Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[PeanutBean]

Goodness me what an irrational response! It was you who said you think independent research is hard to find ergo scientists are mostly corrupt. Clearly you know nothing about how science research is funded and conducted if you think scientists fund their research out of their own pockets.

I'll forever be astonished by how acceptable a cynicism based on emotion and anecdote is compared to one founded on verifiable evidence.

And I'll thank you not to call me a bitch. Why on earth would I call myself one? If you interpret science the way you interpret my words then no wonder...

 

[PeanutBean]

Sorry if I am getting overheated. Thank you lisaf for being the composure in the debate! These hormones mean I get riled easily! Lol

 

[lisaf]

Look, no matter who wants to volunteer for a study, it doesn't make it ethical to conduct a study.

The concerns on vaccines... some are valid, and some have been disproven time and time again and people still don't believe it.
The vaccine industry has passed all the levels of safety that the government has set up for them. If you want that level to be stricter, lobby your government... do not expect a company that has shareholders to spend millions on a study they are not required to do, and which will only be believed by half the people out there who want more proof.

Do you expect sugar-free chewing gum companies to prove that there is no link between aspartame and cancer?

I would hope that they would be compelled to do so for honesty and concern of the public but I would not expect it because they are looking out for their shareholders.

I can tell you that the board of directors who run the company are obligated to look out for the profit margin. Professional ethics dictate that they look out for the best interest of the company, which includes profit and shareholders. There is not some huge epidemic of dangerous vaccine reactions out there - if there were, they would be obligated to address it. There are rumors and fears, and some possible links... which many have been proved not to be related yet vaccines are still blamed for.

And IF vaccines are one step in a whole series of events that MAY have contributed to a child's illness/injury/disability (not all of which are permanent)... and this child is one in 100,000 children that react that way... is that enough reason to stop vaccinating all children? When the death rate for the disease is 1 in 1,000?
I don't mean to criticize those who chose to not vaccinate... just that people with fears of vaccines often scare others into not vaccinating when maybe it would have been the right choice for their family. They see it as educating them on the risks... but some of those people do not have the capacity to think critically, hear the 'scary' details, many of which are false or exaggerated and just react.

The companies DO make concessions and are concerned with safety... the shortage of flu vaccines is because they switched ingredients because of people's concern over the safety of it (this was not proven to be unsafe... but they found public concern to be big enough to look for an alternative). As a result, they have not been able to make enough of the vaccines so that everyone who wants a flu shot can get one. And you better believe it hurt their profits to not be able to sell as many as they possibly could.

 

[lisaf]

Sorry if I am getting overheated. Thank you lisaf for being the composure in the debate! These hormones mean I get riled easily! Lol

Yes, lol, lets all remember that we are all hormonal right now and try not to antagonize each other!! (that means both of you!!! )

For the record, I am quite emotional about all this, and get very worked up.... I just do not want any of us to hurt each other and get this very interesting conversation shut down.
Its more important to keep the dialogue open than it is for me to 'express' myself in a way that will only inflame the discussion.

 

[24/7]

I had the vaccine last winter, as I'm both asthmatic and suffer from an autoimmune disease and last year was still very poorly with it. I researched and spoke with my doctor and came to the conclusion that it was what was best for me. x

 

[bubble123]

Goodness me what an irrational response! It was you who said you think independent research is hard to find ergo scientists are mostly corrupt. Clearly you know nothing about how science research is funded and conducted if you think scientists fund their research out of their own pockets.

I'll forever be astonished by how acceptable a cynicism based on emotion and anecdote is compared to one founded on verifiable evidence.

And I'll thank you not to call me a bitch. Why on earth would I call myself one? If you interpret science the way you interpret my words then no wonder...

Sorry if I am getting overheated. Thank you lisaf for being the composure in the debate! These hormones mean I get riled easily! Lol

And I apologize for getting over heated too. But, PeanutBean, as seen in your above post you can demonstrate a very condesending attitude. I'm not trying to poke further but your words are very sharp and can be percieved as attacking.

 

[PeanutBean]

Yes because you have made me feel very sharp. You waded in attacking me unreasonably so yes it has prickled me. I am a scientist and take this sort of thing extremely seriously. My job is to dispel the myths about science.

 

[blutea]

Wow, what a discussion this has become. At least I wasn't the only one feeling attacked. At the end of the day, we all just have to do what is right for our own families. For my family it is not vaccinating and I am confident in our decision.

 

[blutea]

Yes because you have made me feel very sharp. You waded in attacking me unreasonably so yes it has prickled me. I am a scientist and take this sort of thing extremely seriously. My job is to dispel the myths about science.

I just have to say that you are accountable for your own behavior. You didn't have to allow someone else to get to you. That was your choice.

There are doctors and scientists that would disagree with you. So I guess it's more a matter of opinion.

 

[lisaf]

I should add that there is some evidence that many disorders might be caused by a fever or infection the mother gets while pregnant. My mom has done endless research trying to figure out why my sister got the disease she did and why my brother has the disorder he now has that only showed up in his 30s.

So if that evidence is true.... avoiding illness during pregnancy may be more important than you think... that even if you survive just fine, there may be untold consequences for your baby. And if that IS true, I'd rather have the vaccine and minimize the risk of getting the real flu.... just my 2 cents

 

[PeanutBean]

Yes because you have made me feel very sharp. You waded in attacking me unreasonably so yes it has prickled me. I am a scientist and take this sort of thing extremely seriously. My job is to dispel the myths about science.

I just have to say that you are accountable for your own behavior. You didn't have to allow someone else to get to you. That was your choice.

There are doctors and scientists that would disagree with you. So I guess it's more a matter of opinion.

Yes it was my choice to defend what I care about, just as you have defended what you care about.

The point is that this issue is not actually about matter of opinion it's about evidence which is why the debate is so foggy.

 

[lisaf]

Yes because you have made me feel very sharp. You waded in attacking me unreasonably so yes it has prickled me. I am a scientist and take this sort of thing extremely seriously. My job is to dispel the myths about science.

I just have to say that you are accountable for your own behavior. You didn't have to allow someone else to get to you. That was your choice.

There are doctors and scientists that would disagree with you. So I guess it's more a matter of opinion.

I have to say that your point goes both ways. Nowhere did I see you or bubble being attacked. Yet you both chose to feel that you were under attack. Bubble made several comments that were derogatory towards scientists and science as a whole.
That is almost the same as making comments against someone's religion.

 

[blutea]

The point is that this issue is not actually about matter of opinion it's about evidence which is why the debate is so foggy.

I totally agree with that. It is very foggy and in the end we have to do what is best for our own families based on genetic sensitivities and history of adverse vaccine reactions.

 

[blutea]

Yes because you have made me feel very sharp. You waded in attacking me unreasonably so yes it has prickled me. I am a scientist and take this sort of thing extremely seriously. My job is to dispel the myths about science.

I just have to say that you are accountable for your own behavior. You didn't have to allow someone else to get to you. That was your choice.

There are doctors and scientists that would disagree with you. So I guess it's more a matter of opinion.

I have to say that your point goes both ways. Nowhere did I see you or bubble being attacked. Yet you both chose to feel that you were under attack. Bubble made several comments that were derogatory towards scientists and science as a whole.
That is almost the same as making comments against someone's religion.

No, I don't think that bubble did that. Is it possible that was the way you percieved it?

 

[UkCath]

Anti-Vaccine scares are a menace. In the UK we had a complete charlaton called Andrew Wakefield who created a false vaccine scare about the combined MMR vaccine.

In 2006 the incendence of mumps in this country was 13* the 1998 level and Measels at 37 * the 1998 level. So it's undeniable these people beleiving the false claims led to childen being ill.

In Ireland 3 children died who would be alive today if they had had the vaccine.

Vaccines do have a risk and it is scarey, but the risks are miniscule compared to the benifits. Vaccines are of huge benifit.

 

[lisaf]

Yes because you have made me feel very sharp. You waded in attacking me unreasonably so yes it has prickled me. I am a scientist and take this sort of thing extremely seriously. My job is to dispel the myths about science.

I just have to say that you are accountable for your own behavior. You didn't have to allow someone else to get to you. That was your choice.

There are doctors and scientists that would disagree with you. So I guess it's more a matter of opinion.

I have to say that your point goes both ways. Nowhere did I see you or bubble being attacked. Yet you both chose to feel that you were under attack. Bubble made several comments that were derogatory towards scientists and science as a whole.
That is almost the same as making comments against someone's religion.

No, I don't think that bubble did that. Is it possible that was the way you percieved it?

EVERYBODY's reality is based on their own perceptions. You did not perceive the rudeness that I did.... thats fine.. it does not make you right. It doesn't make me right either. But if we are talking about someone's feelings, in this case, Peanut's I was pointing out that I agreed with her perception that her entire career was being disparaged by bubble's comments.

I don't know that bubble meant them to come across that way, but I can see how a scientist would see it that way.

Clearly you are saying you did not see it that way. Fine.... doesn't mean that Peanut was wrong to be insulted by what was said.

 

[PeanutBean]

UKCath - so glad you mentioned Andrew Wakefield as that has reminded me I wanted to mention him. There's been a lot of talk on this thread about the questionable funding of vaccine research but given that people anti-vaccination that I've conversed with on here so far don't seem to have had a problem with his research I thought I'd mention some interesting facts about his impartiality:
1) Two years before his publication in the Lancet (now of course retracted) he was hired by a criminal negligence lawyer to try and find some [any] evidence that MMR was causing harm. Wakefield earned £435,643 of expenses for this research which wasn't declared to the Lancet. (Scientists are required to declare any interest in the research and funding sources.)
2) 9 months before his press conference calling for single vaccinations he put in a patent for a single measles vaccine.
3) The medical records from these 12 (only) cases actually showed nothing to implicate MMR is the condition of the children. So he falsified his data and basically lied in his paper.
4) Wakefield carried out a series of extremely uncomfortable and unnecessary procedures on the children none of which were approved by the ethics committee. It doesn't matter that the parents didn't think he'd done anything wrong, how are they to know what is ethical in research when they in good faith think the root of their child's problems is being worked out?

Now we were originally talking about H1N1 and not MMR but the point of this post is that it's easily as likely to get unscrupulous people working on the other side as it is to get a pharma company interested in its profit margin, as is every company in our free-market world.

What's clear from this thread is that to sympathise with people is to patronise and to contradict, refute or simply disagree is to attack. And this apparently is the level of our debate here.

Edit: by on here I mean on BnB in general

 

[blutea]

From what I understand it was just Andrew Wakefields methods that were under investigation but his findings were accurate and replicated. But, I could be wrong since Andrew Wakefield was never my focus when I was researching vaccines because I didn't really fear autism. I was more concerned aobut vaccine injury and adverse reactions for my family. But, since it's up in this dicussion I am now interested.

Thanks goodness we have freedom of choice.

 

[UkCath]

From what I understand it was just Andrew Wakefields methods that were under investigation but his findings were accurate and replicated.

No, the Lancet retracted the whole thing and said it was definitley innaccurate.

This is probably good a page to start reading about the story in full if you are interested to see the information.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3716

It's good as it as it includes links to places to review the data for yourself and a link to the GMC's findings in relation to the case.

 

[blutea]

Several groups have duplicated/confirmed the conclusion of the case series published by Wakefield:

https://www.cryshame.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=210

There's another, new study, of which Wakefield was a part, of macaque monkeys administered the first couple of years worth of the standard childhood vaccines, vs a control group administered placebo. The results are significant - provocative - detailing the problems in brain development associated with the standard vaccination schedule:

https://www.ageofautism.com/2010/07...ines-cause-brain-changes-found-in-autism.html

The best version of the back story is his own - his book, Callous Disregard. The British General Medical Council, in short, discredited themselves, not the good doctors. To the point, the parents of the kids comprising the "study" (it wasn't) stand in strong support of the entire team that treated their children, Dr. Wakefield included.