Vaccinations thread.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 436 comments
  • 25,208 views
This reminds me of that story where the guy wanted Gods help to save him from a sinking ship and when all these boats come by to help him, he refused saying "Im waiting for gods help", and then when he drowns and is in heaven, God goes " I tried to help you by sending all those boats to get you but you didn't take the offer".

Belief aside I don't see how this isn't identical to their situation.
 
It can be worse.

30 dead kids from an outbreak, or 30 deformed kids from severe totally preventable illness? Worse than face stabbing. I say lock up parents who were so criminally negligent as to allow their children to die or severely suffer needlessly.
Blame Jenny McCharthy.
 
An op-ed on the man behind the policy and his process:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-16/barnett-morrison-true-to-form-on-vaccination-policy/6396290

Morrison true to form on vaccination policy

Scott Morrison's announcement on vaccinations is par for the course for this "flat track bully", but that's not to say it won't help him in any potential leadership tussle, writes Darrin Barnett.

In cricket, a flat track bully is a top order batsman who only puts easy runs on the board by delivering against weak opposition.

So far in the Abbott Government, Scott Morrison fits the bill. He has capitalised on a race to the bottom in border protection against an Opposition that basically didn't want the fight. Asylum seekers have little in the way of power or influence.

This week Morrison has seemingly kept to form with a divisive yet popular decision towithhold Commonwealth money from those who choose not to vaccinate their children.

The question is whether this week's announcement is just more easy runs against weak opposition. Or is there room for complexity and persuasion in the public debate over vaccinating your kids?

For Morrison - the former Tourism Australia boss whose contribution to the national lexicon before entering politics was the infamous"Where the bloody hell are you?" campaign - the question is now far more, "Where the bloody hell are you going?"

The issue of non-vaccinated children is relatively small but growing - up from 15,000 to 39,000 in the past decade.

The Government has announced that parents would no longer receive childcare and family tax payments worth up to $15,000 a child from the start of next year.

There are concerns it will target the poor and force them into a making a choice against their convictions, but this is balanced by a solid and popular argument for the greater good.

This is an argument Morrison can win on the facts.

Vaccinations almost always work and they are almost always safe.

That said, we cannot protect newborns as immunisation takes time, while the chronically ill and those who are allergic cannot be protected, so fear in the community is high.

Of course, the fact that Prime Minister Tony Abbott the climate sceptic is arguing the merits of scientific consensus, and Morrison is lobbying for the protection of children after overseeing the mandatory detention of kids in immigration detention is a little conflicted to say the least. Yet much depends on how this is played from here.

After a successful campaign to Stop the Boats, Morrison has now been sent to social services to lighten his image.

Using his new social services portfolio to face up to web-certified quacks and hippies means easy runs.

But the reality is the Minister will face more serious questions about society's right to force parents into particular behaviours.

There are serious concerns over whether this is merely a populist witch hunt and there is a strong argument for a broad public education campaign on the benefits of vaccination to underpin the reforms.

Morrison was criticised for his bold lack of transparency in Operation Sovereign Borders,at first holding only weekly media briefings and then not at all, while avoiding questions in Parliament due to them pertaining to "Operational Matters" that were strictly military in nature.

In may ways, politics is the art of seeing what you can get away with and the Minister again tried it on for size this week.

He point blank refused to answer a legitimate question about which religious group would be exempt from the new rules around immunisations.

His reasoning was because people might try to convert to that religion in order to buck the system.

And just in case we missed the menacing tone, he added, "If that gets abused, we will shut that down too".

He may as well have said it's an operational matter.

For a bloke allegedly trying to soften his image, it's a poor start.

But with polls out this week confirming Abbot and Hockey are doing laps of the toilet bowl, waiting for someone to push the flush button, Morrison might be singing to a different audience.

Abbott and Hockey have painted themselves into a corner they can't get out of without dipping into reserves of political capital they don't currently possess.

Sure, they wouldn't go quietly, but the murmurings in Canberra are rising and Morrison's name is being mentioned more and more by the week.

That's not to say he is being disloyal - but it's also true that any characterisation of him includes the word ambitious. And events may well be contriving to open up a path for Morrison to the Lodge.

Hockey, once seen by some as the heir apparent, has dived so low he may never resurface.

Malcolm Turnbull, somewhat bafflingly derided as a leftie after making a sizeable fortune in private enterprise, is deeply unpopular within his own party and would probably already be in the Lodge if he was to be the next captain.

While Julie Bishop is somewhat of a media darling, it is as yet unclear whether the party would embrace a woman as leader, particularly one seen internally as having failed to protect Abbott in times of need.

Another strong wind blowing is the capricious breeze of Sydney talkback radio. Morrison is receiving a rails run from 2GB shock jock Ray Hadley as a regular guest. Hadley's stablemate and rival, Alan Jones, on the other hand, is strictly an Abbott loyalist.

The talkback factor becomes even more significant in light of this week's announcement by Queensland station 4BC to dump their on-air line-up in favour of syndication of Hadley and Jones.

The high stakes game of influence manipulation between Hadley and Jones will now rise significantly - and they will likely battle over their respective political champions.

If the flat-track bully Morrison can prove he has the game to take it up to sterner opposition, there will be extremely interesting weeks ahead.
 
Practicioners of Christian Science are deeply opposed to medical intervention. This is probably a very simplified version of it, but they see the course of somebody's life as being set by God, and so God is the only one who can alter the course of your life. Medical science is essentially human intervention, and frowned upon.

My source on this, as odd as it may seem, is Metallica's James Hetfield. He was raised according to the Christian Science doctrine, until his mother got sick; she rejected medical treatment, firm in her belief that God would save her, but it never happened. It's pretty much what "The God That Failed" from the Load (or possibly ReLoad) is all about.

Basically they believe that sickness is an illusion, that prayers will remove the sickness and that medical treatment would disturb the prayers.

The search for salvation is a peculiar thing.
 
“We have had further discussions with the Church of Christ, Scientist and have formed the view that the registered exemption they have had in place is no longer current or necessary and therefore it will be removed,’’ he said.

“They are not advising anyone in their religion not to vaccinate people.

“Having spoken to them we no longer see that exemption as being current. As a result, there is no longer any religious exemption for vaccination. And there won’t be any religious exemptions for vaccinations.

“So the only exemption now is medical. We’re not accepting any further exemptions from any religious exemptions.

“It won’t be changing under us. That’s a policy decision that we will no longer be accepting any religious exemptions.

“The only reason that one was in place was because it was there. That’s no longer necessary and as a result I think that makes it all very simple now.

“The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. People strongly support it and would welcome us going further, so we’re happy to do so.’’

Vaccine refusers have flocked to online forums to try to think of ways to dodge the tough new laws.

But according to the census, there are fewer than 1400 Australian citizens who have identified themselves as Christian Scientists.








If all that is true then what is the issue?
 

It isn't one-sided though, it digs into the numbers used in your link and shows that they were cherry-picked. If it takes the side of accuracy then so be it.


Wakefield has said twice that there is no causal link between autism and the MMR vaccine. He said it once in the 1998 paper you refer to and once again at the BMC hearing. The papers you cited in that article detail research into how gastro conditions are affected by autism, not that vaccinations cause autism. For the article to say that this "unequivocally proves Wakefield's findings to be correct" is bollocks; none of those papers relate to it other than by covering autism and gastro disease.

The Wakefield paper was a great example of how not to do research; Wakefield chose only 12 cases and those cases included families who were separately paying a litigious organisation which was, in part, funding his work. The paper was peer-reviewed and trashed immediately by expert reviewers just on the facts alone. Had the bias been known then it wouldn't have even made it to review.

When you read in that article that it confirmed Wakefield's findings did you just take that as fact (because somebody had written it out), did you read the titles of the quoted papers or go and look at any?

I'll be honest, my main beef about vaccinations, is the compulsory nature.

It would have been more refreshing to read that than watch you stick your head down a conspiracy rabbit hole, for sure :)
 
Exactly. I am not in the least bit convinced that, whilst they may have a benefit, there are a number of things about them that I can not be convinced of. Namely, the side effects can be horrendous, and the true number of devastated lives cannot be ever fully known. If vaccines were tainted, whether deliberately or accidentally, then the dangers may be much worse than the possible benefits.

If you can convince me that my fears are misguided, then by all means convince me.
 
Exactly. I am not in the least bit convinced that, whilst they may have a benefit, there are a number of things about them that I can not be convinced of. Namely, the side effects can be horrendous, and the true number of devastated lives cannot be ever fully known. If vaccines were tainted, whether deliberately or accidentally, then the dangers may be much worse than the possible benefits.

If you can convince me that my fears are misguided, then by all means convince me.

I can't convince you if you don't want to be convinced, but I've got a nice tin foil hat that you might like. It's very stylish.
 
Exactly. I am not in the least bit convinced that, whilst they may have a benefit, there are a number of things about them that I can not be convinced of. Namely, the side effects can be horrendous, and the true number of devastated lives cannot be ever fully known. If vaccines were tainted, whether deliberately or accidentally, then the dangers may be much worse than the possible benefits.

You can't completely remove risk, no, but does that make it a better choice to do nothing at all?
 
It's not a choice to do nothing at all. It's a choice of letting the bodies natural defenses take care of the body, or taking vaccines.
 
It's a choice of letting the bodies natural defenses take care of the body, or taking vaccines.

The body has no natural defences against many of the things that we immunise against, at least not in quantities that go anywhere near guaranteeing survival for the sufferer.

To claim that the body does have adequate natural defences without immunisation is wrong and it is dangerous.
 
To claim that the body does have adequate natural defences without immunisation is wrong and it is dangerous.
It also means making a choice for other peoples' children. If you don't immunise, you put other children at risk.

Namely, the side effects can be horrendous, and the true number of devastated lives cannot be ever fully known.
It's like air travel. It's a tragedy when a plane crashes, but how many planes successfully land every single day? One accident doesn't make the entire airline industry unsafe.

Likewise vaccines. It's true that there can be side effects - but these are limited to an absolute fraction of a percentile point. There is considerably more risk involved in not vaccinating, since the benefits of vaccination have been scientifically proven, as have the dangers of not vaccinating.
 
It's not a choice to do nothing at all. It's a choice of letting the bodies natural defenses take care of the body, or taking vaccines.

You could teach children to swim, or you could just rely on the body's natural instincts to save them when they fall in deep water.

Of course, a few children may be injured or even drown while learning to swim, no matter what precautions are taken. Should we therefore not teach anyone to swim?

If 1 in 100,000 people would drown because they didn't know how to swim, and 1 in 10,000,000 people would drown in swimming instruction, what do you do? Learn to swim or not?


Nothing is ever totally safe, we use things because the rewards outweigh the risks. I see a lot of talk about the risks associated with vaccines, and while they're small, they are real. However, the people who talk about risks are often loath to talk about the rewards, as though the two were not part of an indivisible whole.

If you have a 1 in 100 chance of catching measles, and a 2 in 1000 chance of actually dying once you catch it, then your chance of death is around about 2 in 10,000. If the vaccine gives you perfect immunity (which is doesn't, but for the sake of argument), then as long as your chances of fatal or life altering side effects are less than 2 in 10,000 then you should probably take the vaccine.

The stuff we have vaccines for is stuff that used to kill fairly significant portions of the population. Any side effects from the vaccines are orders of magnitude below the actual damage that the disease itself would cause. People get cocky because they don't understand statistics, any individual may be able to skip vaccination and have no negative effects whatsoever. But on the scale of a population, non-vaccination is far, far more dangerous than anything the vaccine could possibly do to you.
 
Last edited:
It's not a choice to do nothing at all. It's a choice of letting the bodies natural defenses take care of the body, or taking vaccines.
How'd Smallpox/Variola work out for humans using their "natural defenses"?

300 to 500 million dead.

What about after vaccines for Smallpox were invented and distributed throughout the world?

Eradicated since 1979 with no fatalities or infections since.
 
Last edited:
While I believe the benefits of vaccination outweigh any possible harm, I also believe that one has the right to decide for themselves and their families, what is injected into their bodies in most cases except possibly in situtations that are life threatening. Should we force people to take a flu shot for example, knowing that literally tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu? The flu is a far greater risk than pretty much anything you'd normally get vaccinated for in the western world yet we don't force people to get a flu vaccine. Where does the right to determine what happens with my own body end and where does the state's right to inject you with chemicals begin? Who draws that line?
 
Should we force people to take a flu shot for example, knowing that literally tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu? The flu is a far greater risk than pretty much anything you'd normally get vaccinated for in the western world yet we don't force people to get a flu vaccine.

Influenza poses a risk for children and the elderly but not for most healthy people between those ages. It's certainly one of the less deadly viruses for which vaccines are available.
 
Influenza poses a risk for children and the elderly but not for most healthy people between those ages. It's certainly one of the less deadly viruses for which vaccines are available.
The CDC in America says 56, 979 from influenza and pneumonia. So again, why not force influenza vaccination as well? Why draw the line at the flu? Why no outcry at that seeming contradiction?
 
The CDC in America says 56, 979 from influenza and pneumonia. So again, why not force influenza vaccination as well? Why draw the line at the flu? Why no outcry at that seeming contradiction?

Firstly; the figure is less than a tenth of that if you mine them a little deeper (1/7th as deadly as guns). Secondly, influenza changes quickly so a lifetime vaccine is inappropriate. Thirdly, like all vaccines, it isn't forced on anyone - it's advertised and made easily available either as part of a normal healthcare program or as a walk-in option.
 
Firstly; the figure is less than a tenth of that if you mine them a little deeper (1/7th as deadly as guns). Secondly, influenza changes quickly so a lifetime vaccine is inappropriate. Thirdly, like all vaccines, it isn't forced on anyone - it's advertised and made easily available either as part of a normal healthcare program or as a walk-in option.
When you deny people thousands of dollars in government benefits for not vaccinating, that's just forced vaccination by another name. So why not take benefits away from people who don't get the influenza vaccine, since we know it helps to prevent some strains of influenza and therefore saves lives?

What do guns have to do with vaccinations by the way?

Oh and this:
CDC estimates that from the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 flu season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people.
 
If you get shot with a large calibre weapon it increases your resistance to small arms fire.
7 hours before the New Year (here anyway), you come up with the punniest line of 2015 on GTP:odd:
 
Yes that's right I'm a loon. There is no evidence of what I am suggesting could happen, happening.

Just out of interest. What do you make of this video?



I've been quoted by four people on this thread and it is to them, that I am speaking.

Is it a spoof, or is it real?
 
Back