Vax on? Vax off?

 

 

Im not against vaxs, i do have some concerns, not relating to autism or mercury, but concerns about drug companys selling vaccines that give mild protection to disease's where getting hit by a car is more likely to occur than the disease they are vaccinating against, under the guise of "you can never be too sure"

Do you know why the likelihood of contracting such diseases is so low?

 

 

 

 

Because of

 

 

 

 

wait for it

 

 

 

 

no seriously this is great

 

 

 

 

because of

 

 

 

 

 

preventative vaccination programs

 

 

 

 

45822-Keanu-Bill-and-Ted-whoa-gif-Yr7D.g

 

You missed my point. 

I was sharing my concern of having vaccinations for disease where the Risk V Cost V Health benefit are not worth the gains Vs spending the money or resources elesewhere. (like preventing car accidents) (and within context of what i said in a earlier post, it is risk V award like all drugs.)

 

I was never arguing against vaccines or that they should be stopped in anyway, only that good risk assement has to be taken,and that part of the welcoming all vaccines simply because they are "vaccines" is a blind path. I was just airing my concerns about throwing caution to the wind over vaccinations, like all drugs. 

 

I also have a genuine concern that all the BS surrounding Vacines now has possibly made it harder to Genuinely ID if a Vaccine is a failure or causes unwanted or damaging side effects.  We are so flooded with Autism BS that the next person to have a concern over a Vaccine will become a Boy who cried wolf scenario. But that is another story.  

 

Risk assessment? Ok, risk assessment on the polio vaccine is google image search for "polio victims", and decide whether is isn't worth the US$0.30 per dose (source)

 

Do you seriously think factors like cost v benefit have never been considered before?

This will end well.

 

I hope.

 

 

 

Thye are not unrelated, it logically follows. You seem to have trouble understanding...so ill try again.
 
If you support the kind of thing that was in the ORIGNAL POST NEWS STORY (which this thread is about) 
That it is OK to stop children going to school because they dont get vaccinations, and that  herd immunity and social health are paramount in your view (so much so you can leave children out of school because of it), by that logic it would follow that you would support other forms of prevention like abstinence and monogamy, and enforce that on soceity as well.
 
And considering if such as thing was put in place that all STD's would disappear it would be very compelling for anyone who believes in either coerced or forced vaccination to logically follow down that path.  
 
Point is, which you chose to ignore, that when others have to lose certain liberty's (like sending there children to school) it is OK by you, but when it effects your libertys, suddenly it is stupid and unrelated.       

 

 

I don't normally quote my own posts, but i will make an exception just this once because it is apparent you did not read it first time round.

 

It is provably false via vast amounts of historical evidence that purely societal measures (monogamy, abstinence, education, and the enforcement thereof by law or custom) are effective in eliminating STDs.
 

 

empirical, specifically targeted medical programs against highly contagious and unselective viruses and bacteria are in no way analogous to trying to enforce sexual choices on sentient beings for an entire lifespan.  it is not in any way a "logical extension", either practically or 'morally'.

 
More to the point, a purely societal approach to preventing STDs has been tried multiple times in the past and is a multiple times proven failure.
 
Go back to the middle ages or the Puritan era or similar, and adultery and prostitution are both illegal (with heavy penalties like in some cases branding, flogging, ostracism, etc) and carry massive societal stigma.  Virginity at the time of wedding is not just expected, it's a massive scandal and a life- and reputation-destroying event should it not be the case.  Homosexuality is generally punishable with death.  It doesn't help.  Syphilis and gonorhorrea still spread like wildfire.
 
More recently, you can look at the AIDS epidemic, especially in the well-educated, wealthy West.  Everyone knows that to protect yourself from AIDS you can abstain, use a condom, be careful of your sexual partners, don't share needles (the blood transfusion method of infection has largely been eliminated, thank goodness).  The information is out there.  The means are out there.  Societally we're open enough about sexual issues that it can be talked about and the info be disseminated rather than being smothered under a blanket of taboo and embarrassment like it is in Iran or China.  If any society ever was in a position to successfully control an STD through societal means, it's the modern West.  We failed.  People still get AIDS. 
 
Societal controls (legal or moral) can mitigate to some degree, but that's all.  It's been tried, again and again, and it's failed, again and again.  So when you're talking about abstinence/chastity/sexual repression/regulation/whaever being a 100% effective prevention measure against STDs, you're provably wrong.

 

 

And you your self have not read my post either, i said "IF" you could implement such a health Code of Abstinence and Monogamy you would eliminate STD's. 

 

You are confusing 2 points and mixing them together:

 

1:Abstinence and monogamy working as a control for STD

 

V's

 

2:If people would live by that code or could be forced to live by that code. 

 

I can give empirical evidence of modern vaccines not working,  because people are not taking them because they think it gives autism. 

 

This does not mean the vaccine dosnt work.  It is a Fallacy of generalisation to say so.

 

They are very different things.

 

 And in context with the thread, it is about how far do we go to protect our health in soceity? We allow children to be kicked out of school? why not force abstinence and Monogamy as one of the holy grail's in medcine has been the eradication of STD's like AID's. 

 

 

Point 1 and 2 are the same.  You cannot separate practical from theoretical in this case.  Or at least you cannot separate practical from theoretical if your goal is to achieve the best possible health outcomes - if your goal is to push a social/religious agenda or stigmatise STD sufferers while cloaking yourself in the self-righteous pretense that you're acting in the interests of public health, then you can separate them all you like.

 

How can you possibly say that abstinence and monogamy work as STD control, while completely ignoring all the real-life factors that provably, historically, again and again and again, cause abstinence and monogamy NOT to work?  It has been demonstrated by bitter historical experience that, even when educated about abstinence and monogamy, a sufficient proportion of the population will not lead abstinent and monogamous lives that STDs will spread basically unimpeded.  It has also been demonstrated by bitter historical experience that even when abstinence and monogamy are enforced by draconian punishments and overwhelming social/religious pressures, a sufficient proportion of the population will not lead abstinent and monogamous lives that STDs will spread basically unimpeded anyway.  In real life situations when real life people are involved, abstinence and monogamy don't work.  If you can suggest a way of MAKING abstinence and monogamy work in real life situations with real life flawed people, then i'd love to hear it.  Because so far, it's a battle plan that has not survived contact with the enemy.  Vaccinations have a much better success rate because they are so unintrusive - get a couple of shots as a kid, then forget about it for the rest of your life.  No effort required, no sacrifice, no willpower - very easy for your average flawed human being to manage.  Compare and contrast to the effort required to stay abstinent and monogamous, all the time, no lapses, requiring you to beat temptation again and again.  Every.  Single.  Time.  Humans succumb to temptation now and again, that's just reality.  If your disease management strategy doesn't take that into account, then it's a strategy doomed to failure.  And that's why it's so important to hammer those idiots who spread bullshit lies about vaccine/autism connections and the like - they compromise a strategy that has provably worked staggeringly well until they came along, and they cause death and misery in the process.



I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.

Yeah once I realised it was he who started this **** of a thread, his opinion become irrelevant to me on this matter.
but you are a ■■■■ rag
He's actually got this 100% right Doza!

Ha.

 

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

Fair while to go but an exciting step in the right direction none the less.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/cash-injection-for-herpes-vaccine/story-e6frg8zx-1227000710976


Cash injection for herpes vaccine
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Sarah+Danckert'>Sarah Danckert</a>
sarah_danckert.png
Property Reporter
Melbourne
707434-1e192174-12f9-11e4-a315-b9a4afcb1

Ian Frazer, at his University of Queensland lab, is working on a vaccine for the herpes virus. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen Source: Supplied

IAN Frazer‘s push to develop a vaccine for the herpes virus has been given a welcome boost with listed biotech Admedus raising its stake in the joint venture company Admedus Vaccines, which is chaired by the award-winning medical researcher and creator of the HPV vaccine.

Yesterday Admedus, which counts mining magnate Andrew Forrest as its largest single investor, announced it had increased its stake in the unlisted joint venture to 66.3 per cent from 50.1 per cent previously, a capital injection of about $6 million.

Perth-based Admedus, formerly Allied Healthcare, has been investing in Professor Frazer‘s company since 2008, when it was known as Coridon.

Professor Frazer was in the US yesterday and could not be contacted.

In February Admedus announced positive interim results from the Phase I trial for the therapeutic vaccine for the Herpes Simplex 2 virus.

The company is scheduled to report additional data from the trial this quarter.

“The progress being made by Professor Frazer and the team is extremely positive and adds to the growth potential of Admedus,” Admedus chief executive Lee Rodne said. “We are dedicated to the continued development of these programs as they have the potential to provide a therapy for millions of people affected by a range of diseases.”

Admedus Vaccines will use the capital injection, sourced from a recent $18 million capital raising by its parent, to fund the planned Phase II trial of the HSV-2 vaccine Professor Frazer‘s team is developing.

HSV-2 is responsible for the majority of genital herpes, a problem that currently can be treated but not cured.

There is hope that the vaccine being developed by Professor Frazer will result in a “functional cure” whereby the virus is cleared from the bloodstream of sufferers, dramatically reducing the threat posed by the virus, which often lurks in the spinal chord.

One in six Americans have the HSV-2 virus, while in Australia it is regarded as one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases.

Admedus chief operating officer Julian Chick said the results had so far provided a validation of the technology being used by Professor Frazer‘s team.

“We‘ve put in quite a bit of money into Admedus Vaccines over the past 18 months to two years,” Dr Chick said.

“We‘re very confident in the therapeutic DNA vaccines Professor Frazer is developing.”

He said that while HSV-2 was not a “death sentence” it caused extreme discomfort and could be very debilitating.

Dr Chick said the same technology used to develop the HSV-2 vaccine could be used to treat patients with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Much of Professor Frazer‘s recent work has focused on developing a vaccine for HPV, currently distributed as Gardasil and Cervarix.

The Admedus-sponsored vaccine also has the potential to help to reduce the amount of HPV virus in the bloodstream, thereby lowering the chances that sufferers will develop cervical cancer.

You wouldn’t get herpes if everyone was moral and kept their ■■■■ in their pants.

And vaccination is wrong!

So is contraception!

You wouldn't get herpes if everyone was moral and kept their ■■■■ in their pants.
And vaccination is wrong!

 

Actually, chicken pox is a variety of herpes, so even if everyone was moral and kept their ■■■■ in their pants, people would STILL get it.

 

Doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.  Bit of immorality is nice now and again.

I hope people realise my comments are just ridiculing AaronJohns, and not my own view.

I hope people realise my comments are just ridiculing AaronJohns, and not my own view.

I think we got it. give us some credit for christs' sake

 

I hope people realise my comments are just ridiculing AaronJohns, and not my own view.

I think we got it. give us some credit for christs' sake

 

Nah, AN10's a ■■■■.

I hope people realise my comments are just ridiculing AaronJohns, and not my own view.

I think we got it. give us some credit for christs' sake
Nah, AN10's a ■■■■.
Now I'm hurt.

I caught Chicken Pox when I was 27.

 

Let me assure you it wasn't pleasant.

Cold sores can lead to viral encephalitis, scary stuff.

I caught Chicken Pox when I was 27.

 

Let me assure you it wasn't pleasant.

 

Fwiw, some of the virus stays around in your major thoracic nerves, and might come randomly to life again at any time.

 

This is called shingles, and it really really sucks.

 

I caught Chicken Pox when I was 27.

 

Let me assure you it wasn't pleasant.

 

Fwiw, some of the virus stays around in your major thoracic nerves, and might come randomly to life again at any time.

 

This is called shingles, and it really really sucks.

 

shouldn't lay with so many loose women... oh wait, that's syphilis.

 

 

I caught Chicken Pox when I was 27.

 

Let me assure you it wasn't pleasant.

 

Fwiw, some of the virus stays around in your major thoracic nerves, and might come randomly to life again at any time.

 

This is called shingles, and it really really sucks.

 

shouldn't lay with so many loose women... oh wait, that's syphilis.

 

 

If I'd got it through laying with loose women, at least I'd have had some good memories to console me...

Personally, I'm convinced that vaccinations are no good. And they DEFINITELY shouldn't be mandatory. That is a clear violation of human rights.

If you were a resident of Sierra Leone, and not sunny Reservoir and a vacine against Ebola became available, you wouldn't take it?