Chinahand Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Wow - now creationists are stupid, but anti-vacinationists - they are really really scary - Matt Bawden you are deliberately stopping your children's immune system developing to fight off infections - it means your children will be have weak resistance; will be at risk of picking up and not fighting off disease and hence allow that disease to damage your children and spread to others around them. You are massively exaggerating the risks (which I do not pretend are zero, but are far less than the actual disease) and massively downplaying the advantages of immunization. You are free-loading on the success of vaccination campaigns which mean the herd immunity is STRONG enough (due to vaccines) to make most dangerous childhood diseases rare - but your free-loading and that of others is such that you are increasing the risk of disease returning. Try this and this. They aren't the best, but they try to put things into context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Thats not changing your mind. That's acknowledging your mistake. Na, I meant I changed my mind as I wrote the reply, went back and changed the 10 to a 100 but not the 9 to a 99. No biggie eh, you get what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Matt - you are mistaking verbage with evidence when you say there is about equal evidence concerning the safety or not of vaccines. I agree the internet is full of pseudoscientific bull about the dangers of vaccines - but that bull doesn't compare risks, cherry picks, and distorts. You could spend days reading studies about adverse reactions to vaccines - I'm not denying they occur - they are well studied and the papers exist - but that is cherry picking - you have to compare the rates of these reactions with the medical complications of the disease themselves. You are just plain wrong to say they are equal - vaccines are multiple times safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Thats not changing your mind. That's acknowledging your mistake. Na, I meant I changed my mind as I wrote the reply, went back and changed the 10 to a 100 but not the 9 to a 99. No biggie eh, you get what I mean? Yes get what you mean. Good point anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 as opposed to vaccinations being relatively unsafe, due to the fact there is practically as much evidence for and against vaccinations if you bother your arse looking. we spent 8 months, reading published medical journals and papers, trawling the internet, talking to medically qualified people and reading books, we tried to attain as much info for and against as we practically could so that a fair balance could be established then we made a decision, we took this long and made this much effort because we believed this matter to be extremely important......I really don't think that could be classed as irresponsible parenting, I wonder how much time and effort on information gathering you spent on vaccinations before making your decision. Where did your serious concern about vaccinations come from? Is it simply about a distrust of the western medicine or a dislike of invasive procedures? I hope it didn't come from the media hype about the vaccines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyNorth Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Its up to Matt what he does - its his bloody child. There are people that do worse to their children than choose not to give a vaccination. Physical and mental abuse for starts. Get back on thread and stop bloody preaching. Anyone know where on the Island the person(s) live/work? Whats their age? How is their health? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 See the paradox, damned if you don't, damned if you do... Ever the journalist - "First simplify, then exaggerate". Have you ever considered that there might be a third way: report the news based on the facts and not on supposition or hype? If you could take the trouble to read what I posted you would see that I didn't say it shouldn't be reported, but that it should be reported responsibly. . But I wouldn't expect most journalists to actually read and digest a document in a considered fashion when it is quicker to skim through, pick out the bits that conform to your own prejudices and belt out a knee-jerk reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 See the paradox, damned if you don't, damned if you do... Ever the journalist - "First simplify, then exaggerate". Have you ever considered that there might be a third way: report the news based on the facts and not on supposition or hype? If you could take the trouble to read what I posted you would see that I didn't say it shouldn't be reported, but that it should be reported responsibly. . But I wouldn't expect most journalists to actually read and digest a document in a considered fashion when it is quicker to skim through, pick out the bits that conform to your own prejudices and belt out a knee-jerk reaction. From what Stu Peters was talking about in refering to Hermes and Noam Chomsky, the issue is not about the journalism but the media industry and how it operates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Its up to Matt what he does - its his bloody child. There are people that do worse to their children than choose not to give a vaccination. Physical and mental abuse for starts. Get back on thread and stop bloody preaching. Anyone know where on the Island the person(s) live/work? Whats their age? How is their health? It is his bloody child, but it isn't as simply as that. As Chinahand pointed out, vaccination staves off far worse ills than those that could come from the vaccination itself, based on what evidence is available. And the prevention of disease is of benefit to individuals but also to society. It isn't wrong to expect that others in society would recognise to some degree their role in preventing disease in the population as well as to their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 From what Stu Peters was talking about in refering to Hermes and Noam Chomsky, the issue is not about the journalism but the media industry and how it operates. Then why did he quote me and Snaipyr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaipyr Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Why no mention of it on MR news this lunch time? I don't think it's due to ideas being fed into the media. It's the media itself which creates and drives the incessant hyping behind these scare stories - Sky and the BBC have to fill 24hours of news time a day so they will hammer any current issue intothe ground, bringing in endless 'experts' to fill time and add fuel to the fire. Add to that that most of the reporters they have reporting these (sometimes very technical) stories seem to lack the basic education to understand the issues involved and are all vying with each other to produce the most sensationalist,scaremongering reports to boost their profiles (it certainly worked for Robert Peston). Remember the old journalistic maxim "First simplify, then exaggerate". See the paradox, damned if you don't, damned if you do... Just the straight-forward fact that the IOM had its first swine flu case would have sufficed - no hype. Energy FM and the BBC reported it - it just puzzled me as to why MR didn't. Being a complete cynic I just assumed you'd been told not to report it until the evening, so as not to scare off TT visitors! And as you mentioned 'endless experts' filling in time etc - isn't that what MR does!! Sometimes it seems more like health and safety or public health lectures than entertainment as we are constantly warned about everything under the sun by patronising minor officials getting their chance to bang on and on about their pet subjects. It would drive me mad having to interview them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I personally think that the potential threat from woodlice doesn't receive the attention it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 That's so unfair! Nobody ever looks at it from the woodlouses' point of view. Woodlice have many natural predators, forming a large part of the diet to some creatures and an occasional snack to others. Common shrews are know to consume vast numbers of woodlice. Other animals also eat them in mixed fdiet ( snails, slugs and worms) these include hedgehogs, toads, frogs, newts and lizards. Little owls and foxes are also known to include them in their diets. Other creatures that share the woodlouse's habitat will also prey on them, none more so than Dysdera crocata, the main woodlouse eating spider (another spider in this genus also exists and also eats woodlice). This spider is quite common in the south of England, seizing woodlice in it's pincer-like jaws and injecting them with a poison that kills the woodlouse in a few seconds. Less of a threat, but still woodlice predators, are centipedes, harvestmen and some beetles. The woodlice is even in danger of attack by its own kind, occasionally during the moulting period. During this moult the woodlice's body is very soft and vulnerable . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellan Vannin Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Why no mention of it on MR news this lunch time? I don't think it's due to ideas being fed into the media. It's the media itself which creates and drives the incessant hyping behind these scare stories - Sky and the BBC have to fill 24hours of news time a day so they will hammer any current issue intothe ground, bringing in endless 'experts' to fill time and add fuel to the fire. Add to that that most of the reporters they have reporting these (sometimes very technical) stories seem to lack the basic education to understand the issues involved and are all vying with each other to produce the most sensationalist,scaremongering reports to boost their profiles (it certainly worked for Robert Peston). Remember the old journalistic maxim "First simplify, then exaggerate". See the paradox, damned if you don't, damned if you do... Just the straight-forward fact that the IOM had its first swine flu case would have sufficed - no hype. Energy FM and the BBC reported it - it just puzzled me as to why MR didn't. Being a complete cynic I just assumed you'd been told not to report it until the evening, so as not to scare off TT visitors! And as you mentioned 'endless experts' filling in time etc - isn't that what MR does!! Sometimes it seems more like health and safety or public health lectures than entertainment as we are constantly warned about everything under the sun by patronising minor officials getting their chance to bang on and on about their pet subjects. It would drive me mad having to interview them! : Hello, first post, please bear with me :-) I find it quite funny having 'just' returned from Mexico myself fighting fit 100%, that I come back to a Manx resident having swine flu. It's all very political, having spoken with many local Mexican residents in Cancun. The USA president was in Mexico the week before this 'issue' came about, and it was all due to a politcal argument which is why this 'outbreak' broke out. That's what all the local mexican residents were saying anyway. It's also strange that most of the swine flu cases are actually been contractd from the USA! not Mexico City. P.s the lady who has got swine flu in the IOM, which Country was she in to get it ? Regards, EV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Bizarre. This forum been going five years, yet no one's thought to register the name Ellan Vannin until today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.