No Jab - No Pay!

Forums › Off topic › No Jab - No Pay!

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282763 14-Apr-2015 11:04

nunz:
Doctors are bombarded by the medical profession and are as humanly vulnerable to influence as the rest of us.

joker97:
vaccines don't make drug companies rich. PERIOD. they prevent illnesses, how is that of any benefit to the drug companies?

will give an example. nobody wants to make a vaccine for ebola. what's the benefit in there for drug companies? they concentrate on making super expensive anti cancer treatment that doesn't work that pharmac won't pay for that gets social media buzzing like crazy .... now that's called profiteering

One word: Tami Flu - argument won - Game set and match.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282765 14-Apr-2015 11:10

P/S - just to satisfy the skeptics, it IS possible that the completely disarmed virus causes a reaction with the person that received a dose of that virus. that's because in this world anything is possible. but here's more. our body interacts with foreign stuff (bacteria, virus, non living entities) every second of every day. whether that dose of virus causes a reaction is irrelevant, if it didn't something else would have. like the bacteria in your mouth, private parts, gut. like the viruses in your nose (the ones that cause the common cold), gut, the HPV that you contract when having sex. so yes, it is possible to react with the virus, but anything to worry about? if you answer yes then you should be on antibiotics to kill all the bacteria in your gut but that still won't get rid of the radiation from your cellar, the UV rays from the sun, the other viruses in your office/nose/childcare centre, etc

And yet the cervical cancer people will tell you that CC is caused by exposure to HPV virus - the very same inert virus which is present in HPV vaccines. The same process are very much at play in the body for a vaccine as for the real virus - its jsut a vaccine doesn't reproduce removing its most virulent effects.

However - CC is also caused by exposure to ( by which i mean potentail for CC is increased by) multiple partners as a womans body develops antigens in response to a mans sperm. One antigen not harmful - multiples increases likelyhood of CC. those antigens would also be the same process as the cytogens you quote. Ipso facto - vaccines do increase the risk, but significantly less than viruses, of getting cancers and other illnesses.

Your argument that they are totally benign doesn't stand up to the above.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282768 14-Apr-2015 11:15

nunz:
joker97:
nunz:
richms: IMO the govts job is to run the most affordable healthcare system possible. If getting a jab for all reduces the overall cost of the system then do it. People are too wound up about individual rights forgetting that they are part of a society.

IMHO it is the govts job is to run the most affordable healthcare system possible. If NOT getting a jab for all reduces the overall cost of the system then do it. People are too wound up about THE LATEST SCARES AND FADS forgetting that they have a brain and should use it.

if only it were that simple. people who think they know stuff actually don't know stuff.

your statement already shows that. how can it be cheaper for the govt not to vaccinate - does anyone think for ONE SECOND that governments will do something that is more expensive, ie enforce vaccination?

i propose that vaccinating everyone is cheaper for the govt, if there is no other reason for doing it than laughing at protestors' kids getting scarred for life.

Again - I am not arguing against vaccination - I am primarily arguing against the discrimination the govts suggestion entails.

Secondly I am not arguing for no vaccination - but certainly removing the vaccinations that are not required such as HPV.

As an example of using your brain - Education reduced the incidences of HIV / Hepititus world wide - no vaccine required. When I was young there was an advert about how when you have sex with one person you have sex with all their partners potential diseases. 35 years later i still remember it.

TB is another good case in point. TB was almost eradicated in NZ as an educationally driven policyy was put in place which discouraged spitting - one of the major vectors for transmission. Now we have the Crusadaers, Blues, Sharks and every other team spitting and hawking all over the place. Not only is it gross but TB is on the rise again - and spitting has become popular, not just amongst immigrant asians where the social norm doesn't condem spitting in public but amongst all races.

If Tb gets more prevelent we will probably see them introduce a vaccine program for it - which would not be required as it can be eradicated at a social level like it was before - ditto HPV and other non-essential vaccines which would get my dole removed if I was on the dole in aus and they brought in this policy.

The methods used previously as you have claimed as less effective now because of the popularity of the internet and social media where any half wit can make a post that has a few facts and figures and get people worked up into a lather.

You might not be arguing against vaccination but when you are incorrectly quoting figures you obtained from a site without context and use kids being hurt as a result of vaccinations it's hard to feel you aren't against them.

Your numbers were disputed and context added to the sites you got the information from. If you read them you will see your opinions on how many people are actually having problems with vaccinations are in the magnitudes of factors, wrong.

The more I thought about the Govt penalizing through benefits the more it bothers me despite being more open to it initially.

Something needs to be done to combat the muppets who can get on facebook and spout absolute nonsense with figures that make no sense.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282770 14-Apr-2015 11:17

NZtechfreak:
Sideface:
NZtechfreak: ... Between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009, the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring received 4,757 reports of adverse events following immunisation of which 174 (3.6%) were considered to be serious, as set out in table 2. More than one vaccine may be given at the same time. Therefore some reports appear more than once in table 2. ...

Interesting. Can we have an image or link to "table 2" please.

Sure, once my fully vaccinated children are down to sleep and I'm not on mobile.

Just wanted to point out, in case anyone missed it: nunz math on serious adverse effects is orders of magnitude incorrect. Just to be crystal clear on that. For me the question is why? Bad data? Bad math? Deliberate misrepresentation? I presume it's probably an error.

See my reply to someone picking me up on a transposed number. The straight line numbers from taking CDC numbers work out to the following.

1700 severe reactions. 5% reported cases of reactions estimated - puts severe reactions as between 1700 and 35000 per year - My original statistic of 48 000 should be reduced to around 7000 because i transposed 1700 for 7100.

However in my favour - most immunisations are given to people under 15 so to say they only account for x percent of the population is also a skew in the data and it would be more adequate to say they account for at least 80% of immunisations bring the total figure of severe reactions to between 1360 and 28 000 - again depending on how the figures are skewed by severe reactions being more likely to be reported than non severe reactions.

Error yes - deliberate mis-representation? not likely as I put all my biases in writing and presented my working and the source facts.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282771 14-Apr-2015 11:19

joker97: Rates of adverse reactions in life that I can think of, and if I find the numbers/ facts I will post it, if not, left blank for someone to fill

- vaccination and serious reaction not causing death:
- vaccination and serious reaction causing death:
- sun and skin cancer: people still go to the sun
- smoking and lung (insert any other type you can think of) cancer:
- sexual transmission of HPV and cervical cancer/throat cancer:
- risk of suicide from antidepressants: being debated
- long haul flying and blood clots:
- dying while driving in NZ:
- reaction to food/bees/metals/pollens/wool
- too much alcohol
- too much food/too little food
- too little exercise/too much exercise:
- sexual intercourse and heart attack:
- brain inflammation from chicken pox: 1/10000
- brain inflammation from measles: 1/1000
- death from influenza
- death from being pregnant or giving birth in NZ: 1/3300
- death from radiation from CT scan: note we do a lot less than say, Australia, not only to save money but to reduce radiation. who says doctors don't care
- might post more when I think of them

Um - so we should now remove the dole for people who engage in any of these risky activities? maybe we should fine all people for risky activites - that would make it fair

Again - bringing the topic back to the original issue - which was discrimination against those on benefits and Govt repression / control.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282773 14-Apr-2015 11:20

nunz:
NZtechfreak:
Sideface:
NZtechfreak: ... Between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009, the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring received 4,757 reports of adverse events following immunisation of which 174 (3.6%) were considered to be serious, as set out in table 2. More than one vaccine may be given at the same time. Therefore some reports appear more than once in table 2. ...

Interesting. Can we have an image or link to "table 2" please.

Sure, once my fully vaccinated children are down to sleep and I'm not on mobile.

Just wanted to point out, in case anyone missed it: nunz math on serious adverse effects is orders of magnitude incorrect. Just to be crystal clear on that. For me the question is why? Bad data? Bad math? Deliberate misrepresentation? I presume it's probably an error.

1700 severe reactions. 5% reported cases of reactions estimated - puts severe reactions as between 1700 and 35000 per year - My original statistic of 48 000 should be reduced to around 7000 because i transposed 1700 for 7100.

Realistically what is the likelyhood that even 30000 cases of severe reactions went unreported, by doctors, patients, parents, or administrators? Not very likely, and to suggest otherwise IS misrepresentation.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282778 14-Apr-2015 11:25

KiwiNZ:
old3eyes:
KiwiNZ: The Australian decision and the calls to have non vaccinated children barred from daycare and schools affects the innocent badly and unjusdtly. After all a 3 or 4 year old does not make the decision and a 3 or 4 year old cannot take themselves to a doctor and ask them to vaccinate them.
The answer is education after all when was the last time we saw adv etc promoting vaccination other the Flu jabs?

Well if the kids can't go to school then it's the parents fault. This should be adopted here as well but extended to every one.

My point is its not the child's fault you are punishing the innocent and those powerless to change it, that is unfair and unjust.

not sure how vaccination is punishment, but i agree on the free will argument.

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282780 14-Apr-2015 11:29

nunz:
joker97:
nunz:
richms: IMO the govts job is to run the most affordable healthcare system possible. If getting a jab for all reduces the overall cost of the system then do it. People are too wound up about individual rights forgetting that they are part of a society.

IMHO it is the govts job is to run the most affordable healthcare system possible. If NOT getting a jab for all reduces the overall cost of the system then do it. People are too wound up about THE LATEST SCARES AND FADS forgetting that they have a brain and should use it.

if only it were that simple. people who think they know stuff actually don't know stuff.

your statement already shows that. how can it be cheaper for the govt not to vaccinate - does anyone think for ONE SECOND that governments will do something that is more expensive, ie enforce vaccination?

i propose that vaccinating everyone is cheaper for the govt, if there is no other reason for doing it than laughing at protestors' kids getting scarred for life.

Again - I am not arguing against vaccination - I am primarily arguing against the discrimination the govts suggestion entails.

Secondly I am not arguing for no vaccination - but certainly removing the vaccinations that are not required such as HPV.

As an example of using your brain - Education reduced the incidences of HIV / Hepititus world wide - no vaccine required. When I was young there was an advert about how when you have sex with one person you have sex with all their partners potential diseases. 35 years later i still remember it.

TB is another good case in point. TB was almost eradicated in NZ as an educationally driven policyy was put in place which discouraged spitting - one of the major vectors for transmission. Now we have the Crusadaers, Blues, Sharks and every other team spitting and hawking all over the place. Not only is it gross but TB is on the rise again - and spitting has become popular, not just amongst immigrant asians where the social norm doesn't condem spitting in public but amongst all races.

If Tb gets more prevelent we will probably see them introduce a vaccine program for it - which would not be required as it can be eradicated at a social level like it was before - ditto HPV and other non-essential vaccines which would get my dole removed if I was on the dole in aus and they brought in this policy.

i would love to be able to use my brain to determine the speed my state of the art 2012 car can go round the roads ... but that doesn't mean i won't crash. even michael schumacher crashes once in a while. so the govt takes away the ability to use my brain on public roads for the greater good. agree or not, sometimes it's ok not to use our brains.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282781 14-Apr-2015 11:29

nunz:
nunz:
Doctors are bombarded by the medical profession and are as humanly vulnerable to influence as the rest of us.

joker97:
vaccines don't make drug companies rich. PERIOD. they prevent illnesses, how is that of any benefit to the drug companies?

will give an example. nobody wants to make a vaccine for ebola. what's the benefit in there for drug companies? they concentrate on making super expensive anti cancer treatment that doesn't work that pharmac won't pay for that gets social media buzzing like crazy .... now that's called profiteering

One word: Tami Flu - argument won - Game set and match.

explain? coz i actually don't understand Tamiflu.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282782 14-Apr-2015 11:31

nunz:
joker97: Rates of adverse reactions in life that I can think of, and if I find the numbers/ facts I will post it, if not, left blank for someone to fill

- vaccination and serious reaction not causing death:
- vaccination and serious reaction causing death:
- sun and skin cancer: people still go to the sun
- smoking and lung (insert any other type you can think of) cancer:
- sexual transmission of HPV and cervical cancer/throat cancer:
- risk of suicide from antidepressants: being debated
- long haul flying and blood clots:
- dying while driving in NZ:
- reaction to food/bees/metals/pollens/wool
- too much alcohol
- too much food/too little food
- too little exercise/too much exercise:
- sexual intercourse and heart attack:
- brain inflammation from chicken pox: 1/10000
- brain inflammation from measles: 1/1000
- death from influenza
- death from being pregnant or giving birth in NZ: 1/3300
- death from radiation from CT scan: note we do a lot less than say, Australia, not only to save money but to reduce radiation. who says doctors don't care
- might post more when I think of them

Um - so we should now remove the dole for people who engage in any of these risky activities? maybe we should fine all people for risky activites - that would make it fair

Again - bringing the topic back to the original issue - which was discrimination against those on benefits and Govt repression / control.

agree with discrimination/removal of free will. disagree that the average joe knows anything about vaccines. absolutely no time or don't care to argue with anyone about vaccines, what's the point?

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282793 14-Apr-2015 11:40

Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
old3eyes:
KiwiNZ: The Australian decision and the calls to have non vaccinated children barred from daycare and schools affects the innocent badly and unjusdtly. After all a 3 or 4 year old does not make the decision and a 3 or 4 year old cannot take themselves to a doctor and ask them to vaccinate them.
The answer is education after all when was the last time we saw adv etc promoting vaccination other the Flu jabs?

Well if the kids can't go to school then it's the parents fault. This should be adopted here as well but extended to every one.

My point is its not the child's fault you are punishing the innocent and those powerless to change it, that is unfair and unjust.

Less so than allowing potentially infectious children to attend or to be exposed to things against which they have not been vaccinated.

Why does this argument keep veering off the rails to focus on the radical extreme anti vaxers? no one here has put up an anti vaxer argument. In fact there has been more verment responses by Pro vaccinators and not one single anti vaccinator argument. - think about that. This argument has been radicalised by PRO vaccinators.

What has been put up for discussion is an argument not to be force-ably coerced to do things which a parent should have the right to decide on. I personally define rights as the opportunity to exercise a responsibility. A right, like free speech, doesn't mean you get to go out and poo all over everyone and inflict harm on others by your actions. It means you have the opportunity to act, but also the responsibility to refrain from unwise actions.

Tony Abbots Govt is looking at removing the rights of parents by force-ably making them act in ways which may be detrimental to their health or well being. Every parent has the right to decide for their children what is good and best for the child, because no one is better positioned, informed and able to do that than the parent. Are there crappy parents? Yes but even then the Govt is not better informed about their particular child's circumstance and to blanket coerce through a discriminatory act is just plain wrong.

HOWEVER - should a parent not exercise their responsibilities inherent in their rights, should they not act in the best interests of a child, then individually society, namely those closest to the parent, family / whanau, those most in tune with a particular circumstance, should be empowered to step in.

At no point should a family - and we are talking familes here if we are discussing vaccination - ever have their ability to feed, house, clothe and care for their children threatened just because they fail to act in a way that the govt doesn't agree with. That is morally reprehensible, and may also be criminally wrong as the Govt is not empowered by legislation to discriminate by gender, race, creed or social economic status.

This proposed legislation is not about vaccination in the long run, it is about discrimination. On those grounds, not on some argument about vaccination, this legislation should be abhorred and the very Govt / people responsible for such bigotry vilified, kicked where it politically hurts and told to bugger off and let decent folks run the country.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282803 14-Apr-2015 11:45

networkn:
nunz:
NZtechfreak:
nunz: Some of those reactions will include death or non recovery( approx 7/35 = 20% of all adverse reactions)

Ah, I think this is where your worked example falls down - that figure is extraordinarily high and not reflective of reality at all. Death and non-recovery make up a tiny fraction of all adverse reactions, certainly not 20%. If that figure was 7/35,000 that would sound more plausible to me. Jesus, if it was 20% we'd have kids dying every week from vaccinations in NZ, which would certainly make the news regularly.

EDIT: Fact checking - 2014 had 1737 reports of serious adverse events of the kind you describe - that is for all vaccinations in the States (a much larger group than you postulated would result in 48,000 of these events). Worth also pointing out that the monitoring that produces these reports does not verify any causal link to the vaccination in question, in the words of the CDC themselves "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event."

Good catch I swapped the 1 and 7. however even at 1/7 of my number incorrectly derieved that is a lot of damaged kids. The anti vaccine people can be very radical but to write off parental concern as hogwash, which is what Penn & Teller do is also wrong. P & T carefully avoid any mention of side affects or stats that people like the CDC have put out.

In this forum we have a very small statistical sample yet we have 1 parent whose child was severely affected, almost to the point of dying. Coincidence? Maybe but statistically could point to a bigger issue that pro-vaccinators gloss over.

It takes one heck of a lot of courage for that parent to let his / her child be re-vaccinated even with a weaker dose and more courage again to let the other kids get vaccinated. Not disparaging non-parents - I used to be one - but you really don't know unless you have been there. It's different to watching your spouse, friends, parents or siblings die or get hurt - it really tears you up in ways you don't expect.

Re- cause and effect - agreed however that is balanced by them also stating that they believe only 5% of adverse reactions are reported. That would mean 20 x 1737 which cones out at 34 740 and not all of those would fail to be vaccine caused. To balance that out - it is very likely that severe adverse effects are more highly reported than non-severe effects so we would have to agree that there are somewhere between 1737 and around 34 740

You aren't doing the math properly still, however I am not going to argue that with you.

Bottom line, even if the number was 34,000 of serious problems (and I don't believe the numbers to be right or the definition of serious to be truly serious), how many kids would be dead or VERY VERY sick WITHOUT them.

Don't forget you aren't just protecting YOUR kids, you are protecting the kids who CAN'T truly be given these vaccinations, by way of herd immunisation.

I'm at a loss to how that maths is wrong.
1700 adverse effects, around 80% of vaccinations to those under 16, and possibly only 5% reported - according to CDC. Definition of serious is the one agreed by FDA / CDC. and includes death - a serious result indeed :)

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282804 14-Apr-2015 11:46

It's all well and good saying you want to be able to make choices that affect you and your family, but are you ok making those choices at the expense of those who don't have those choices at all?

You might choose to non Vax your Kid because you are worried about the risk, which has been proven time and time again to be completely minimal, but there are kids around for whom the vaccination is a death sentence (likelyhood 100%) who can only rely on herd immunization.

I don't mind free choice, so long as the only person who are hurting (potentially) is yourself.

I wonder if you could look the parent of a child killed by a disease your kid gave them, because you were worried about the %0.00009% chance of a reaction.

Obviously the most extreme outcome.

wasabi2k

2094 posts

Uber Geek

#1282805 14-Apr-2015 11:47

The whole taking away your rights thing doesn't really fly with me when you are receiving money from the government.

If you take out the vaccine activity - does the government have any rights to expect beneficiaries to do things to qualify for their benefit?

I believe they do - but I have never been remotely close to needing a benefit.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282810 14-Apr-2015 11:51

wasabi2k: The whole taking away your rights thing doesn't really fly with me when you are receiving money from the government.

If you take out the vaccine activity - does the government have any rights to expect beneficiaries to do things to qualify for their benefit?

I believe they do - but I have never been remotely close to needing a benefit.

Yah it's an interesting one and probably a whole other fairly dangerous topic, however especially with things like Unemployment and Sole Benefit Support, you are being provided money temporarily in exchange for seeking employment and caring for your kids respectively. If you aren't actually DOING those things to a reasonable standard, then accountability of some
sort should be an option.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10