Judge rules MMR vaccines must be had Watch

thechibi
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#61
Report 5 years ago
#61
Considering it's been proven to be a thing (look at unvaccinated animal models. And have some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/page...yimmunity.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11078115

Sure, people argue the varying definitions but.

And I guess if you're okay with spreading harmful diseases to others, by all means, I guess. I just think it's sad people who CAN'T be vaccinated suffer or die as a result of 'well, I don't wanna'.
0
reply
natninja
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 5 years ago
#62
You know that the sample size for the study that said that MMR was linked to autism had a sample size of twelve... and that the doctor who did it was paid to do it by a lawyer who was suing a pharmaceutical company... and that the age where people would generally notice autism in a child is around the age when MMR would be administered... and that the doctor in question had developed 'alternative' single jabs... and that the study was only of those with autism and the questions asked were: did your child have MMR? and, when did you first notice your child may be autistic?

If lots of people stop vaccinating, it puts the lives of others at risk and could result in a resurgance of measles, mumps and rubella which were responsible for many childhood deaths pre MMR and could lead to a drug resistant strain evolving... though why you cannot get single immunizations for each is an entirely different question and there should be that option for those who do not wish for their child to have the combined jab.
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#63
(Original post by thechibi)
Considering it's been proven to be a thing (look at unvaccinated animal models. And have some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/page...yimmunity.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11078115

Sure, people argue the varying definitions but.

And I guess if you're okay with spreading harmful diseases to others, by all means, I guess. I just think it's sad people who CAN'T be vaccinated suffer or die as a result of 'well, I don't wanna'.
Herd Immunity is questionable at best

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c...gainst-parent/

Yes it's sad, but what's also sad is people having reactions. When I was in hospital, I met a girl who had had a reaction to a vaccine and she had literally become disabled. Bedbound, rolling around screaming, wearing nappies, unable to really speak. There were photos around her room of her before, with her friends, happy. She was a year and a half younger than me (I was 15 at the time). I'd much rather take my chances with a naturally occuring illness I have a chance of fighting than have some man made crap injected into me and end up like her.

I also researched vaccines myself and the benefits are dubious, most don't last long and there's a list of questionable chemicals in them. I don't trust pharma at the best of times, particularly not in this
0
reply
thechibi
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#64
Report 5 years ago
#64
So the fact that small pox went extinct as a result of vaccinations - oh, nevermind. I'm not gonna win an argument with the tinfoil hatters.

Honestly, almost everything can kill you if you want to get technical about it. What research have you done, exactly? Minus points if it's from Jenny and her cadre of granola moms (except when they need modern conveniences).

It's kind of personal to me having lived in an area that was hit by whooping cough. Turns out there were a lot of antivaxxers in town and the people who died were poorer families.

Wouldn't the big pharma make MORE if people were getting these diseases? vaccines aren't profitable and that's why the government often has to step in.
2
reply
moonkatt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#65
Report 5 years ago
#65
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
15 is old enough to make your own decisions.
You said previously that decision should be made on a case by case basis. For the courts to have come to this decision they will have assessed the Gillick competence of both these kids. If the older one was found to have competence it would have saved the judge the headache of having to make this decision for her.

You say you don't believe in herd immunity, do you care to explain why child mortality figurse have massively dropped since vaccination has been introduced?
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#66
(Original post by thechibi)
So the fact that small pox went extinct as a result of vaccinations - oh, nevermind. I'm not gonna win an argument with the tinfoil hatters.

Honestly, almost everything can kill you if you want to get technical about it. What research have you done, exactly? Minus points if it's from Jenny and her cadre of granola moms (except when they need modern conveniences).

It's kind of personal to me having lived in an area that was hit by whooping cough. Turns out there were a lot of antivaxxers in town and the people who died were poorer families.

Wouldn't the big pharma make MORE if people were getting these diseases? vaccines aren't profitable and that's why the government often has to step in.
I've looked into several studies

I really recommend you read this

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/the...like-cattle-2/
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#67
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#67
(Original post by moonkatt)
You said previously that decision should be made on a case by case basis. For the courts to have come to this decision they will have assessed the Gillick competence of both these kids. If the older one was found to have competence it would have saved the judge the headache of having to make this decision for her.

You say you don't believe in herd immunity, do you care to explain why child mortality figurse have massively dropped since vaccination has been introduced?
In most cases I would assume 15 is old enough but yeah on a case by case basis. I cannot understand why a 15 year old wouldn't pass the Gillick competence.

It's not that I don't believe in it, I'm sceptical of it. Mainly because it wasn't originally meant with regards to vaccinations, the figures were inflated without scientific reasons and that outbreaks still occur in vaccinated

This explains it better than me
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/the...like-cattle-2/
0
reply
Dalek1099
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 5 years ago
#68
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...e-against-will

Thoughts? Personally I think this is disgusting. One of the girls is vegan, both of them have looked into it and they and their mother have decided they don't want it. Seems bad they can be forced.
What people need to understand is that by refusing the vaccine they are putting other peoples lives in severe jeopardy because people who are not vaccinated can be attacked allowing the virus to grow and mutate into more deadly forms that could kill those, who haven't had the vaccine.Vaccines are a must and must be made compulsory, especially for serious diseases like MMR.
1
reply
thechibi
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#69
Report 5 years ago
#69
Nothing is one hundred percent in life. But honestly, I'm just amused by the whole putting additives in my body thing. Hopefully you don't eat any sort of processed food and only organic things you've grown yourself. Ever taken any medication? I guess that stance always puzzled me because additives are ubiquitous to modern, western societies. Do I think it's a good thing? Not necessarily. But.

Frankly, having taken microbiology courses and volunteered in nursing, I'm going to stick to vaccinating people. There's so little financial incentive to produce new ones because treating a disease is more profitable than preventing it. That is why we don't have as many innovations coming out.

It's just incredibly personal to me because I've SEEN this **** and it's sad. Granola moms who don't want ~anything unnatural~ in little timmy while lugging him to the hospital and exposing everyone in the area. Diseases that were rare are now making a comeback. And we can prevent them. The trouble comes when enough people break the threshhold of sufficient immunity in an area. And it's happening. People are dying of diseases that were a problem in the 1800s.
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#70
(Original post by thechibi)
Nothing is one hundred percent in life. But honestly, I'm just amused by the whole putting additives in my body thing. Hopefully you don't eat any sort of processed food and only organic things you've grown yourself. Ever taken any medication? I guess that stance always puzzled me because additives are ubiquitous to modern, western societies. Do I think it's a good thing? Not necessarily. But.

Frankly, having taken microbiology courses and volunteered in nursing, I'm going to stick to vaccinating people. There's so little financial incentive to produce new ones because treating a disease is more profitable than preventing it. That is why we don't have as many innovations coming out.

It's just incredibly personal to me because I've SEEN this **** and it's sad. Granola moms who don't want ~anything unnatural~ in little timmy while lugging him to the hospital and exposing everyone in the area. Diseases that were rare are now making a comeback. And we can prevent them. The trouble comes when enough people break the threshhold of sufficient immunity in an area. And it's happening. People are dying of diseases that were a problem in the 1800s.
I avoid it where I can. I make most, I'll admit not all, of my food from scratch and grow some of it. Medications I do take because I have chronic conditions. I don't like to but without I am in constant pain and unable to function. I'm not someone who wants everything natural but I believe in avoiding unnecessary additives and man made stuff

Did you read the link? Vaccinated people are more likely to spread the crap than little timmy and the granola mums!
0
reply
TattyBoJangles
Badges: 19
#71
Report 5 years ago
#71
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
In most cases I would assume 15 is old enough but yeah on a case by case basis. I cannot understand why a 15 year old wouldn't pass the Gillick competence.
We went over this case in an ethics lecture earlier this week. Although a 15 year old may well be deemed Gillick competent under usual circumstances, I believe she was seen not to be as the judge ruled that she was under undue pressure from her mother to refuse it and was generally naïve about the matter.
(Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong, but I think that was the reasoning)
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.57%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (227)
40.75%
Nope, not that interesting (221)
39.68%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise