Flat Earth theory

[Rjk]

I wouldn't know, it never happens to me people having different opinions is not distressing anyway, or at least it shouldn't be.



It depends who's taking them.

Out of interest who do you think shouldn't have vaccines?

This could probably do with its own thread as the flat earthers are getting a bit derailed.

[Heathblue]

I know people believe different things and that's fine as long as you're not harming anyone, but Jesus Christ there's some nutjobs out there. It's funny how you exist in your own little bubble surrounded in real life and online by people who for the most part think the same way as you about things, the big things anyway.

Then you click on a link or two and enter a whole new world...

https://twitter.com/BetteanneC

They are nuts and do not believe that we live on a hollow earth.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Around 12 months ago the medical community came out with the news that fat wasn't really that bad for you, and that sugar was the real killer.
Someone born 30 years ago would have had, throughout their entire life, a non-stop, 24/7, barrage of messages, advice, from every perceivable source, that saturated fats were the evil that will kill you.
By all means have a good laugh at someone who is a little , let's say 'eccentric'. But to accept at face value all those zeitgeist proclamations, is taking the easy option..

[Mrs Steve R]

Kids getting vaccinated against MMR? Good or bad?

Anybody getting a tetanus shot. Good or bad?

People travelling to Asia/Africa getting typhoid, diphtheria, hepatitis a shots? Good or bad.

Entire population getting vaccinated against meningitis?

Elderly people getting a flu jab.

Of course people with allergies are exempt from all the above.

Out of interest who do you think shouldn't have vaccines?

This could probably do with its own thread as the flat earthers are getting a bit derailed.

So now I'm a doctor? it's not up to me to decide what other people should or shouldn't have, I haven't told anyone what to do and I'm not going to start now, in the spirit of keeping it 'vague' I will just say it's none of my business.

[Steve R]

I haven't told anyone what to do and I'm not going to start now

I'll have that in f*cking writing all day long!!

[Arfur Europe]

Kids getting vaccinated against MMR? Good or bad?

Anybody getting a tetanus shot. Good or bad?

People travelling to Asia/Africa getting typhoid, diphtheria, hepatitis a shots? Good or bad.

Entire population getting vaccinated against meningitis?

Elderly people getting a flu jab.

Of course people with allergies are exempt from all the above.

Mrs R has already answered your question a few times in this thread. Firstly, if vaccines are so effective, then you shouldn't be concerned if she doesn't accept them as you will be already protected.

Secondly, what the hell has it got to do with other people (you included) when it comes to personal medical choice?

I always find it amazing the reaction when someone tries something different in this topic and anything else, and it completely flips the minds of the 'uber conformists'!!

'THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD, HOW CAN IT BE?... CANNOT COMPUTE... CANNOT COMPUTE...'

[Steve R]

Mrs R has already answered your question a few times in this thread. Firstly, if vaccines are so effective, then you shouldn't be concerned if she doesn't accept them as you will be already protected.

Secondly, what the hell has it got to do with other people (you included) when it comes to personal medical choice?

I always find it amazing the reaction when someone tries something different in this topic and anything else, and it completely flips the minds of the 'uber conformists'!!

'THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD, HOW CAN IT BE?... CANNOT COMPUTE... CANNOT COMPUTE...'

Hang on guys, here comes another one!

[Mrs Steve R]

I'll have that in f*cking writing all day long!!

Anyone on here.

Mrs R has already answered your question a few times in this thread. Firstly, if vaccines are so effective, then you shouldn't be concerned if she doesn't accept them as you will be already protected.

Secondly, what the hell has it got to do with other people (you included) when it comes to personal medical choice?

I always find it amazing the reaction when someone tries something different in this topic and anything else, and it completely flips the minds of the 'uber conformists'!!

'THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD, HOW CAN IT BE?... CANNOT COMPUTE... CANNOT COMPUTE...'

Nothing is personal anymore and you don't have much choice either.

[Ainsley Harriott]

Firstly, if vaccines are so effective, then you shouldn't be concerned if she doesn't accept them as you will be already protected.

Immunisation to many diseases wears off over time. Adults are recommended to get booster vaccines for some diseases that they were vaccinated against as a child.

Then there are those whose immune systems are susceptible to the diseases even with vaccines (AIDS sufferers, chemo patients), and babies less than 2 months old (who haven't had their first vaccines yet), who can't be immunised themselves but would benefit greatly from herd immunity.

If EVERYONE was vaccinated against these diseases at around the same time, the diseases would be eradicated virtually overnight, and millions of children wouldn't die of them every year (health systems across the world would also save billions of pounds annually) But not everyone gets vaccinated.

[Kris]

Around 12 months ago the medical community came out with the news that fat wasn't really that bad for you, and that sugar was the real killer.
Someone born 30 years ago would have had, throughout their entire life, a non-stop, 24/7, barrage of messages, advice, from every perceivable source, that saturated fats were the evil that will kill you.
By all means have a good laugh at someone who is a little , let's say 'eccentric'. But to accept at face value all those zeitgeist proclamations, is taking the easy option..

Who is accepting things at face value?

[Kris]

So now I'm a doctor? it's not up to me to decide what other people should or shouldn't have, I haven't told anyone what to do and I'm not going to start now, in the spirit of keeping it 'vague' I will just say it's none of my business.

So, essentially, you are against vaccinations in certain situations but refuse to elaborate. We got there in the end. Where, I have no idea, but we got there in the end.

[Mrs Steve R]

So, essentially, you are against vaccinations in certain situations but refuse to elaborate. We got there in the end. Where, I have no idea, but we got there in the end.

Did we? How was it for you?

[Kris]

Mrs R has already answered your question a few times in this thread. Firstly, if vaccines are so effective, then you shouldn't be concerned if she doesn't accept them as you will be already protected.

Secondly, what the hell has it got to do with other people (you included) when it comes to personal medical choice?

I always find it amazing the reaction when someone tries something different in this topic and anything else, and it completely flips the minds of the 'uber conformists'!!

'THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD, HOW CAN IT BE?... CANNOT COMPUTE... CANNOT COMPUTE...'

No, Mrs R hasn't answered any questions. She has been vague (as is her right) on her reasons for not taking vaccines. The only answer she has provided was to the question "Are vaccines good or bad". Her answer was a definitive (um, depends!). When given various scenarios, she didn't answer (as is her right), but she still has plenty of vague things to say about vaccines.

"Firstly, if vaccines are so effective, then you shouldn't be concerned if she doesn't accept them as you will be already protected."

What a selfish attitude to take. Let me tell you why I AM concerned. I have read so many stories of people who, on the basis of Dr Wakefield's and other anti-vaccine people, are beating themselves up over somehow giving their kids autism. I have read even more stories of parents of kids who didn't take the MMR vaccine and whose kids became seriously ill from the effects of measles, mumps or rubella.

My young cousin, not vaccinated, contracted encephalitis after suffering from Mumps.

"Secondly, what the hell has it got to do with other people (you included) when it comes to personal medical choice?"

Measles, for example, kills millions every year. There are kids who are unprotected because their parents/guardians have been mis-educated, mis-informed, or just think it's a great thing to not "conform". Parents worldwide are making the choice "Do I give my kids autism, or let them have measles for a couple of weeks" and are choosing the latter. I admit that this does "flip" my mind, purely because the REAL choice is "Do I let my kids have a vaccine that prevents measles (a potentially deadly disease), or do I not give them the vaccine and risk them getting measles (a potentially deadly disease".

So, I am sorry, but I do COMPUTE. Yes, people are well within their rights to make choices about their own bodies. But, those choices often come off the back of poor studies (of TWELVE people in Dr Wakefield's damaging paper).

Of course, you can live in a town of 10,000 people. Of those 9,999 have been vaccinated against all diseases. You haven't. But you get the external benefit of everybody else having been vaccinated. Until you take a trip to another town where, of 10,000 people, only 100 have been vaccinated. And, yikes, you're in the middle of a Rubella outbreak and (in the case of a pregnant woman) your unborn child is now in danger of being still-born.

Smallpox (eradicated). Polio - 350,000 cases in 1988. 74 in 2015.

That we are still getting measles outbreaks

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

is largely due to the fact that so many people are non-conforming and being wiser than us "uber conformists" by not getting themselves, nor their offspring, vaccinated.

[Cyclops]

Did we? How was it for you?

From the above, he appears to have Post Post Tristesse...

[Kris]

From the above, he appears to have Post Post Tristesse...

I'm sure that post serves a purpose somewhere.

[Mrs Steve R]

From the above, he appears to have Post Post Tristesse...

[lardy]

Around 12 months ago the medical community came out with the news that fat wasn't really that bad for you, and that sugar was the real killer.
Someone born 30 years ago would have had, throughout their entire life, a non-stop, 24/7, barrage of messages, advice, from every perceivable source, that saturated fats were the evil that will kill you.
By all means have a good laugh at someone who is a little , let's say 'eccentric'. But to accept at face value all those zeitgeist proclamations, is taking the easy option..

I see the point you're trying to make but it's not a great comparison. This is the advice of some (maybe many, it's hard to say) nutritionists rather than 'the medical community' as a whole. It's pretty hard to properly analyse the effects of what we eat because people are not good at making food diaries and perhaps there's a cause-and-effect going on here...people are told to eat less fat, so manufacturers put less fat in their foods but have to replace it with something. That means more sugar and bingo, 30 years later it's sugar that's the problem.


But it's an interesting argument you make. One question - if someone in your family was told they required heart surgery, would you say it's a bad idea because the medical community have changed their mind about fats and sugars?

[lardy]

In addition to what I said above, WHO still advise to keep your saturated fat intake low.

[rs3100]

So, I am sorry, but I do COMPUTE. Yes, people are well within their rights to make choices about their own bodies. But, those choices often come off the back of poor studies (of TWELVE people in Dr Wakefield's damaging paper).

.

The problem with the Wakefield study wasn't that it was underpowered, having only twelve subjects, it wasn't that the methodology was poor (although some of the investigations that he undertook were appaling abuses and he was rightfully struck off), the problem was that he just plain made up the results.

This paper, although proven to be false, has resulted in mass morbidity and mortality worldwide and still does because someone made up their research and had it published in a leading journal.

It has since been shown in numerous studies that there is NO proven link between MMR vaccine and autism.

Now if we're talking about mercury in vaccinations very few vaccines have thimerosal (not mercury) in it and most, including MMR, have never had it in them. Plus, again, there is no link between thimerosal and autism. If you're worried about thimerosal just ask if the vaccine contains it, the chances are it doesn't, and if it does the chances are there is an alternative.

[delmbox]

yeah how about that crazy old flat earther eh

[A Quiet Monkfish]

I see the point you're trying to make but it's not a great comparison. This is the advice of some (maybe many, it's hard to say) nutritionists rather than 'the medical community' as a whole. It's pretty hard to properly analyse the effects of what we eat because people are not good at making food diaries and perhaps there's a cause-and-effect going on here...people are told to eat less fat, so manufacturers put less fat in their foods but have to replace it with something. That means more sugar and bingo, 30 years later it's sugar that's the problem.


But it's an interesting argument you make. One question - if someone in your family was told they required heart surgery, would you say it's a bad idea because the medical community have changed their mind about fats and sugars?

Definately not. It's the problem with the whole 'experts' thing though. Once something is out there as accepted wisdom anyone who contradicts them is seen as eccentric. We had the big bang theory of the 'start' of the universe, for decades. Then someone eventually plucked up the courage to ask 'what happened before the big bang ? ' Since then the scientific community have come up with three or four alternatives ...

[Arfur Europe]

No, Mrs R hasn't answered any questions. She has been vague (as is her right) on her reasons for not taking vaccines. The only answer she has provided was to the question "Are vaccines good or bad". Her answer was a definitive (um, depends!). When given various scenarios, she didn't answer (as is her right), but she still has plenty of vague things to say about vaccines.

"Firstly, if vaccines are so effective, then you shouldn't be concerned if she doesn't accept them as you will be already protected."

What a selfish attitude to take. Let me tell you why I AM concerned. I have read so many stories of people who, on the basis of Dr Wakefield's and other anti-vaccine people, are beating themselves up over somehow giving their kids autism. I have read even more stories of parents of kids who didn't take the MMR vaccine and whose kids became seriously ill from the effects of measles, mumps or rubella.

My young cousin, not vaccinated, contracted encephalitis after suffering from Mumps.

"Secondly, what the hell has it got to do with other people (you included) when it comes to personal medical choice?"

Measles, for example, kills millions every year. There are kids who are unprotected because their parents/guardians have been mis-educated, mis-informed, or just think it's a great thing to not "conform". Parents worldwide are making the choice "Do I give my kids autism, or let them have measles for a couple of weeks" and are choosing the latter. I admit that this does "flip" my mind, purely because the REAL choice is "Do I let my kids have a vaccine that prevents measles (a potentially deadly disease), or do I not give them the vaccine and risk them getting measles (a potentially deadly disease".

So, I am sorry, but I do COMPUTE. Yes, people are well within their rights to make choices about their own bodies. But, those choices often come off the back of poor studies (of TWELVE people in Dr Wakefield's damaging paper).

Of course, you can live in a town of 10,000 people. Of those 9,999 have been vaccinated against all diseases. You haven't. But you get the external benefit of everybody else having been vaccinated. Until you take a trip to another town where, of 10,000 people, only 100 have been vaccinated. And, yikes, you're in the middle of a Rubella outbreak and (in the case of a pregnant woman) your unborn child is now in danger of being still-born.

Smallpox (eradicated). Polio - 350,000 cases in 1988. 74 in 2015.

That we are still getting measles outbreaks

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

is largely due to the fact that so many people are non-conforming and being wiser than us "uber conformists" by not getting themselves, nor their offspring, vaccinated.

I remember only too well, the huge lengths that our esteemed and thoroughly honourable Prime Minister of the time, Tony Bliar went to hide the truth over his child's MMR vaccination

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-MMR-jab.html

There should be no reason whatsoever for him to keep schtum over that, especially as he was espousing the benefits of it.

With any concern over something like this, no matter how slight, the obvious thing would be to separate the jabs again as were available during our childhoods.

I remember this saga went on for years, and I now see that while out of the limelight he then advised that his son had the MMR after all. I have no faith in that statement whatsoever, having learnt what we have about Bliar since.

As for Mrs R's stance, it is entirely her own decision, and she's not at liberty to explain why to anyone on here or anyone else.

[Kris]

Definately not. It's the problem with the whole 'experts' thing though. Once something is out there as accepted wisdom anyone who contradicts them is seen as eccentric. We had the big bang theory of the 'start' of the universe, for decades. Then someone eventually plucked up the courage to ask 'what happened before the big bang ? ' Since then the scientific community have come up with three or four alternatives ...

Not at all. The great thing about the science community is that they are open minded and will change opinions based on evidence provided to them. They accept contradictions, providing that those contradictions are based on science and not on pseudo-science etc.

Are you having a dig because the science community are still debating what happened before the big bang? Do you really think that they only considered this once someone plucked up with the question?

[Kris]

I remember only too well, the huge lengths that our esteemed and thoroughly honourable Prime Minister of the time, Tony Bliar went to hide the truth over his child's MMR vaccination

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-MMR-jab.html

There should be no reason whatsoever for him to keep schtum over that, especially as he was espousing the benefits of it.

With any concern over something like this, no matter how slight, the obvious thing would be to separate the jabs again as were available during our childhoods.

I remember this saga went on for years, and I now see that while out of the limelight he then advised that his son had the MMR after all. I have no faith in that statement whatsoever, having learnt what we have about Bliar since.

As for Mrs R's stance, it is entirely her own decision, and she's not at liberty to explain why to anyone on here or anyone else.

How the eff has this gone onto a rant about Blair?

As for the comment about "with any concern over something like this". There is NO concern in the scientific community. Even the person who came up with the ridiculous study admits he's talking out of his arse. But, if you WERE concerned about it, the option is still there for you to take the vaccines separately - however, you have to pay for it and in a backstreet clinic (probably run by pseudo-scientists and homeopathy freaks).

The NHS explain why they don't offer three separate vaccines as follows :-

Can the MMR vaccination be given as three separate injections?

No, not on the NHS. The MMR vaccine consists of a combination of three individual vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella in a single shot.
The NHS does not recommend single measles, mumps or rubella vaccines, as there is no evidence to support their use or to suggest that they are safer than MMR. Having single vaccines could also put your child at risk of catching measles, mumps or rubella in the time between the doses of each of the vaccines.
Some private clinics in the UK offer single vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella, but the NHS does not keep a list of them because clinics that offer these privately are unlicensed, which means there are no checks on their safety and effectiveness.
No country in the world recommends MMR and then offers parents a choice of having single vaccines instead. Every independent expert group around the world (including the World Health Organization) supports the use of MMR, and none support the use of single vaccines.

I suppose it is possible that all these medical agencies are wrong, and if you have evidence to show them they are wrong, they will sit and listen.

[Arfur Europe]

You seem incredibly angry about the possibility of people choosing the separate jabs. Can you expand?