Minister targets anti-vaccination websites - BBC March 2019

Is that the unpublished "prequel"?

 

Yes its about break dancing in spandex on the cafeteria table and a car that can talk.

 

One of the things that worries me about vaccines is that nowadays they are given from birth onwards. I wonder what effect this has on immature immune systems. And since most of the vaccines/immunisations are not that old, nobody knows what effects they may have in a few decades time.

The timetables for immunisation/vaccination are mind-boggling. In some periods of infancy babies are given up to 10 doses of vaccine at once - and some of those doses cover three diseases at once. Look at what happens at 2 months, 6 months and 18 months :

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

For adults :

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html

 

Haha, I think writing "too" in the same sentence screwed with my brain.

 

The book was The Hazards of immunisation by Sir Graham S Wilson (1967).

The reference to it was in a letter from Doris Jones appearing in the MRC National archives papers at p 78

 

It's not actually the specific information on a media platform that determines whether something is a media echo chamber.

It is to do with whether there are software mechanisms like the retweet or share buttons on Twitter and Facebook which can create viral spread of material across the platform without any control. And it is to do with whether a media environment is policed and controlled, so that if sensationalist viral material is factually incorrect, fake news, or inappropriate for minors, etc then it can be questioned or taken down.

If there is no policing, and if there are mechanism like retweet or share buttons, then this can allow unsubstantiated hearsay to reverberate across the Internet.

 

The SMC is policed and controlled isnt it? So is Cochrane. How about the BBC, CNN Fox and Sky. You are falling into the appeal to authority fallacy in your logic it appears.

How about Reuters does that provide false news as much as anywhere else or not? Or does it get a pass as being "authoritative".

You are using wiki as an example of verified facts (rather than having as much potential for hearsay and circular sourcing as anywhere else online) at the same time wiki themselves are saying the opposite about themselves as I have already shown you.

from wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

 

Sadly i know of many girls with POTS and / or ME following Gardisil.
Denmark were investigating side effects as they were logging them at around double the expected rate. I don' t know if anything has been published yet.
There was a lot wrong with the cochrane paper on HPV vaccines as highlighted by Gotzsche.
Paper and comments
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/5/16...ence-of-bias-response-to-the-cochrane-editors

Edit spelling corrected and link added

 

I agree. Really important children have all vaccinations. It saves lives. And leniency for those children who have illnesses that might not cope with vaccination. A lot of us might not be alive today if it weren't for the childhood vaccinations.

 

I do think there needs to be more research into the safety of vaccines, which may help to make them even more safer.

 

I agree with that, the more we know the safer and more effective they can be.

 

I think having a deference to presumed authorities like the BBC CNN FOX Cochrane the Lancet the BMJ etc whilst falling into the trap of claiming self appointed authorities should regulate other content and make pronouncements of fake news upon such other forums in blanket fashions is a dangerous route to go down and the Minister in question on this thread is aiding such a slippery slope.

 

Most data actually shows fewer autoimmune adverse events for young childhood vaccines versus adults, so it may actually be beneficial to give at younger age vs older age.

The same goes for combination vaccines - less actual injections lower the risk. People who suggest that the combination vaccines should be split into multiple parts are horribly misguided...

 

Do you have some evidence for this? I am not trying to be combative. I just haven't seen any evidence for separate vaccines being worse than combined ones, nor can I see how this can be true from a logical point of view. Challenging and stressing the immune system, particularly of very young babies, with multiple diseases at the same time has never seemed to be a sensible system to me.

 

You may be interested in the following paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24914115

The paper only considers one particular combination vaccine, but it found a doubled risk of seizures from the combination vaccine compared to separate vaccines.

 

There are UK soldiers with GWI that is attributed to the number of vaccinations given in so short a timeframe.
One Scottish case was a soldier who was vaccinated but not deployed and had to go to court to get his pension.
Malcolm Hooper has supported these veterans.

Aluminium as an adjuvant can be problematic. The assumption that everyone clears this is just that.

 

The GWI epidemiological studies pointed to organophosphate pesticide and organophosphate nerve agent exposure as the most likely cause; vaccines were considered less likely causes.

 

Quite true. But the vaccines could have been major contributing factors. Unfortunately, we may never be able to untangle the contributing factors to assign a specific etiology.

Also consider those soldiers that were exposed to vaccines, but not to the organophosphates:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jan/12/health.military
(Apologies for using the Guardian as a reference!)