to public services, of those permanently damaged, is another matter.
1 Like
Precisely what I said a couple of days ago.
1 Like
I think as I said before that it is up to everyone to decide, but that if they go along with the government recommendations and there’s a bad direct consequence the government pays up. If they choose not to and get the disease and there’s a direct bad consequence then tough.
2 Likes
On the first point, Bill, it’s not my experience that parents want to risk their children’s health in that way, but that they fear the risk of bringing a seriously and permanently damaged and handicapped child into an uncaring world.
Thay may well understand the risk is small, but a mother’s instinct is to protect her helpless child, and that instinct may over-ride reason. I can understand that myself.
On the second point, care of a brain-damaged child is only partly supported by the state. That child may become a deaf, mute, blind and helpess adult who needs round-the-clock care. Parents grow old and incapable of caring, and the quality of life of some brain-damaged people is indescribably poor.
The idea that the state cares or picks up the tab is seriously wishful thinking 
As Geof Faulkner wisely pointed out, the issue is vastly more complex than is made out by the vested interests, which is not to attack vested interests, but merely to point out that vested interests are not always entirely honest, “in the wider interests of the public good”.
It is a bit like the drive carefully campaigns, a chum of mine who is a dr said to me ages ago that all the money spent on educating drivers could be saved by having a nice long sharp spike poking out of the middle of every steering wheel.
1 Like
In some ways I don’t think it’s even always a case of a mother’s instinct overriding reason…it’s extremely difficult nowadays to not know someone who has a child (or children) with for instance autism or a whole host of other autoimmune problems…
A growing number of young mothers I know are prepared to sit down with their doctors and ask questions about informed consent…saying “I’m not against vaccines per se but can you show me the vaccine insert…??? Can you provide me with any research that has ever been done to show that this/these vaccines are both safe and effective…??? Are you prepared to sign to say that should my child be damaged by this vaccine you are recommending that I can hold you personally responsible and liable in the event my child suffers adverse effects and irreparable harm…???”
It’s ok for me…I’m old enough now to just say no thanks…I don’t even need to put myself in a situation where someone else may try and convince me to get a vaccine…but I do totally understand the mothers/parents who are asking questions…and I think they have good reason to ask…
I agree with you Geoff…I really dislike the term “anti-vaxxer” and as soon as I see it in a “newspaper” I pretty much know it is going to be a head line grabbing hit piece short of facts and most likely written by someone with close ties to the pharmaceutical industry…last one I read that used the term “anti-vaxxer” was in the Guardian owned by the Scott trust…not a trust but a limited company…chairman and board members investment bankers and involved in share rigging scandals…
a) How do you think natural immunity works?
b) If it isn’t medically appropriate then individuals won’t be vaccinated, it’s just that it is appropriate/safe for almost all individuals to follow the standard programme.
c) sadly I think this is necessary (the no liability bit), especially in the litigation-happy USA. Vaccination is pretty much t he only health intervention that everyone is exposed to and humans are pre-programmed to over call patterns and associations. Thus anything bad which happens after a vaccination, even if nothing to do with it, will be blamed on the vaccination and, as they say, where there’s blaim there’s a claim - the industry would collapse overnight.
Remember vaccination only has to be safer than getting the infection naturally to be of benefit.
3 Likes