Then philosophically are you stating there is never truth, only opinion?
Opinion is part of the road to truth or should we just parrot the pollies?
I’ll leave you with your re-entrant recursive thoughts
I will stipulate that manufacturers have tried to influence public perception by manipulating the study/review process. One classic is to only publish ‘good’ studies and to leave ‘bad’ studies in the bottom draw. I have no idea if that has been shown in the vaccine industry. That is a long way from showing that the whole system is corrupt. I agree that where big money is at stake there is a risk that there will be corruption to get more. But assuming the checks and balances in place have all failed without any evidence is just pointless.
Another problem with this is you have missed the point of peer review and how it operates. It is to prevent exactly the problem you describe. For your explanation to work it involves reviewers colluding with authors and with each other. We do not see whistle-blowers revealing these flaws on a grand scale. It requires all potential whistle-blowers to be silent or silenced. This has to happen many times. You say there is no conspiracy so all these people decided to behave this way independently, without conspiring they all sing the same song. I mention conspiracy not because I think it happens but because it would have to happen for fraud to occur on such a scale.
The world of academia is very competitive, a researcher’s reputation will grow much more by successfully going against the trend than conforming. Fame and fortune awaits the person who breaks the story of massive errors or faking. Yet there are none.
If this fraud is commercially motivated as you claim surely it would be in the interest of any manufacturer to dob in the opposition. Yet it doesn’t happen.
Let’s change track. Why do you pick on the vaccination industry as one that is rife with fraud? What is it about vaccination that really bothers you?
So are you saying you believe there is a risk of corruption but it’s pointless to check if a few checks and balances come up ok?
I don’t think I have missed the point. Peer reviews are supposed to help prevent this problem and are an important part of evidencing a debate, however, they are not infallible. What I’m talking about is the use of those reports and how they are manipulated in order to fit the requirements of the issue.
Sadly no we don’t see them on a grand scale. As we have seen when one does blow the whistle they are demonised and persecuted… ie Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden etc etc (there is a list of whistleblowers here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers). They’re not all evil doombringers with horns.
Fame perhaps but as we’ve seen with the history of whistleblowers, fortune is lacking. Most people are afraid to blow the whistle, and rightly so, but those brave enough to swim against the current need to be prepared for an exhaustive swim.
Firstly I don’t remember claiming that. Secondly, can you categorically say it doesn’t happen?
Why do you assume I’m picking on the “vaccination industry”? (interesting phrase that).
I have no issues with the idea of vaccination if it’s safe, but that’s me and I don’t have the right to dictate to others on what decisions they should make. This is all about choice.
At last progress. What do you think of the herd immunity argument?
That’s a loaded question… what argument are you referring to in particular?
Herd immunity is a well known ‘argument’ many would consider factual.
Google can be your friend. The basic definition is the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease within a population that results if a sufficiently high proportion of individuals are immune to the disease, especially through vaccination.
and so on and there you go. Maybe you learned something today since the crux of it all is vaccination?
Is willingly and knowingly neglecting the welfare of the herd because it is your choice on, in your opinion?
Sorry you are so wrong on this. The law is about reasonable people, by that I mean what a reasonable person would expect. That is why some acts by people while not having intent to harm but that do cause harm can be and are offences.
Manslaughter is the act of killing another person or person without intent to do so ie to murder someone requires intent but to kill someone and be charged with manslaughter requires no intent except that someone dies because of the actions of another were not reasonable. They may not be charged with Manslaughter but may be charged with Criminal damage or assualt depending on the circumstances. However accidental death is not an act that may be prosecuted, depending on how the death occurred as an example a child runs onto a road in such a manner that the driver of a car who was driving to the required and careful standards unavoidably hits and kills the child this would not be prosecuted but if the driver was speeding without lawful reason they would likely be charged and prosecuted with some offence.
I don’t take away the right of choice but I also do uphold the right of consequences of those choices. One may choose to speed but if one does and are then caught doing so then they face the penalties/consequences of that choice. A person can choose to smoke cigars/cigarettes but if they do so and cause harm to another I support their right to sue the one who caused that harm. I even support the right of someone to refuse a vaccination but I also support the right of others to then take legal action that may include criminal proceedings if by that choice they harmed others, this is reasonable. What some people seek to do is assert their right to choices but they then don’t want to be held to account for those choices.
Did I seek to ridicule? I don’t think I did but if you felt that way I do apologise, I was responding to your post that noted prosecution was scary. For me the lack of care that some take in regards to others welfare is scary, I see it everyday with people speeding and breaking the rules on roads, improper handling of foodstuffs, lax safety standards, defective goods that endanger others and yes, those who refuse vaccinations because the disease it helps to protect against is of no real concern to the person refusing the vaccine.
I agree education is needed, particularly educating those who seek to avoid vaccination because they don’t agree with it, that the reason to get vaccinated is not just about the person getting the vaccine but it is about helping to protect others. And sorry the jury is out on this matter otherwise we would still have major outbreaks worldwide of Smallpox, Polio, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Measles and similar diseases that were and are reduced in threat by vaccines, it is just some refuse to accept the verdict. When hopefully a universal vaccine to Influenza is produced I am sure there would still be people who would refuse to get vaccinated for no other reason than that was their choice, but if by that choice they caused harm to another person then they should be held accountable for their choices.
And that doesn’t make it about the welfare of humanity? Which then could be about national security and why the Governments of the World stockpiled Tamiflu etc during a previous outbreak to ensure the security of their nations was able to be maintained in the event of a catastrophic outbreak of a pandemic Flu. The rules were drawn up about who would be treated preferentially which included frontline health personnel, the Defence Forces, the Judiciary, The Political arm, and the Public Services. Health problems are of major concern to a nation’s security and can be and are regulated, people are quarantined, people can be prosecuted.
I’m well aware of herd immunity but syncretic asked about the argument. I’m just asking him/her to elaborate… and I learn something every day
I think quite a few people would disagree with you there. I think part of the reason the Choice Community exists is that people feel that certain things are unreasonable and that the law has not addressed those things.
With regards to your next two paragraphs… I don’t disagree… as I said “we have laws and lawmakers to deal with that”.
That was a more general comment about what happens when someone challenges the status quo, I didn’t mean you personally
There have been many cases where vaccines have caused problems with peoples health and sometimes very serious problems. I don’t think we can blame people for being afraid that they, or their child, could be affected adversely. That deserves some respect one would think. I don’t think that most people who are against vaccinating are saying you shouldn’t do it… they just don’t believe they should have to.
Absolutely… but if only a minority of people weren’t vaccinated with the universal influenza vaccine then wouldn’t they be the people at risk?
Yes, exactly, the law prevails… not that we’ve had an outbreak in this country… but I admit, it could happen.
I suspect you are well aware that most vaccines are not 100% effective, some need recurrent boosters to stay effective, and some like the flu vaccine have quite varied results from year to year, roughly 30-70%. FWIW it appears most vaccines average around 90% effective with the exception of polio that is 99-100% IF all the recommended doses are taken.
That’s part of the problem that some people think they are the only ones at risk if they don’t vaccinate even after it has been made plain that it isn’t the case. There are some people in all communities who 1) cannot be vaccinated because of other health issues, 2) there are some who even when vaccinated are still able to be infected because the vaccines do not work as well for them, 3) there are some who cannot be vaccinated because of their age. All these people then rely on the benefits of herd immunity to help protect them from getting infected. Every person who chooses to not be vaccinated purely by choice is putting those more vulnerable people at risk. Once it reaches a level that Herd Immunity is very compromised then the incidence of larger outbreaks becomes more pronounced, and why things like Measles and Whooping Cough have started to reappear more regularly. Polio is again rearing it’s head as a big problem in communities where vaccination has not been adhered to eg India.
Influenza vaccines as among all the other types are not perfect and some people can become ill or die due to having a vaccine. But when the risk is assessed the risk of vaccine complications compared to the complications of the disease they are protecting against is very very much smaller. If you (by that I mean a person not you specifically) are affected adversely by a vaccine then it is important to you and those who are involved with you. Even as a Society we are impacted by the loss of even one life or the effect it can have on a life eg disability but compared to a disease that is many times more effective at causing those issues the risks are very small.
As to outbreaks, yes earlier in the 20th Century Australia like the rest of the World was suffering from a Worldwide outbreak of Polio. People from all walks of life were afflicted and affected. My Uncle was afflicted and my Mother’s parents & family were put into quarantine. Some people in their town were sent to a purpose built community and were surrounded by armed guards and barbed wired, if they died their remains were incinerated and dumped at sea. Leprosy sufferers had similar experiences being confined to remote areas or isolated on islands so they could not infect others. In the event of such large outbreaks of any deadly/dangerous disease you can be certain they will carry out the same types of actions even in our lawful communities in these days. Ebola in Africa was receiving the same treatment once people realised it could spread to other countries, not a disease we can currently vaccinate against but just to show what steps might happen.
This is great stuff I can see where you’re coming from and yes, vaccines have helped do fantastic things. I’m not denying it, I’m simply questioning the denial of others rights to question and choose.
And there’s the rub… it’s when people see things like this https://www.sbs.com.au/news/samoa-recalls-vaccine-after-baby-deaths in the news it’s hard to think about everyone else… parents taking their children in for MMR will likely think twice.
Like I said before I support the right to choose, I would never try to remove that right. At the same time I support the right for others to take action when that choice affects others. That consequence may involve incarceration or other forms of removal of freedom of movement or isolation, it might involve using armed and deadly force to stop the spread of disease (hopefully not but possible), it may involve the imposing of financial penalty, it may involve removal of certain other rights and it may involve forced treatment.
I understand people’s hesitancy but imagine the outcry for treatment & punishment if Measles or some other vaccine mostly preventable disease started decimating the population, the recriminations would be huge about Government inaction regarding people who infected others. I know this sounds harsh but we see the news you refer to because deaths from Measles because of vaccination has become so rare that the death from vaccines is more news worthy.
The news story indicates a possible link between the MMR and the two deaths, but the link has not been confirmed (in the new story). The reported link could be a coincidence.
I imagine that there could have been many other reasons for the deaths, poor medical hygiene, reuse of contaminated syringes, incorrectly stored vaccinations, contamination through use multidose vials (if used) etc etc.
I suspect that the nurses were removed for two reasons, the first to protect them agaist vigilantes and possibly the second, to ensure evidence is preserved/protected through the investigation.
I have to say - this is a great thread. I can see common ground, and I can see where there is great difference. None of us have to ‘own’ what another is saying, but we all learn from the experience. We might not agree, but we see that another has a different view, which might strengthen our opposing view or might moderate it, but we are all better for it in some way.
So does the flu shot make you sick? well … I had my first flu shot in years this year - and I’m in week 2 of the worst bug I’ve had in years. So yes it must do but some context? is context relevant? Sometimes context is everything. I won’t go into details, but the context here is big and I own some of that myself. Correlation yes. Causation no. Firstly I haven’t been diagnosed with ‘flu’ - bronchitis is the top billed item, but there’s other factors which come down to lifestyle … and context.
So as easy as it would be to ‘blame’ the flu shot based on correlation - there’s no smoking gun from what I know …
One benefit of the vaccination is that you have gained some residual resistence to next year’s versions. If each year you maintain getting vaccinated you will garner a bit more resistence to the non pandemic versions that haven’t strayed too much from the vaccine ones and some low to moderate protection against the Pandemic type versions. As mentioned further up older people generally don’t require the quad version as they have had sufficient prior exposure that confers reasonable immunity from the pandemic related ones and really mostly benefit from a higher dosage triple version that activates their immune systems better against the expected non pandemic related varieties.
The medical profession has often advised that herd immunity is an important part of the vaccination campaign.**
By raising levels above the threshold where herd immunity takes effect the chance of continuous re-transmission is much reduced and the benefit to those who cannot be vaccinated are increased. This benefit is beyond that given to the individuals who are immunised.
Do you think herd immunity is a real effect that confers additional benefit to society?
To some this suggested that we have a duty to the common good to be vaccinated and to have our dependants vaccinated. Some people object to that and in particular object to governments trying to enforce it. This is the argument. Most readers who have followed this thread would know that but now having explained it we are all on the same page.
People generally accept that in any society there is a compromise between maintaining the rights of the individual to do as they please and the right of the society to protect its members where the exercise of individual rights may do harm. The question in each case is where is the correct balance between the two.
What is your position on this particular case of individual rights?
** There is also heard immunity, where people are immune to hearing some messages.
I totally agree This is what discussion and debate is all about and I don’t really think we have enough of it considering the weight of some of these topics.