bumbleymummy Sat 28-Feb-15 20:53:52
"Vlad, I'm not going to agree with forcing people to vaccinate against their will for the sake of the greater good. There have been threads on that very subject before and the majority of people disagree with that idea, even if they are pro-vaccines in general."
Agreed.
"Medicine in general is moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach. Do you disagree with that? Should we treat patients as groups who just happen to have the same condition rather than individuals who may all respond differently to treatment? I don't think disagreeing with a one-size-fits-all approach is that unusual tbh."
Is it now? OK, tell me more. How would you instigate this policy when it comes to vaccination? What tests would you run? What variations could you put in place to the vaccines? Indeed, what are the variables of which you talk?
I'm interested to hear how this new wave of not having a 'one size fits all' policy will affect my GP visits? I am used to being given antibiotics for whatever ailment I turn up with. Does this mean they will start to diagnose me and prescribe the appropriate drug/treatment depending on my diagnosis? What is this witchcraft you speak of? How will affect beds? Well we have different coloured blankets on each bed in the wards? Different size beds? Will you get different treatments for the same illnesses depending on if you are tall or short?
Seriously now - you can't get much less 'one size fits all' than with medicine. The regime of treatment and cocktails of drugs are tailored pretty much to you right now. So what, do you mean?
"You're quoting me out of context. Both of those quotes are factually correct though. A new flu vaccine campaign for children is being rolled out and they did get the strain in the vaccine wrong this year. The risks of many of he diseases to healthy children and adults are fairly minimal. Do you disagree with either of those statements?"
I don't disagree with the first one. Sometimes they do get the strains wrong with flu. It is a guessing game, which they can't always get right. I completely disagree with the 2nd statement however. Flu, like many diseases can be deadly for otherwise healthy people. Complications include muscle inflammation (myositis), central nervous system disease, and heart problems including heart attacks, inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis), and inflammation of the sac around the heart (pericarditis). Read up about the 1918 epidemic. That flu took out the healthy people by turning their immune systems against them. So, no I don't think you can see it is minimal risk; even if the vaccine is not always the right one.
"Re your points about LaVolcan's post. Yes, measles complications are well known. Some vaccine reactions are also documented and accepted."
Totally agree there. As long as it is documented and statistically significant, it needs to be taken into account.
"There is an issue of under reporting in general which could affect the figures irt incidence of reactions and I do think that is worth considering."
So you say. This is meaningless; as it by definition can't be accounted for. That is why you use statistical methods like 'standard deviation' etc to check for significance in the data you do have, to extend it to the whole populace.
"I also agree that people seem less inclined to question people who come on and say 'auntie May had x complication from y disease' than people who come on and say 'my child reacted badly to z vaccine'. Even if both the complication and the side effect are known to occur."
Indeed. So, do you agree that it should be normal to accept and account for cases of complications/reactions/side effects when they are documented, it is should be equally normal to reject anecdotal 'links' to side effects/reactions where no evidence exists, and in fact many studies have shown that the anecdotal evidence is simply wrong?
"Go on to the other thread and search for my name and you'll see my posts. Some of the ones directed at you have questions that you haven't answered."
You said it - you tell me what I have missed.
"Vlad, I see you're capable of showing sympathy as long as the poster doesn't suggest that their child's ASD was triggered by a vaccine. Nice."
Now that was nasty-minded bitter little snipe, wasn't it? You have never met me; and at no point have know I ever said or inferred that I am lacking in sympathy for the plight of any ASD child.
Don't try and equate my views on anti-vaxxers with not caring about those children affected, as our venomous friend from the other thread did. Such a tactic is beneath contempt; as it attempts to exploit the child's condition to silence any opposition. That was why I reacted so strongly to it when it was used on me previously - I had hoped that you were better than that.