Immunisation, right or wrong?

[cynic]

You could throw in cholera, hooping cough, polio, diphtheria. Yes it is all pure ar$e, that they have reduced to the point of being non existent, in first world countries.

Maybe you can draw the same correlation between antibiotics and technology and social changes.
It makes for a great baseless argument.

Yes!

I certainly agree that many interesting correlations can be drawn!

The fact that correlation alone is insufficient for proof of causation does stymie the progress of such debates.

It's interesting that you mention that purportedly eradicated disease polio.

Despite having received the oral vaccination for this disease throughout my childhood, pathology tests, obtained whilst suffering severe illness as an adult, returned a positive result for its presence!!!

From the aforesaid, I think you can understand the depth of my concern over issues concerning the merits of vaccination.

 

[Smurf1976]

But there is a generation out there who have no idea of ubiquitous national deprivation and conservation of meagre incomes. I'm not sure if they should and possibly hinder the pursuit of visions.....(is there a cost?)

My view is that it's always wise, in any situation, to be aware of what can go wrong. That doesn't mean living in fear, it just means being aware and taking sensible steps to be prepared should the worst occur.

Random examples:

Most car journeys are a safe, efficient and reliable means of getting from A to B. But things can go wrong so it's wise to wear a seat belt, preferably have a car with safety features such as air bags, have insurance on the car and join the RAC, NRMA etc in case you find yourself stranded. It would be irrational and in most cases impractical to avoid cars entirely, but you can certainly be sensibly prepared in case things go wrong.

Same concept with anything really. Smoke detectors in houses. Insurance. Immunisation. Clearing around buildings in case of fire. Not putting your life savings into some unheard of junior mining company. Going to a doctor prompty if you have reason to suspect a serious illness. And so on.

If a risk can be reduced or eliminated at minimal cost, either financial cost or some other cost, then it's commonsense to do so.

Failing to immunise is akin to choosing to not wear a seat belt. Increasing the overall risk for no good reason.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes!

I certainly agree that many interesting correlations can be drawn!

The fact that correlation alone is insufficient for proof of causation does stymie the progress of such debates.

It's interesting that you mention that purportedly eradicated disease polio.

Despite having received the oral vaccination for this disease throughout my childhood, pathology tests, obtained whilst suffering severe illness as an adult, returned a positive result for its presence!!!

From the aforesaid, I think you can understand the depth of my concern over issues concerning the merits of vaccination.

I certainly can and I'm sure the vaccine doesn't work for everyone, however the prevalence of the disease is a lot less than it was 40 years ago, when I was a kid.

It is hard to reconcile things when you have a negative outcome, but our life expectancy has continually increased with medical and technological improvements.
Whether that is for the good of mankind is debatable,
IMO, we are overpopulating the planet

 

[cynic]

.
...
Failing to immunise is akin to choosing to not wear a seat belt. Increasing the overall risk for no good reason.

I do not feel that I could so confidently state, whether or not, your perception is true for some (or perhaps many) people in respect to immunisation for some (or perhaps many) diseases.

What I can confidently state that this is certainly untrue for some people in respect to immunisation for some diseases.

I am able to confidently state this on account of direct personal experience. As already mentioned, earlier in this thread, I happen to be one of those unlucky people experiencing serious ill effects as a direct consequence of vaccination.

 

[Value Collector]

VC,



Are you further denying the possibility that even when a person is safely vaccinated, they can be infectious to others for a period of time post vaccination?!!

Even if that were true, that risk pales in comparison to the huge benefit of immune people acting as a fire wall and back stop when they come in contact with a person that is infectious.

On average, infectious people come in contact with 18 people in ways that would spread an airborne virus, everytime one of those 18 people has been vaccinated, it prevents another 18 people being at risk. It's simple maths.

So in a country where over 92% of people are immune because of vaccinations, virus chains constantly hit dead ends, preventing outbreaks, that's herd protection.

 

[burglar]

... we are overpopulating the planet

Hi sp,
long time no see!

So, do you advocate a little disease to thin the ranks?

 

[cynic]

I certainly can and I'm sure the vaccine doesn't work for everyone, however the prevalence of the disease is a lot less than it was 40 years ago, when I was a kid.
...

Yes! That's observably true of a number of diseases.

Much has changed and despite my deep concerns regarding vaccination, I still like to believe that some of it may have been beneficial for some (or perhaps even many) members of the populace.

However, numerous societal advancements during those years do render the question of causation difficult to conclusively settle from statistical correlations.

 

[sptrawler]

Hi sp,
long time no see!

So, do you advocate a little disease to thin the ranks?

Just watched the movie "Kingsmen", it had a similar theme.

It is the elephant in the room, everyone knows we are overpopulating.

The professionals aren't having kids, because they want to enjoy the trappings of wealth.

You figure out who are populating the world, the first world countries have negative population growth, so eventually we reach the lowest common denominator.lol

 

[cynic]

Even if that were true,..

Unlike some members of this forum I do take care not to mistake personal opinions for proven facts!

 

[Value Collector]

Unlike some members of this forum I do take care not to mistake personal opinions for proven facts!

Yet you seem to take proven facts as if they are personal opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am able to confidently state this on account of direct personal experience. As already mentioned, earlier in this thread, I happen to be one of those unlucky people experiencing serious ill effects as a direct consequence of vaccination.

I'm sure all of us sympathise with you for your personal experience over vaccinations, but it could also be said that these experiences bias your ability to look at the issue objectively.

Yes, a small percentage of people suffer reactions to vaccinations, but is this just cause to deny the vast majority the protection that comes from vaccination ?

If your vaccinations produced no ill effects to you and protected you against disease, I wonder how different your opinion would be ?

 

[sydboy007]

Yes! That's observably true of a number of diseases.

Much has changed and despite my deep concerns regarding vaccination, I still like to believe that some of it may have been beneficial for some (or perhaps even many) members of the populace.

However, numerous societal advancements during those years do render the question of causation difficult to conclusively settle from statistical correlations.

How beneficial would you rate the eradication of small pox from the world? If it wasn't vaccination that made small pox a historical memory, then what was it? Even by the 50s, after much of the industrialised world had eradicated small pox, 50M new infections were still occurring every year.

How beneficial would you rate the close to eradication of polio within Australia, and much of the world? Between the 1930’s and 1960’s there were 40,000 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis recorded in Australia but the total number of polio infection cases are up to 100 times greater. This is because only 1 in 100 cases of poliomyelitis causes paralysis thereby requiring hospitalisation and mandatory reporting. However, a large percentage of the ‘non-paralytic’ and non-reported polio infections still caused considerable damage to the motor neurones.

 

[cynic]

I'm sure all of us sympathise with you for your personal experience over vaccinations, but it could also be said that these experiences bias your ability to look at the issue objectively.

I certainly do not claim to be unbiased on any matter influenced by personal experience.

Throughout the years, I've noticed how easily overconfidence can lead to delusions of "impartiality".

Usually those succumbing to such delusions aren't sufficiently self aware to know that they've actually bought into a personal fantasy of superiority.

I used to be amazed by the number of people confidently expressing a firm belief in their own impartiality.

It was seldom (if ever) true!

Some of the most blatantly opinionated people I know, proudly profess their total impartiality! Unsurprisingly, those same people are very quick to accuse others of prejudice!

The underlying logic seemed to be akin to: "I know I'm right! Therefore anyone in disagreement must be wrong!"

Some people do attempt to synthesise a level of objectivity by making conscious, concerted (and indeed noble) efforts to quarantine favoured opinions whilst in dialogue with others.

However, despite best efforts, past experience will still hold some influence over interpretation and filtration of data.

Thankfully such people are rarely seen to make the foolish error of presuming total impartiality. Nor do such people make the error of claiming the infallibility of anything, irrespective of popularity or the amount of supportive evidence.

By now some may be wondering what this has to do with the immunisation debate.
A perusal of the posts (including linked articles) within this thread will reveal numerous examples of prejudice appearing on both sides of the debate.

It's not so much a question as to whether or not prejudice exists - it's more a question of the degree to which prejudice exists!

Yes, a small percentage of people suffer reactions to vaccinations, but is this just cause to deny the vast majority the protection that comes from vaccination ?

I believe earlier comments have already made my position on this question quite clear:

...As for the point I'm making, it's similar to comments I've made earlier on this thread.
I already know from my own direct experience that vaccines can have extremely adverse consequences for some (not all) unlucky individuals, and am annoyed when subjected to peer pressure from misinformed members of our society.

Please be assured that I am not supportive of any campaign to mandate or outlaw vaccination!

However, I am generally opposed to the deliberate misrepresentation of pharmacology, particularly when such misinformation is part of a campaign that threatens to remove the right of the individual to make informed choices.

Whilst acknowledging the inappropriateness of dictating how others manage their health, I was vainly hoping that such consideration for individual rights might be reciprocated. (I find the eagerness, with which some individuals, have embraced this campaign for removal of such an important human freedom, thoroughly disconcerting.)
...

If your vaccinations produced no ill effects to you and protected you against disease, I wonder how different your opinion would be ?

My comments in this post regarding prejudice and impartiality should suffice.

 

[Value Collector]

I certainly do not claim to be unbiased on any matter influenced by personal experience.

Throughout the years, I've noticed how easily overconfidence can lead to delusions of "impartiality".

Usually those succumbing to such delusions aren't sufficiently self aware to know that they've actually bought into a personal fantasy of superiority.

I used to be amazed by the number of people confidently expressing a firm belief in their own impartiality.
It was seldom (if ever) true!

Some of the most blatantly opinionated I know proudly profess their total impartiality! Unsurprisingly, those same people are very quick to accuse others of prejudice!

The underlying logic seemed to be akin to: "I know I'm right! Therefore anyone in disagreement must be wrong!"
Some people do attempt to synthesise a level of objectivity by making conscious, concerted (and indeed noble) efforts to quarantine favoured opinions whilst in dialogue with others.
However, despite best efforts, past experience will still hold some influence over interpretation and filtration of data.

Thankfully such people are rarely seen to make the foolish error of presuming total impartiality. Nor do such people make the error of claiming the infallibility of anything irrespective of popularity or the amount of supportive evidence.

By now some may be wondering what this has to do with the immunisation debate.
A perusal of the posts (including linked articles) within this thread will reveal numerous examples of prejudice appearing on both sides of the debate.

It's not so much a question as to whether or not prejudice exists - it's more a question of the degree to which prejudice exists!



I believe earlier comments have already made my position on this question quite clear:



My comments in this post regarding prejudice and impartiality should suffice.

Replace the word vaccinations, with seat belts and see how silly your argument sounds.

Should we let parents make an "informed choice" as to whether to restrain their children while driving.

 

[cynic]

Yet you seem to take proven facts as if they are personal opinion.

Perhaps my recent response to Sir Rumpole may shed some light on the dynamics behind our interactions on this and other threads within this forum!

 

[cynic]

How beneficial would you rate the eradication of small pox from the world? If it wasn't vaccination that made small pox a historical memory, then what was it? Even by the 50s, after much of the industrialised world had eradicated small pox, 50M new infections were still occurring every year.

How beneficial would you rate the close to eradication of polio within Australia, and much of the world? Between the 1930’s and 1960’s there were 40,000 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis recorded in Australia but the total number of polio infection cases are up to 100 times greater. This is because only 1 in 100 cases of poliomyelitis causes paralysis thereby requiring hospitalisation and mandatory reporting. However, a large percentage of the ‘non-paralytic’ and non-reported polio infections still caused considerable damage to the motor neurones.

This is getting repetitious.

Have I not already voiced my concerns regarding the failure of some to distinguish between correlation and causation?

Have I not also drawn attention to the fact that there were numerous beneficial changes throughout the past century that, ideally, need to be considered when trying to determine causation?

I hope by now you can understand why I consider it unwise to become too attached to opinions regarding the likely causation behind the eradication of the diseases you mention.

 

[orr]

I used to be amazed by the number of people confidently expressing a firm belief in their own impartiality.

It was seldom (if ever) true!

.

It's hard not to be influenced by information like this;

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-pubs-cdi-2002-cdi2602-cdi2602a.htm


a lifted quote;
Vaccination prevents an estimated 650,000 cases of paralytic polio in each annual global birth cohort.1 In October 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Western Pacific region, including Australia to be polio-free.2

and another;
Since the creation of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative by the World Health Assembly in 1988, the estimated number of polio cases has fallen from 350,000 to less than 3,500, a decrease of more than 99 per cent.3


The article goes on to discuss world eradication of polio.

Cynic; do you ever contemplate a world, that because of a successful vaccination programme related to polio, that someone with your susceptibility to a reaction to a polio immunisation would never have to suffer that reaction because there would be no need to vaccinate people in the first place.
As it is in my case I have no need to risk the small but real possibility of a reaction to the small pox vaccination because of its eradication in the wider population. I and many millions owe a great debt to those who, were both drugooned or volunteered into taking that small but real risk .

Feel free to repeat yourself.
And correlate this; with no virus there is no causation of the associated implicated disease. Orr in your opinion, is there?

 

[cynic]

It's hard not to be influenced by information like this;

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-pubs-cdi-2002-cdi2602-cdi2602a.htm


a lifted quote;
Vaccination prevents an estimated 650,000 cases of paralytic polio in each annual global birth cohort.1 In October 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Western Pacific region, including Australia to be polio-free.2

and another;
Since the creation of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative by the World Health Assembly in 1988, the estimated number of polio cases has fallen from 350,000 to less than 3,500, a decrease of more than 99 per cent.3


The article goes on to discuss world eradication of polio.

Cynic; do you ever contemplate a world, that because of a successful vaccination programme related to polio, that someone with your susceptibility to a reaction to a polio immunisation would never have to suffer that reaction because there would be no need to vaccinate people in the first place.
As it is in my case I have no need to risk the small but real possibility of a reaction to the small pox vaccination because of its eradication in the wider population. I and many millions owe a great debt to those who, were both drugooned or volunteered into taking that small but real risk .

Feel free to repeat yourself.
And correlate this; with no virus there is no causation of the associated implicated disease. Orr in your opinion, is there?

Orr, when presented with published statements which happen to be at variance to direct personal experience, do you automatically dismiss the evidence of your own senses in favour of such published statements?

 

[cynic]

Replace the word vaccinations, with seat belts and see how silly your argument sounds.

Should we let parents make an "informed choice" as to whether to restrain their children while driving.

Is your desire to ridicule me so intense that you must now resort to word substitution?

 

[orr]

Orr, when presented with published statements which happen to be at variance to direct personal experience, do you automatically dismiss the evidence of your own senses in favour of such published statements?

Depending of the origin supporting published statements and the capacities of the authors and my variance to them, I'd conclude either I'm mad or they are....

You're the one here who posts supporting links to, 'crack pots' ... or? you would describe them as ???

The published statement I've linked to ?.... I'll await your description.

By the way, both my father and his brother contracted polio as children, from Pemperton's polio pool in Ramsgate NSW as it was euphormisticly referred to back then. I don't know what you've suffered. But if your exercises in semantics here, were to lead to one unnecessary infection, I'd find a use for an iron lung, and where I'd place it, wouldn't be aiding your resporation.

You were asked for your opinion previously ....
now you've two more Q's .... and here's another, are they to hard???