Australia bans flu vaccine - child in coma

[Mirzam]

Vaccinations for children under five have been suspended in Australia.  Many children have been hospitalised with febrile convulsions within hours of the shot.  Febrile convulsions are fits associated with a high temperature.  A baby just one year old is still in a coma in a Perth hospital.  Other reactions to the vaccine have been fevers and vomiting.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/australia-bans-flu-vaccine-child-in-coma-others-hospitalised/

[WildKingdom]

This is reporting on a ban from 2010. Why is it being "reported" as though it is breaking news?

Odd, no mention in the article about the ban being lifted after there was no evidence found of an increased incidence of adverse effects.

http://mobile.news.com.au/breaking-news/ban-on-flu-vaccine-for-young-children-lifted/story-e6frfku0-1225899116050

[Minerva23]

You don't bite the hand that feeds you!
 

[DHinJersey]

The antivax position is always easily debunked.
Edited by DHinJersey - 2/4/13 at 5:45am

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by DHinJersey 

The antivax position is always easily debunked.

um no it's not actually which is why there are and always will be highly educated parents that have done immense amount of research and choose not to vaccinate their children. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

um no it's not actually which is why there are and always will be highly educated parents that have done immense amount of research and choose not to vaccinate their children. 

And vice versa (ie. you do the research and find the anti-vax position "easy to debunk" as DHinjersey puts it).

I think it's an interesting pyschological phenomena actually - we must just filter the information differently somehow, that different people can look at the same information and basically come to opposite conclusions. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

And vice versa (ie. you do the research and find the anti-vax position "easy to debunk" as DHinjersey puts it).

I think it's an interesting pyschological phenomena actually - we must just filter the information differently somehow, that different people can look at the same information and basically come to opposite conclusions. 

While I agree that two people can review the same material and come to different conclusions,  the previous poster stating that the "antivax" position is always easily debunked is false -  which was my point. If it was always easily debunked, there wouldn't be an antivax position. PP was making a false statement of fact - not expressing an opinion which is very different IMO. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

it was always easily debunked, there wouldn't be an antivax position.

Well that's not true. People hold all kinds of positions that are easily debunked. Like that the world is flat or we never landed on the moon.

That being said, some anti vax arguments ARE easily debunked, but people still cling to them. Some are somewhat debunked but the door is still left open. Some can't really be totally and specifically debunked with the current body of research.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


Well that's not true. People hold all kinds of positions that are easily debunked. Like that the world is flat or we never landed on the moon.

That being said, some anti vax arguments ARE easily debunked, but people still cling to them. Some are somewhat debunked but the door is still left open. Some can't really be totally and specifically debunked with the current body of research.

If you want to get uber specific  ok - then what you have stated is true. That is not what the previous poster said - what they said was a sweeping generalization that is untrue and that was the point I was trying to make. 

[DHinJersey]

edited

Edited by DHinJersey - 2/7/13 at 10:18am

[researchaddict]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

And vice versa (ie. you do the research and find the anti-vax position "easy to debunk" as DHinjersey puts it)
I think it's an interesting pyschological phenomena actually - we must just filter the information differently somehow, that different people can look at the same information and basically come to opposite conclusions. 

It goes deeper than viewpoints. some parents know of or have had a child that had a reaction, the possible conflicts of interest, some of the diseases are mild and most are rare. what got me was the toxic ingredients formaldehyde, animal DNA, and the heavy metal that accumulate in your body, etc... also the FDA held meetings to consider using human tumor cells. Your right there are different ways to looking at it you could look at it as a good thing these ingredients boost effectivness or you could look at the risks of the ingredients either way both sides are right . But How many times has a dangerous product been on the market long before it gets pulled? To often and some never get pulled at all

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by researchaddict 



 what got me was the toxic ingredients formaldehyde, animal DNA, and the heavy metal that accumulate in your body, etc... also the FDA held meetings to consider using human tumor cells. Your right there are different ways to looking at it you could look at it as a good thing these ingredients boost effectivness or you could look at the risks of the ingredients either way both sides are right .

 

But How many times has a dangerous product been on the market long before it gets pulled? To often and some never get pulled at all

These ingredients sounds scary,  but if you delve deeper you find they are in miniscule amounts and/or are chemicals which are in things you would consider healthy (e.g. there's more formaldahyde in a pear than any vaccine, more mercury in a can of tuna than any vaccine). So it's really nothing to be concerned about.

And no other industry is as carefully checked as medicines. Vaccines are held to higher safety standards than most medicines even being as they are given to healthy people. Sure dangerous things have been pulled before - the point being surely though that they were found to be dangerous and pulled. That gives me confidence that safety checks work and that people are doing the best they can.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

This is reporting on a ban from 2010. Why is it being "reported" as though it is breaking news?

Odd, no mention in the article about the ban being lifted after there was no evidence found of an increased incidence of adverse effects.

http://mobile.news.com.au/breaking-news/ban-on-flu-vaccine-for-young-children-lifted/story-e6frfku0-1225899116050

It is not debunked, as the article states the investigation continues and parents are encouraged to discuss the matter with their GP prior to vaccinating. That's a far cry from "debunked", and nothing like believing the earth is flat.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

These ingredients sounds scary,  but if you delve deeper you find they are in miniscule amounts and/or are chemicals which are in things you would consider healthy (e.g. there's more formaldahyde in a pear than any vaccine, more mercury in a can of tuna than any vaccine). So it's really nothing to be concerned about.

Really? Injecting a substance into the body works the same as eating it? Great! I was going to have pizza for lunch, but now I have an idea... So cool!

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

These ingredients sounds scary,  but if you delve deeper you find they are in miniscule amounts and/or are chemicals which are in things you would consider healthy (e.g. there's more formaldahyde in a pear than any vaccine, more mercury in a can of tuna than any vaccine). So it's really nothing to be concerned about.

I find this such a fallacious argument because injecting substances is in no way shape or form the same as ingesting them. This is the issue with AS03 (squalene) the adjuvent in some European flu vaccines, that is found naturally in many healthy foods. This causes a problem, when injected into the body, it is seen as an enemy and is treated as an antigen and the body creates antibodies to it. So now squalene is seen as an enemy, but this enemy exisists throughout the body and is important to many functions, so the body ends up attacking itself, ie autoimmune disease.

[Rrrrrachel]

It's not the same as injesting them, but it's not that different either. Your body only absorbs part of what is injested, but that part is dealt wih the same way an injected substance is. Obviously when you consume far far more of a substance than what is injected they become more and more comparable.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

It's not the same as injesting them, but it's not that different either. Your body only absorbs part of what is injested, but that part is dealt wih the same way an injected substance is. Obviously when you consume far far more of a substance than what is injected they become more and more comparable.

Except that when you ingest something it's exposed to acid in your stomach, and injected substances are not. I'm not sure what that acid bath does to the substances, but maybe along with statistics, you have chemistry and biology expertise, as well.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

It's not the same as injesting them, but it's not that different either. Your body only absorbs part of what is injested, but that part is dealt wih the same way an injected substance is. Obviously when you consume far far more of a substance than what is injected they become more and more comparable.

Are you telling me that eating you think eating olive and palm oils, amaranth and shark liver oil, or slathering squalene over your skin can cause the same potentially dangerous autoimmune disease that injecting a minute amount of the substance into the body can?

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't concede the point that vaccines cause autoimmune diseases.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by pek64 

Except that when you ingest something it's exposed to acid in your stomach, and injected substances are not. I'm not sure what that acid bath does to the substances, but maybe along with statistics, you have chemistry and biology expertise, as well.

So you're saying "except," implying its different, except you actually have no clue whether its different or not? Am I reading that right?