Please explain, succinctly, the anti vac argument

[WorkingBling]

With all the current news re vaccines and measles I realised that while I am very comfortable and believe strongly that vaccines are the most appropriate defense, I don't actually understand the anti vac argument. I remember the Wakefield thing but that has been debunked. So why do people still resist? What is the thinking?

Someone told
Me that he doesn't "agree with vaccines" in much the same tone as he mightn't say he doesn't agree with the death penalty but I was too nervous to push him further without understanding the issues better.

I can't believe dome of what I am reading here.

I remember talking to my Granny about the dread she used to feel every April when my Mum was growing up. Why? Polio season is on the way. Polio does not happen any more - despite what the really dangerous (and IMO thoroughly evil) quack morons might try to claim. Vaccines work - period. Everything you do or take has a risk. Some people die from Aspirin. Flying in a plane, crossing the road.... It might be one in a million, it might be less/more. No vaccine is 100% never going to have any side effects in anyone ever; life just ain't like that. It is tragic when a child suffers an adverse reaction, or is hurt by a drug or vaccine (an no, this is not autism - there is NO LINK) no matter how rare this may be, but it is going to happen sometimes. That tiny, tiny chance (and it is tiny) is well worth taking, to protect your child from brain damage or blindness from measles, or being in an iron lung or having to wear leg supports because of Polio. Or suffering lung damage/death from whooping cough. We seem to be too young to remember, or know how it used to be - to young and too spoilt/arrogant. Nature will remind you the hard way if you don't stop hand-wringing and wake up.

For those who seem to feel that they know far better than the medical professionals as to when vaccines should be given; could I come see you about my ingrowing toe-nail? Being a parent seems to make you suddenly medically qualified to make judgments about advanced medical matters, statistical analysis and bio-organic chemistry; using only the power of reading clap-trap on the internet written by god-knows-who.

As for the comments of some on this thread about how they don't see why they should have their children vaccinated to protect others; I am flabbergasted, depressed and frankly disgusted by the utter selfishness of your attitude towards your community. You use the example of an old person (they of course don't matter as much on Mumsnet do they?), but you have forgotten about the immunosuppressed; i.e. children with cancer, who can't be immunised. To protect them, and some where vaccines just don't work, we ALL have a responsibility to each other, and to protect vulnerable children and adults with cancer to get vaccinated and maintain herd protection. It is possible to be an asymptomatic carrier - every heard of 'Typhoid Mary'? Your selfish and deluded decision could KILL someone's child - but hey, it's not mine, so what do I care? They should take care of themselves.... The idea that others will do it, so it won't matter if I decide to not have my child take the "risk" is abhorrent. What an awful way to think.

I agree entirely. Well said, Vlad.

vladimpaler You've ignored and/or misinterpreted a number of contributions made on this thread. I don't think misrepresenting the opinions of others and insulting people who make different choices does anything to advance the discussion.

Furthermore fascicle, the OP asked why some people didn't vaccinate, not whether they are immoral for not doing so.

Vlad remembers talking to her granny about the polio season - well guess what, I was alive during the 1950s, and I don't remember my parents or any others, living in dread of it.

Some people die from Aspirin - yes, but in the 1950s it was common to give children aspirin. You could get special junior formulations for them - Junior Disprin, if I remember correctly, although my parents just gave us half an adult aspirin. Subsequent research has now shown it can be dangerous and it's no longer recommended.

The immunosuppressed are in danger from anyone who has a disease, and that includes the common cold. So people need to be sensible and quarantine themselves when they are ill.

Governments do pay out for vaccine damage, so it's not something which happens only once in a blue moon.

Autism is not one disease - it's more like a label for a collection of symptoms.

"It is tragic when a child suffers an adverse reaction, or is hurt by a drug or vaccine....... That tiny, tiny chance (and it is tiny) is well worth taking,"

How many parents who had a child who was damaged would agree with this?

I for one am getting tired of seeing the parents with such children being told that it's just a coincidence. (Yet if you become deaf after measles, Oh no, it's not a coincidence then). Why not have the grace to listen to what the parents say? They may not be medical practitioners but they live with and care for that child day in day out, so when they say the child has changed perhaps they just might be right.

" That tiny, tiny chance (and it is tiny) is well worth taking, to protect your child from brain damage or blindness from measles, or being in an iron lung or having to wear leg supports because of Polio. Or suffering lung damage/death from whooping cough. We seem to be too young to remember, or know how it used to be - to young and too spoilt/arrogant. Nature will remind you the hard way if you don't stop hand-wringing and wake up. "

Well that is a preposterous and bollock laden pile of emotive crap.

The risk for my child isn't tiny. And don't pretend to give a shit about my vaccine damaged child when you clearly don't.

I'm 52.
I'm not too young to understand the risk. I'm old enough to have experienced the downside of vaccination and react accordingly.

Patronising shite .

Terrible post vlad. I don't think you've read the thread very well if that's what you've come away with from it.

"I don't think misrepresenting the opinions of others and insulting people who make different choices does anything to advance the discussion."

I disagree. Please feel free to show me where I have misrepresented opinions. Regarding people's choices, I have every right to have an opinion when they affect me. If you choose to not vaccinate, you affect me because you erode herd immunity. You also increase my tax burden through NHS costs due to the increased chance of complications if your child does have complications when they get a preventable disease.

"Governments do pay out for vaccine damage, so it's not something which happens only once in a blue moon."

I never once said vaccines and drugs are totally safe. There are risks, that are statistically measured and displayed in the public domain. These risks are tiny; massively small in reality compared the emotive claptrap spouted by the anti-vaxxers, who have nothing except "show and tell" phrases to back up their 'arguments'. " Vaccines have mercury in them, so they must be bad!"

"Autism is not one disease - it's more like a label for a collection of symptoms." Agreed.

"It is tragic when a child suffers an adverse reaction, or is hurt by a drug or vaccine....... That tiny, tiny chance (and it is tiny) is well worth taking,

How many parents who had a child who was damaged would agree with this?"

So, that's an argument for not taking any drugs at all. Or not crossing the road? Or not eating any food you have not grown yourself in soil tested for heavy metals and radioactivity? Antibiotics can cause adverse reactions. if your child had blood poisoning, would you be reading the label on the bottle first, and worrying about all the stuff they put in it? You can produce all the sad stories you like, I can show 99,999 other stories that say nothing, as the children are fine.

"I for one am getting tired of seeing the parents with such children being told that it's just a coincidence. (Yet if you become deaf after measles, Oh no, it's not a coincidence then). Why not have the grace to listen to what the parents say? They may not be medical practitioners but they live with and care for that child day in day out, so when they say the child has changed perhaps they just might be right."

Typical observer-expectancy bias. The difference between measles causing deafness, and a small but vocal percentile of parents looking for a reason and other vested interests ('alternative' quack practitioners have their own agenda; selling things just like the evil 'big pharma...) seeing a link when there clearly is not one is obvious. One is a provable, explicable outcome. The other is hearsay, anecdotal opinion, with no provable mechanism of action, just a lot of emotive propaganda about the 'nasty things' in vaccines. Things that at the levels present are no danger at all.

This sort of simplistic deductive 'reasoning' belongs to the Dark Ages. If we actually take it into account, we just as well throw all the scientific achievements since the Enlightenment in the bin, and go back to worshipping the sun. "I noticed that if I keep pray to sun every day, it comes up. In winter I prey especially hard, and then it shines more as the seasons pass. There must be a link?"

• So why do witches burn?

- 'Cause they're made of wood? - Good! - How do we tell if she is made of wood? - Build a bridge out of her. - But can you not also make bridges out of stone? - Oh, yeah. - Does wood sink in water? - No, it floats. - Throw her into the pond! - What also floats in water? - Bread. - Apples. - Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy. - Cherries. Mud. - Churches. - Lead. - A duck! - Exactly. - So, logically-- - If she weighs the same as a duck... - she's made of wood. - And therefore? - A witch! - A duck! A duck! - Here's a duck. - We shall use my largest scales. - Burn the witch ! - Remove the supports! - A witch! - It's a fair cop.

"The risk for my child isn't tiny. And don't pretend to give a shit about my vaccine damaged child when you clearly don't.
Patronising shite"

I am sorry you feel the need to be rude. Please try to be civil as I am trying to be. I was not aware I cared about your child personally. I don't know him/her, so how can I have any personal opinions or really care beyond general empathy; the sort you would have when you see something bad happen to someone on TV? Why would I care more than that? People (inc children) die every day, all the time from all sorts of things. It is the worst thing in the world when it happens to you (I have had experience of this), but harsh as it sounds, it is just part of the way things are.

The problem is that your opinions are very personal. It sounds like your child has some problems that you have decided were caused by a vaccine. It may be that they were, or it may be that you have decided that is the case to give yourself a reason for why things turned out the way they did. I am not talking about emotion, I am trying to point out that if we lose our grip on scientific method, we are lost. Pointing at people, and calling them 'witch' because they own a black cat and burning them at the stake when your crops fail is in the same league as some of what was said on here.

"Terrible post vlad. I don't think you've read the thread very well if that's what you've come away with from it."

On the contrary, I have read it through very well. What do I get from it?

• You can't make an informed decision about something by simply looking at what you think are causal links. Often, measurement shows that mere causal observation is plain wrong.

• Listening to propaganda filled with emotion and no hard facts is regression back to the middle ages. What happened to substantive evidence? Opinions based just on this are what causes lynchings, 'crowd justice' etc. Remember that poor guy (Christopher Jeffries) from Bristol who the media decided had murdered some poor girl basically because he looked like a 'wrong un'?

• You can bring all the heart-rending 'look what happened to my child' emotional stories in that you want. I'm not a bad person for saying that emotion has nothing to do with facts, and accusing me of being hard-hearted because I won't let that cloud my thinking is totally beside the point, as well as being wrong. Nothing is totally safe, but each time you see a story like that, don't forget the hundreds of thousands of people who have a very boring story about their vaccination experience. Nothing happened. No-one talks about that do they? All we hear about are the 'horror stories'.

• Anyone who thinks that they know better than medical professionals because they have read up about it in Dr Google, is dangerously deluded. Being a parent does not make you an expert; what next, are you going to disagree with your GP about giving your child antibiotics? From WWW.NHS.UK:

"In rare cases (estimated to be somewhere between one and five in 10,000) an antibiotic can cause a severe and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis. "

Better stop your child from taking those as well, or maybe have a think about when to give them the pills whilst the infections takes hold? After all, it is your decision, and your freedom ain't it?

• Alternative practitioners have their own agendas and vested interests. They want to sell you things, just like drug companies do. The line comes when they try to suggest that their cures are an alternative to chemo, or vaccines.

Why would a lack of herd immunity affect you vlad? Are you not vaccinated?

How many people in this rheas have come out with phrases such as 'vaccines have mercury so they must be bad?' An example of you misrepresenting people who don't vaccinate perhaps?

You seem to only consider 'facts' that agree with your own opinion.

Rheas = thread

Where does one begin with a rant like Vlads?

Straight question of how many parents with a vaccine damaged child think that the risk was worth taking? There was no argument involved. I have yet to see anyone say, "Yup, I happy that my child took the hit for the rest of the population. I am happy that my 8 year old can't talk, and may never talk, is doubly-incontinent and may always be so, needs constant one to one attention, will never live independently." I know parents of severely autistic children. I don't doubt that they love them dearly, but there is no doubt in my mind that they would much rather that their child wasn't severely disabled.

Please try to be civil as I am trying to be. Guff about witches being dunked, anyone who dares to have an opinion which disagree with you is dangerously deluded or has consulted Dr Google. Is that civil? You could have fooled me.

When you are challenged about not giving a shiny shit about someone's vaccine damaged child you cop out by saying you don't know the child, it's all personal and that they think that their child was vaccine damaged. But they don't agree with you so they must be wrong. You might just as well have said that no, you don't give a shiny shit.

I wouldn't even begin to reply to an ignorant rant from the likes of vlad. Luckily for her she has no understanding of what it is like to have a child damaged by vaccines. No amount of reasoning with help posters like that understand, nor do they want to.

"You seem to only consider 'facts' that agree with your own opinion."

I am just considering straight facts, not 'facts' as you put it. Hearsay, opinion, and non-objective views based on simplistic observation without proof are not facts. I am very happy to debate, but for some reason all I am hearing are sad stories of disablement and how people 'think' they were caused by vaccines, without one shred of evidence. Which takes me to:

"When you are challenged about not giving a shiny shit about someone's vaccine damaged child you cop out by saying you don't know the child, it's all personal and that they think that their child was vaccine damaged. But they don't agree with you so they must be wrong. You might just as well have said that no, you don't give a shiny shit."

Making it personal again....It is not about me, these parents are disagreeing with the whole of the orthodox (i.e. qualified to practice) medical world, the drug researchers, statistical studies, and scientifically/mathematically proven facts. Oh, and me as well; although I am as unqualified as the parents are to have an opinion. I just read the studies and see the total lack of evidence verses these 'hunches' about what 'might' be the cause.

I absolutely don't understand what me giving a shit, shiny or otherwise about disabled children has to do with vaccine safety? How is it a cop-out to say what I said? Do you go through your life deeply caring about the well-being of every child in the world as if they were your own? When does this Mother Teresa - like behaviour stop; when they get to 18? If you do, that's wonderful for you - but it does mean that it is going to be rather hard for you to make those difficult decisions that sometimes need to be made. Perhaps you will be lucky, and never have to?

It is actually a far more massive cop-out to hide behind simplistic mantra like 'What about the 0.0001%, what about them?', 'no-one should get hurt'; 'we must not take any risks'. It is really easy to do that if you don't actually have to make real decisions in the real world, that affect real lives. Reality, where there is never enough resource to give everyone everything they want. Sometimes there ain't a happy ending. Sometimes things do go wrong and someone gets hurt. Going on about the horrors of disablement (which I have seen close up for a lot of my working life) contributes nothing whatsoever to the logic of the argument; and will make not one jot of difference to the facts. I do care; but what I have experienced, and continue to, long ago made me realise that all we can do is the most good for the greatest number of people. If we do nothing unless there is absolutely 0 risk, we will simply never do anything at all.

"Straight question of how many parents with a vaccine damaged child think that the risk was worth taking?"

That's a bit like asking a gambler if they were happy to have put a losing bet on, or a householder if they regret not taking out insurance before their house burnt down. You could say the same about any drug-damaged person, or a victim of medical negligence or someone who looked left, when they really should have looked right. It is tragic when it happens, but it always will in same way shape or form. Notwithstanding this; we seem to have lost site of the fact that the is absolutely no link at all between vaccines and Autism. None.

"I wouldn't even begin to reply to an ignorant rant from the likes of vlad. Luckily for her she has no understanding of what it is like to have a child damaged by vaccines. No amount of reasoning with help posters like that understand, nor do they want to"

With respect, you are assuming a great deal about me yourself! Why do I need to have experience of a child damaged by vaccines (not that there is any proof) to have a voice in a debate about vaccine safety? Why don't you try and reason with me? Argue with me as to why you think it is OK to tell people that vaccines damage children without any proof at all? Do I have to prequalify for the debate by having a disabled child? Can anyone move past the stories of disablement and actually debate the facts?

(And it's back to the weary old debate: Question- "should I have whooping cough/tetanus/polio vaccines?" Response -" MMR doesn't cause autism, MMR doesn't cause autism, la la la, I'm not listening."

I rest my case.

Vlad - do you or don't you believe that vaccine damage occurs? You seem to accept that it does upthread but then you seem reluctant to listen to anyone with experience of it. Reactions to vaccines (and drug redactions in general) are underreported so your idea of how often they occur is an underestimate.

Reactions - not redactions.

"MMR doesn't cause autism, la la la, I'm not listening - I rest my case"

You have no evidence at all for saying that it does. None, except hearsay and 'what my mate down the pub told me happened', or what I 'think' I observed without any proof. Argue with me, show me evidence, prove me wrong! It is traditional to 'rest one's case' when you have actually made one??

"Vlad - do you or don't you believe that vaccine damage occurs? You seem to accept that it does upthread but then you seem reluctant to listen to anyone with experience of it. Reactions to vaccines (and drug redactions in general) are underreported so your idea of how often they occur is an underestimate."

I do absolutely accept that it is possible for vaccine damage to occur. I also accept that any drug has potential side effects, ranging from death to a headache. What I have been trying to get across is that any drug/vaccine has the potential to cause problems - and these are well documented and proven through double-blind trials. However, the risk is very small indeed, and I don't understand why you guys would believe the 'establishment' when it comes to all drugs except vaccines? Why are vaccines unsafe, but say Codeine fine, and no questions? If they lie about vaccines, how can you trust any drug? Would you stop taking antibiotics, because your mate on Mumsnet told you a story about their friend's brother who had a hand swell up, as just the same time they took some penicillin? This Vaccine claptrap is just the same - hearsay with no substance! I don't disbelieve the sad stories on here for one minute. What I reject is the untrained parental 'diagnosis' of the cause which is absolutely at odds with properly gathered and controlled evidence.

What I further don't understand are the views expressed by some that vaccines (but seemingly not antibiotics made by the same companies and subject to the same testing and documentation) have some hidden problems, and that there is some cover-up that includes the whole medical profession, all the governments in the world, and all the scientists. What basis do you have for saying that bad reactions are under-reported? What proof do you have for that assertion? Why these wild accusations and baseless assertions? The answer is that vaccine 'damage' whilst possible is unlikely and rare (although it is of course terrible for the unlucky few it does happen to). What is being said here (and anti-vaxxers in general) is a case of mass hysteria, fuelled by the internet and some individuals who should know better than to gossip about something that could harm children if passed on.

Normally, I find internet rumours (try www.snopes.com) funny; but this is different. This rumour/mass hysteria is thoroughly evil, as it puts children in needless danger. There is NO PROOF of anything that has been said - and there is a mountain of statistically and scientifically gathered evidence that proves vaccines are as safe as the labels say they are, just as antibiotics are.

bumbleymummy; Thankyou for your question, I appreciate something more than 'you are heartless', 'you don't understand how terrible autism is', and 'you are not listening'. You are the only poster who has actually sensibly debated what I have been saying - why can't anyone else prove me wrong? Show me the evidence.

The silence from the rest of you when presented with logic that destroys your gossip where everyone has a 'story' is deafening ain't it? All you are doing is passing on malicious rubbish, which could influence someone into making a tragically wrong decision which could KILL their (or someone else's child. Would you pass on (and therefore indirectly accuse) gossip about someone being a child molester without any proof? Prove me wrong with something other than opinions and hearsay. Let's have some attempts to debate this, rather than more sad stories and pointless comments about how 'nasty' I am for 'not understanding what you 'think' you know? Either that or shut up and try researching evidence before forming half-baked opinions that are corrosive to the general health of the population.

P.S; LaVolcan - I note that you have not come up with any arguments to counter or debate what I have said. 'I rest my case' is classic thread shorthand for 'I have nothing; so I am not playing any more'. I am sorry that you don't feel able to have an actual discussion, and open you mind to the possibility that you might just be wrong, and a victim of mass internet hysteria? It takes a wise person to revaluate their opinions - it is a shame you don't feel you can.

Viadimpaler, you ask why people trust drugs like antibiotics without question but question vaccines so much. I can answer that for myself. When my child or myself take antibiotics we are choosing to take them to help ourselves. I will benefit or my child will benefit, yes, of course, a bad reaction is possible, but the benefit is to me or to my child.

In the case of say a rubella vaccine, this is to benefit an unborn baby so my child is taking a risk with (as I see it) very little benefit to my child. I accept that rubella could be serious for my child , but I see the benefit of a rubella vaccine as skewed in favour of a person who is not having the vaccine and that is the difference.

It is a moral dilemma, the antibiotics are to treat an illness that my child has at that time. The vaccine is to benefit another person, and for that persono benefit, my child has to take the risk.

To someone has doesn't want to vaccinate the risk benefit analysis is quite different in these two scenarios.

SideOfFoot; I see your line of thought; but I really don't understand why you would feel that taking vaccines are just for other people's benefit? Rubella, indeed that is of minimal direct benefit, but the others? Vaccines do benefit all of course due to herd immunity, but they also have the great effect of ensuring for the most part that your child won't suffer the debilitating pain, and potential side effects including life-changing injuries up to death if they catch a very dangerous illness such as Diphtheria, Whooping Cough, TB, Polio and even I believe SARS nowadays. If vaccines were just to benefit others; that would be a hard sell for me, but herd immunity is a really small side effect. 95% of the reason for having them is taking an insurance policy out for your own child's health, not anyone else.

Viadim, yes I see where you are coming from but I don't think the dangers of most of the diseases justifies the risk (as I see it) and (as I see it) the benefit of a lot of vaccines is to someone else, and of course they are all combined together these days so , I probably would vaccinate against measles but I can't do that, we have to have rubella and mumps too and my objection to that is greater than my desire to protect against measles. Same with polio, how likely really is my child to get polio, in Britain, it's just not likely and then there is whooping cough. No problem with a pregnant woman having a polio vaccine, although, since the uptake is nowhere near 100%, some women obviously don't want to protect their own baby so why is my child doing it. Flu, as well, is to stop passing flu onto an older person. I could go on.

Sorry, should have said no problem with a pregnant woman having a whooping cough vaccine.

Viadim, yes I see where you are coming from but I don't think the dangers of most of the diseases justifies the risk (as I see it) and (as I see it) the benefit of a lot of vaccines is to someone else, and of course they are all combined together these days so , I probably would vaccinate against measles but I can't do that, we have to have rubella and mumps too and my objection to that is greater than my desire to protect against measles.

I can't get my head around that logic. The reason there is not much danger from these diseases like this nowadays is because of herd immunity from vaccines!

Same with polio, how likely really is my child to get polio, in Britain, it's just not likely

Why is it not likely??? Because of herd immunity due to vaccinations against Polio. It is a thing of the past in the UK, but in the 50's we had epidemics of it. Read the article below:

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/polio-the-deadly-summer-of-1956-2117253.html

If people like you sit and think "well, we don't get Polio in the UK anymore, so the benefits of vaccines are not enough to justify the risks as declared by the manufacturer" (note, not the made-up 'risks' of the self-deluded anti-vaxers), then guess what - Polio will be back; killing and maiming kids again. Your kids. Herd immunity requires all of us to take the risk, but do you know what? If you choose not to, then it is your child that gets maimed or killed, not the vaccinated one when the outbreak occurs. Polio WILL come back if we let our guard down - the recent measles outbreak in Disneyland is proof that this will happen.....

and then there is whooping cough. No problem with a pregnant woman having a polio vaccine, although, since the uptake is nowhere near 100%, some women obviously don't want to protect their own baby so why is my child doing it.

If others are dumb enough to choose not to, why does that affect you? You are not taking the risk for anyone else, it is to protect your child. No-one wants the unfortunate offspring of those dim enough not to vaccinate to get sick, but if too many choose not to, there will be an outbreak, and the unvaccinated start dying. I am not accusing you of this, but the concept of relying on everyone else to take the risk so you don't have to, and rely on the herd immunity of others is selfish and quite frankly sociopathic.

Flu, as well, is to stop passing flu onto an older person. I could go on.

Flu vaccines are to protect you, not everyone else. They only give them to vulnerable adults, or those who pay; and they are not always effective, as the suppliers have to guess which flu strains will be epidemics in the year ahead.

Please believe me - vaccines are to protect your children. Herd immunity helps to protect others who can't be vaccinated (such as children with cancer) as a bonus. You may not care about them; fair enough but that is not why you vaccinate! If you think your child won't get Polio, and enough other people think the same 'let's let everyone else take the risk', you may have to live with the consequences and guilt for what you did to your child for the rest of your life.

Vlad: P.S; LaVolcan - I note that you have not come up with any arguments to counter or debate what I have said. 'I rest my case' is classic thread shorthand for 'I have nothing; so I am not playing any more'.

I rest my case - I said that sooner or later, whatever vaccine is being discussed, someone jumps in and says that MMR doesn't cause autism, (even when MMR and autism have not been mentioned). You did exactly that, (an no, this is not autism - there is NO LINK) an exact quote.

MMR had been mentioned as far as timings were concerned pushing the diseases into an older age range. Vaccine damage had been mentioned with someone pointing out that vaccine damage wasn't solely about autism.

Nowhere have I expressed an opinion as to what I think causes autism. I have said that it's not one disease but a label for a collection of symptoms - which you agreed with.

I was fully vaccinated and still got whooping cough, measles rubella and mumps.

my children are not vaccinated.nothing to do with autism although in Italy there has been cases over the last few years where parents have been awarded compensation because doctors/government have had to admit in certain cases it looks like the vaccines have directly caused autism.

For me I just questioned why we do it without asking why so took a few years to look at both sides and decided not to.

its quite sad because a lot of these posts, I can tell that they are just parrotting what they have heard others say or heard on the Wright stuff ( or on here!) people need to do there own research.