Some UK Doctors Don’t Want to Re-vaccinate Children
According to an article on Yahoo news, Doctors in the UK and not so sure about giving a second dose of measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine to children, even though the vaccine is probably not effective without a booster shot.
The information for the article was gathered from the Lancet, a UK medical journal. According to the same article, some nurses surveyed believed there may be links between the MMR vaccine and an increased risk of Crohn’s disease or autism.
While the article states that any vaccine link to autism is highly controversial and “widely rejected” by researchers, nearly half of all UK health care professionals surveyed, claimed to have concerns regarding whether or not to give a second dose of MMR to children. According to the article, regular use of a second dose of MMR was introduced in 1996, as a result of measles outbreaks in 1993.
Some mothers, quite a lot of them really, ate potatoes when they were kids and then went on to have autistic kids. That’s a fact! Indeed research reveals something like most people that died in airplane crashes ate chocolate within a year of their fall from the sky, and a staggering amount of those people had also, in that same year, eaten potatoes.
It’s all out there, you just have to look. No government’s going to tell you this shit, man. they don’t want you knowing the truth. Hell, they make money from chocolate and spuds, quite a lot of it, actually.
Have you ever considered that these doctors who don’t immnovaccinoculate their kids are jsut benefiting from herd immunity? (jive turkey has mentioned it before on these boards)
Seems cruel and unusual to me that these doctors who don’t get their own kids jabbed are ready and willing to do it to other people’s children? Willingly playing Russian Roulette with these kids lives? String the fuckers up, I say!!
Oh, and when the intertubes start working again, do us a favour and get that Swiss study and show us how many, out of that 5% of non-jabbing doctors, are actually pediatricians. Just so we can all see.
… a longtime anti-immunization crusader and self-described “medical heretic” who makes his living preaching to the converted. There’s a reason his theories are published in books, and not in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He is the paranoid alarmist who also opposed water fluoridation, coronary bypass surgery, licensing of nutritionists, and the routine use of X-Rays. His modus operandi is identical in all these subjects, and is also the reason he cannot get published in medical journals. He ignores the statistical and reproducible evidence and sensationalizes a few negative cases.
I also have “concerns” about vaccines. I have “concerns” about every needle or pill that goes in my son’s body. I still took him for the basic jabs, though.
One doctor’s opinion, or journalistic reports of “some” doctors’ “concerns” that don’t bother to fully describe research methods or give the original stats, seem like pretty weak support for the anti-vaccination argument. If you are going to argue against vaccination, you at least need to read the original studies. I doubt you have done that at all.
… a longtime anti-immunization crusader and self-described “medical heretic” who makes his living preaching to the converted. There’s a reason his theories are published in books, and not in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He is the paranoid alarmist who also opposed water fluoridation, coronary bypass surgery, licensing of nutritionists, and the routine use of X-Rays. His modus operandi is identical in all these subjects, and is also the reason he cannot get published in medical journals. He ignores the statistical and reproducible evidence and sensationalizes a few negative cases.[/quote]
You think X-Rays and water fluoridation is good for you??!?!?
And you guys keep asking me for the scientific evidence that proves vaccines are harmful…and you ignore all the stuff that seems common sense…like when someone says injecting foreign animal matter into a newborn is bad. So let’s turn this around…show me the long term studies of vaccinated and non-vaccinated that prove that vaccines don’t cause an increase in cancer or other serious illnesses.
“While the myriad short-term hazards of most immunizations are known (but rarely explained), no one knows the long term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body of your child. Even more shocking is the fact that no one is making any structured effort to find out.”
Well UNlike vaccination, there is at least documented evidence of the harm those things do … which is extremely contained and far less than the harm of not using them, so of course they are good for you. Or would you feel healthier with false teeth by age forty?
Common sense is the reason that the scientific method was invented.
The human mind is gullible. Yours, mine, everyones, it’s in our nature. Common sense tells me I don’t need to wash my hands before cooking. What are you saying there are tiny animals - so tiny they are invisible! - living on my dirt/poop/hands and those invisible beings make us sick? Come on I’m not an idiot! It’s far more likely that witch who lives down the road has cursed me. And now you ask me to believe that injected a certain form of those little beasties - the same ones who make me sick! - into my very blood can stop me getting sick? My common sense is reeling.
[quote]
Court rules vaccines not the cause of autism
Vaccines aren’t to blame for autism, a special federal court declared Thursday in a blow to thousands of families hoping to win compensation and to many more who are convinced of a connection.
The special masters who decided the case expressed sympathy for the families, some of whom have made emotional pleas describing their children’s conditions, but the rulings were blunt: There’s little if any evidence to support claims of a vaccine-autism link.
The evidence “is weak, contradictory and unpersuasive,” concluded Special Master Denise Vowell. “Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding” of autism.[/quote]
FYI, here’s some of this information you asked for:
[quote]The UK Department of Health and the vast majority of doctors and scientists say that the facts in favour of routine MMR vaccination for children aged 12 to 15 months are already indisputable, with more than 500 million doses of the vaccine having been given in 90 countries since the 1970s. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5728998.ece[/quote]
[quote]Given the lack of direct evidence for a biological mechanism and the fact that all
well-designed epidemiological studies provide evidence of no association
between thimerosal and autism, the committee recommends that cost-benefit
assessments regarding the use of thimerosal-containing versus thimerosal-
free vaccines and other biological or pharmaceutical products, whether in
the United States or other countries, should not include autism as a potential
risk. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705.aspx[/quote]
[quote]In 2000, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) at the National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the NIH, conducted a review of all the evidence related to the MMR vaccine and autism. This independent panel examined completed studies, on-going studies, published medical and scientific papers, and expert testimony to assess whether or not there was a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. The IOM concluded that the evidence reviewed did not support an association between autism and the MMR vaccine. This and other conclusions from the IOM review were released in April 2001 (Immunization Safety Review Committee 2001). http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism/mmr/sub3.cfm[/quote]
Thanks for that. I’ll give them a good read over. Anything pro-vaccine I happy to look at. Especially considering that sooner or later I’m going to have to give him the shots.
But you should also keep in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that tons of studies and scientists and doctors all said without a doubt…that smoking was non-addictive. So with that in mind…you need to take whatever big brother tells you with a grain of salt.
[quote=“Mordeth”][quote=“gamemaker”]
FYI, here’s some of this information you asked for…
[/quote]
But you should also keep in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that tons of studies and scientists and doctors all said without a doubt…that smoking was non-addictive. So with that in mind…you need to take whatever big brother tells you with a grain of salt.[/quote]
[quote=“davidintaipei”][quote=“Mordeth”][quote=“gamemaker”]
FYI, here’s some of this information you asked for…
[/quote]
But you should also keep in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that tons of studies and scientists and doctors all said without a doubt…that smoking was non-addictive. So with that in mind…you need to take whatever big brother tells you with a grain of salt.[/quote]
Any addictive drugs are supposed to be illegal in America. Russell Crow did that true life movie about a guy who worked for the tobacco company and wanted to let people know the truth. And the truth was that the big companies with the money hired doctors and scientists to create the results they wanted.
I know we’re way off topic, but I saw the movie and remember the congressional hearings. The “seven dwarfs” were, in fact, CEOs of tobacco companies–not doctors or scientists. And like Russel Crowe’s character (Dr. Jerry Wigand) did in the movie, the congressmen on the committee and the public ridiculed the CEOs for stating, under oath, that nicotine was not addictive. http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-seven-dwarves-i-believe-that-nicotine-is-not-addictive/1732137869 What Dr. Wigand did not like about their testimony is that they were lying about the addictive quality of nicotine, not that scientists were working for Big Tobacco.
And, yes, you’re right about some scientists working for “institutes” attacking research showing the harmful effects of cigarettes. These “institutes” are funded by Big Tobacco, so their bias is clear. It just sounded to me that you were implying that the majority of doctors and scientists believe that sh**, when in fact is was a well-paid minority. IMHO it boils down to knowing something about the sources of information, statistics, “truth”, etc. to learn about any potential conflict of interest.
Many drugs can be addictive, but are widely-used in medicine. Morphine is still given to some patients with extreme pain. Many prescriptions can become addictive if abused. They’re legal to get, though, with a prescription. The FDA, rightly or wrongly, does not classify cigarettes as a drug, so they are not drugs.
BTW, my point in responding is to clarify, not argue. I also think that we should not believe everything Big Brother has to say, but I’m also aware that there are many Little Brothers out there, too.
Well I always agree that people should be skeptical Mordeth … it is a good personality trait (and another part of the reason for the invention of science in the first place ).
I think that is a strength of the scientific method, that it’s mostly self-correcting. In literal terms there isn’t really such a thing as “scientific fact”. There is merely the hypothesis that most accurately predicts the data. Either a better hypothesis or new data changes scientific knowledge.
The real test here is whether or not tobacco scientists working for such “institutes” were able to:
1.) Get their pro-smoke “research” into peer-reviewed journals; and
2.) Get so much of such research into the good journals that their side of the issue dominated.
Well, did either of the two happen?
Companies of all sorts have done and published “research” for decades. It is part of their marketing. Just because they have a guy with an advanced degree do it and then label it as “research” or “a study” does not mean that anybody in the academic scientific community accepts their findings as valid.
[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“davidintaipei”]
And, yes, you’re right about some scientists working for “institutes” attacking research showing the harmful effects of cigarettes. These “institutes” are funded by Big Tobacco, so their bias is clear. It just sounded to me that you were implying that the majority of doctors and scientists believe that sh**, when in fact is was a well-paid minority. IMHO it boils down to knowing something about the sources of information, statistics, “truth”, etc. to learn about any potential conflict of interest.
[/quote]
The real test here is whether or not tobacco scientists working for such “institutes” were able to:
1.) Get their pro-smoke “research” into peer-reviewed journals; and
2.) Get so much of such research into the good journals that their side of the issue dominated.
Well, did either of the two happen?
Companies of all sorts have done and published “research” for decades. It is part of their marketing. Just because they have a guy with an advanced degree do it and then label it as “research” or “a study” does not mean that anybody in the academic scientific community accepts their findings as valid.[/quote]
We’re in total agreement. These “institutes” were created only to promote and publish the “studies”, partly in part because no peer-reviewed journal would.
).