To think that anti-vaxers may actually being onto something?

[viiz]

I don't have children myself yet but I don't know what I would chose when the time comes. Most of pro vax/anti vax threads turns nasty with people not even willing to try and look at things with others side perspective. Not willing to even consider points of view different than their own and that's a very silly approach. People believed a lot of things that turned out to be false over the years and centuries. Why not to doubt a little?

I was born in early '80s and not in UK. Myself, my siblings and friends were all vaccinated at the time. I don't even remember what I was vaccinated against but had to be pretty basic. Just a few jabs throughout my whole childhood/teen years and nothing 3in1 or 10in1 or whatever they'll bring next.

Now to the point. Reading through hundreds of threads it jumps at me how many children have neurological, behavioural or emotional disorders. No one else sees it really?? I don't know even one person from my childhood including friends, extended family , neighbours etc who would have ADS or ADHD or any other issues like that. I see their children to have it though.

AIBU to consider there could be a link here??

Please be gentle. I hope to have a discussion here. I don't disrespect anyone's views and I only ask to try and ask yourself 'what if'.

I know she never will, but I really want cath to give us an explanation of the process she uses to decide what information she’s going to accept. I am desperate to understand how she decides what she thinks is valid, and what isn’t.

Lweji ...virologist colleagues? So you work in the industry then?

This is exactly the kind of bunfight that makes me despair of ever having a normal conversation online about vaccines.

Little wonder that the anti-vaxers I've spoken to (who were pro-vaccine before their kid was hurt) just put their head down and say nothing.

Still old article about direct detection of viral RNA in people. (no indirect measure) As far back as 2012.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3264145/

In a more recent article, HIV is directly sequenced, as early as 2 weeks after detection of infection, in women. To the point that full genomes were identified and even different variants of the virus.

But if you think knowledge and technology hasn't gone past 1990s studies, then you might as well still be typing in a typewritter and sending letters by post to MN.

So you work in the industry then?

Define "industry".

Where do you think virologists work?

I'm still to see a response to my dare about injecting yourself with cells infected with viruses.
I'd give you an ebola culture myself.

Viruses are indistinguishable from cell particulates ... and despite having the technology to do so they have never been able to show a virus invading a cell and causing that cell to replicate the so called virus... they have however shown a cell breaking down on exposure to toxins and producing these ‘viruses’ which are infact cell particulates

@Heronymoys I went through university etc utterly believing the standard dogma that we are all indoctrinated with. It was peeking beneath the surface that led me on the path I eventually found myself on that led me to question everything. Health especially since leaving the cancer treatment field I used to work in.

Viruses are indistinguishable from cell particulates

How would you know that?

They are actually very different. Have you ever looked at an electron microscope photograph of a cell and a virus?

Lweji as you’ve probably gleaned I wouldn’t randomly inject myself with anything let alone foreign protein .... I would however pay no attention to someone’s alleged HIV status if I were to embark on a relationship with them ... does that answer your ‘dare’

Equally I wouldn’t pay that much attention to supposedly being in contact with an Ebola case....in the same way I wasn’t remotely worried about swine flu, bird flu, or whatever other pandemic the try to manufacture that never acts like they predict

Cell particulates ..not a whole cell!!

Viruses are indistinguishable from cell particulates

Have you got good quality source on that? Emphasis on the good quality.

My friend's story is one of many reasons to consider vaccination (and is not a 'shock tale designed to prove a point' but a genuine situation that even 5 years later still brings me to tears).

Her little girl had not yet finished her course of vaccines at 6 months and my friend met another mother with her toddler for a lunch date. Toddler was unwell but my friend didn't think anything of it and just assumed usual cough/cold.

What she didn't realise is her friend had decided not to vaccinate and toddler had (albeit mild) whooping cough. Her darling baby passed away at 6 months from complications arisen from whooping cough just two weeks later.

I cannot exaggerate enough the fall out from this:both to my friend and her family who had to plan a funeral for a 6 month old girl!! But also her friend who had the ill toddler and did not comprehend the impact that her decision may have had on anyone other than her own children.

The sooner this thread gets to 1000 the better. I'm sorry but getting into discussions about whether to vaccinate to me, with the above in mind, is pointless. Do it. And if you don't, don't come near me (I am also immune suppressed)

despite having the technology to do so they have never been able to show a virus invading a cell and causing that cell to replicate the so called virus.

What? Like this?

www.pnas.org/content/104/50/20037

Cell particulates ..not a whole cell!!

Still, yes they are. Viruses have specific structures and shapes.

I'm not able to post photos for some reason, but here are some lovely viral electron microscopy shapes:

www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enPT751PT751&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=crFdXPJxg4pqlLiR8A4&q=viruses+electron+microscope&oq=viruses+electron+microscope&gs_l=img.3..0i7i30l3j0i8i7i30.70203.71344..71561...0.0..0.61.401.7......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i5i30.NaFZFKiYk7w

I'm quite fond of the good old phage myself, and ebola.

But you can label viruses with fluorescent substances and follow what they do.

JimandPam According to well documented theory, the pertussis vaccine doesn’t stop the spread, it was not designed to . It is supposed to stop the symptoms. This is well documented. Hence vaccinated individuals can carry the disease without showing symptoms actually making it more dangerous.
I’m sure this isn’t the best article but it’s one of many
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/11/whooping-cough-vaccine-does-not-stop-spread-disease-lab-animals?r3f_986=www.google.co.uk/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/11/whooping-cough-vaccine-does-not-stop-spread-disease-lab-animals?r3f_986=www.google.co.uk/

Lweji there’s an awful lot of hypothesising going on in that article of yours...
‘The images have been ordered from a to e to depict the likely series of events that occur during the entry process’
note the use of ‘likely’

the pertussis vaccine doesn’t stop the spread, it was not designed to . It is supposed to stop the symptoms.

And...? Surely it's one more reason to vaccinate your child, if they're likely to get in contact with the virus anyway.

And, yes, sometimes not developing symptoms is the best we can achieve. Still worth getting it.

That was in response to the post about the baby catching pertussis from the unvaccinated child!

note the use of ‘likely’

That's normal scientific language. But it was just a quick example. You get mounting evidence and it stacks up to make the opposite hypothesis very unlikely.

By opposite hypothesis, read: virus not entering cell or not causing disease (for which there is diminishing evidence).

‘The images have been ordered from a to e to depict the likely series of events that occur during the entry process’
note the use of ‘likely’

It's not hypothesizing, Cathmidston, it's drawing a conclusion from the evidence they have presented. Once again, you're misapplying scientific analysis to research presented by others, and not applying it to your own sources, which are in dire need of it.

That was in response to the post about the baby catching pertussis from the unvaccinated child!

So, you decided to show your lack of logical thought?

Also
The images have been ordered from a to e to depict the likely series of events that occur during the entry process

The images correspond to different times after exposure, showing that the viruses move from outside to inside the cell with the passing of time. From all out, to most in.
Scientists measure the numbers out and in.

And we can trust this because anyone can replicate the experience in their own labs, and they have likely done so.

It was peeking beneath the surface that led me on the path I eventually found myself on

I don’t want vague metaphors. You’re claiming some kind of scientific credibility here, so tell me specifically what your criteria are. What are the factors you use to judge whether you will accept information? What are the questions you ask to determine what is and isn’t valid?

Because I want to believe it’s more than simply ‘does this person agree with the views I’ve already formed?’. But I see no evidence of this.

I'm getting confused, though. How is pertussis passed on from person to person? Telepathy?