Anti-vaxxer loons go ballistic on Mark Zuckerberg after he posts photo of daughter’s doctor visit

First topic message reminder :

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg stirred up a hornet’s nest of anti-science sentiment on Friday when he posted a photo on Facebook of himself with his daughter Max at the doctor’s office.

Zuckerberg’s offense?  Writing “Doctor’s visit — time for vaccines!”

The Facebook posting immediately drew both praise and condemnation for the tech billionaire, as supporters of childhood vaccinations battled with anti-vaxxers in the comments on a post that was “liked” over 2.5 million times.
Among the over 56,000 comments were many who praised Zuckerberg for caring about his daughter’s health, including Stuart Duncan who wrote: “As someone with autism, with a son with autism, as someone who is constantly watching good people put their own children at serious risk because of old, fraudulent fears of vaccines and autism… thank you for being sensible. Thank you for doing what’s right and also for showing everyone else that it’s the right thing to do as well.” The anti-vaxx movement has fought against child hood immunizations based upon a since discredited study linking childhood vaccines to autism. The anti-vaxx movement recently funded a new study  looking for a link, only to have it blow up in their faces when researchers returned empty-handed.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/anti-vaxxer-loons-go-ballistic-on-mark-zuckerberg-after-hes-posts-photo-of-daughters-doctor-visit/

sassy wrote:

Who should not get DTaP vaccine or should wait?

• Children with minor illnesses, such as a cold, may be vaccinated. But children who are moderately or severely ill should usually wait until they recover before getting DTaP vaccine.
  
• Any child who had a life-threatening allergic reaction after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.
  
• Any child who suffered a brain or nervous system disease within 7 days after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.
  
• Talk with your doctor if your child: had a seizure or collapsed after a dose of DTaP, cried non-stop for 3 hours or more after a dose of DTaP, or had a fever over 105 °F after a dose of DTaP.
  

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682198.html#app3

What sassy produced as her evidence.

Like I say her story changes by the minute

Only after I pulled up this was only develope in the 80's her story changes again.

lol

Off to bed KD, dickhead can ramble on as much as he likes.  He's obviously never had children, that's for sure.

The evidence sassy used to back her claim

Who should not get DTaP vaccine or should wait?





Children with minor illnesses, such as a cold, may be vaccinated. But children who are moderately or severely ill should usually wait until they recover before getting DTaP vaccine.
Any child who had a life-threatening allergic reaction after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.
Any child who suffered a brain or nervous system disease within 7 days after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.
Talk with your doctor if your child: had a seizure or collapsed after a dose of DTaP, cried non-stop for 3 hours or more after a dose of DTaP, or had a fever over 105 °F after a dose of DTaP.



https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682198.html#app3


Why would she use this if the child never had this vaccine?

Clearly sassy was claiming she did and now backtracks when I prove it did not exist at the time

This is what happens when people change their story

Anyway all of which still does not excuse the fact no doctor would stop all other vaccines based off the reactions to one.
Again it would be possible with booster injections for the same vaccine, but not for different vaccines, hence proving beyond doubt sassy is telling porkies

So sad......

korban dallas wrote:So sad......

Sure is. Dr Didge MD FGS.

Here' where the evidence exists that a doctor can advise against stopping the jabs.

http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/pdf/patient-summaries/532526.pdf

Irn Bru wrote:

korban dallas wrote:So sad......

Sure is. Dr Didge MD FGS.

Here' where the evidence exists that a doctor can advise against stopping the jabs.

http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/pdf/patient-summaries/532526.pdf

That is not evidence to the claim made

And it is only in regard to a couploe of the vaccines

Epic fail again trying to cover for someone telling porkies

See the trouble with Didge is, for all his talk of history, he never puts anything in context of the time it happened.  In the 70s there was a lot of discussion about the DTP injection and a lot of doctors were not happy with it.


1.  The vaccine revolt

By 1970, the diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis (DTP) combi-
nation had been routinely used in Great Britain for over 20
years. Though not eradicated, whooping cough had become a
much less common disease in comparison with its incidence
in the mid-20th century. During the 1940s, it had afflicted
60–70% of British children prior to completing school and
caused over 9000 deaths, the vast majority of which were
among infants. This mortality figure exceeded that from any
other infectious disease in childhood at the time
[3]
. When
the  United  Kingdom  emulated  the  example  of  the  United
States  by  introducing  routine  immunization  in  the  1950s,
disease rates fell and such memories gradually faded from
public consciousness.
Yet,  pertussis  vaccine  raised  problems  of  its  own.  A
whole-cell  preparation  that  had  changed  relatively  little
since the early-20th century, it often caused fevers that could
rarely precipitate outright seizures. More ominous were case
reports (mainly between 1948 and 1960) describing possible
vaccine  complications  ranging  from  encephalopathy  and
coma to permanent neurological injury and death
[4,5]
.In
retrospect, it is difficult to judge how many of these cases
represented other degenerative neurological processes emer-
ging  coincidentally  in  infancy.  Given  the  undeniable  con-
sequences of whooping cough itself, few physicians openly
questioned the continued use of the vaccine. Many were re-
assured by the fact that the most important and rigorous clin-
ical trials of the immunization prior to 1960, conducted by
the British Medical Research Council (MRC) and involving
over 36,000 children, reported
no
cases of encephalopathy
[6]
. The vaccine’s safety profile thus raised little concern un-
til whooping cough itself became less common in the 1970s.
In January 1974, however, the publication of a case series
from the Hospital for Sick Children at Great Ormond Street
suddenly  brought  pertussis  vaccine  under  public  scrutiny.
The article described 36 children who, the authors believed,
had  suffered  severe  neurological  complications  following
their DTP immunization
[7]
. Few within the medical profes-
sion foresaw the storm of media publicity that soon followed.
Television documentaries and newspaper reports dramatized
tragic stories of profoundly retarded children allegedly in-
jured by the vaccine
[8]
. The London
Times
, for example,
uncovered the story of a severely incapacitated young man
believed by his parents to have been disabled in the 1950s
MRC pertussis vaccine trials (but not reported). Disclosure
that the original records of the trial had been destroyed by
fire only further heightened suspicions
[9,10]
. Parents con-
vinced that their children’s disabilities resulted from pertus-
sis immunization joined together to form an advocacy group,
the  Association  of  Parents  of  Vaccine-Damaged  Children,
which played a major role in focusing public attention on
the issue
[11]
.
The result of all this negative publicity was a rapid fall
in immunization rates against whooping cough. Though the
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI)
met and affirmed the vaccine, the government (reflecting a
general climate of uncertainty) launched no major campaign
to restore public confidence
[12]
. By 1977, coverage against
pertussis  had  declined  from  77  to  33%,  falling  as  low  as
9% in some districts
[13]
. The first of what would become
three  major  epidemics  of  whooping  cough  followed  soon
thereafter. By the time it subsided in the middle of 1979, au-
thorities had reported 102,500 cases throughout the United
Kingdom, far more than in any comparable time period since
the widespread use of the vaccine (
Fig. 1
). Though the case
fatality rate was lower than in previous epidemics, an esti-
mated 36 children (mainly infants) died in the course of the
outbreak
[14

2.  A house divided
Despite these figures, great opposition to the vaccine con-
tinued inside as well as outside the medical profession. A
significant perceptual divide separated advisory bodies such
as  the  JCVI,  which  continued  to  recommend  the  vaccine,
and  the  general  practitioners  and  home  visitors  who  actu-
ally administered it. A 1977 survey of general practitioners
by the London
Times
found that that 47 of 97 respondents
would  not  recommend  the  vaccine  unless  specifically  re-
quested by the parent
[15]
. Health care providers on the front
line tended to interpret the contraindications to vaccination
far more liberally than did the government’s advisors. For
example, in one survey about half of primary care providers
recommended withholding the vaccine from an infant who
had been “jittery” following a breech delivery. Official rec-
ommendations were sufficiently ambiguous to allow the ex-
clusion of many children on the basis of categories such as
prior  “cerebral  irritation,”  neurological  deficits,  febrile  ill-
ness, or family history of epilepsy or allergy
Even at higher levels, a vocal minority of physicians in
positions of influence joined the fray. John Wilson, senior
author of the 1974 case series that had ignited the crisis, con-
tinued to criticize the JCVI in public
[17]
. One of the mem-
bers of the JCVI, George Dick, criticized in print his own
committee’s decision to endorse the vaccine in 1974
[18]
.
The  most  confrontational  physician  opposing  the  vaccine,
however, soon emerged in the person of Gordon Stewart, a
medical professor at the University of Glasgow. Stewart was
sympathetic to the kinds of arguments gaining favor in the
public health community during the 1960s and 1970s min-
imizing the role of antibiotics and medical interventions in
the decline of infectious disease
[19]
. In 1977, he published
a  series  of  160  cases  of  encephalopathy  that,  he  asserted,
represented likely pertussis vaccine reactions. Parents aware
of his interest had brought him many of the patients
[20]
.
The  paper  triggered  a  war  of  letters  in  the  editorial  pages
of the
Lancet
and
British Medical Journal
in which Stew-
art seemed to relish taking his opponents repeatedly to task.
What most unsettled his colleagues was his willingness to
take the same arguments to the public. Over and over Stew-
art endeared himself to supporters of vaccine victims by pro-
viding pithy quotes attacking the vaccine in interviews and
the popular press
[21,22]
.
The government judged these concerns serious enough to
warrant a series of investigations. Two advisory panels re-
viewed individual cases (many submitted by the Association
of  Parents  of  Vaccine-Damaged  Children)  and  concluded
that while some were suggestive, taken as a whole they failed
to prove or disprove whether pertussis vaccine caused en-
cephalopathy. The JCVI, in contrast, proposed to quantify
the  magnitude  of  possible  vaccine  risk  through  epidemio-
logical study. To this end, it launched what would become
the  most  important  single  investigation  to  arise  from  the
controversy, the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study
(NCES). An enormous case–control study, the NCES iden-
tified every child between 2 and 36 months of life hospital-
ized in England, Scotland, and Wales for acute neurological
illness,  and  assessed  whether  recent  immunization  was  a
risk  factor. 

https://online.manchester.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/orgs/I3075-COMMUNITY-MEDN-1/DO%20NOT%20DELETE%20-%20PEP%20Quality%20and%20Evidence/QE-PEP-HTML5/media/F8430185-03E3-C538-8362-DE46812E97BE.pdf


My Jackie had bad complications when she was born, and she was already at risk, which is why the doctor said no more after her fit and high temperature.


Now, if you carry this on, it's abuse pure and simple.  I had the baby, and watched her difficulties, I was there when her temperature was so high after the jab and she had the worst fit I have ever seen, and as she became epileptic, I've seen a lot.   I'm not against vaccines and had no problems with my other two children and my orginal remark was not to you, it was to Eddie, one mother to another.   The only possible reason you would have to continue this is abuse.  You think because you are not swearing at someone you are not being abusive, which is why you don't even know when you are being abusive.


I regard this as finished.  If you start again we will all know the reason why.

Again one vaccine and not all vaccines/
How long did you spend trying to search for that.
Again what you hav e to show me is where a doctor would cast aside all medical training to then stop any other vaccines being administered based off one seperate to the others.
I think you screwed up and meant only boosters and now because you have dug yourself a hole, you cannot admit what you said was wrong.
That is your own failing but at no point have you proven a doctor would forego all medical training and decide based off a sperate vaccine to stop all others.
So no I still think you are telling porkies

Abusive again, calling someone a liar about what happened to their own child is abuse pure and simple, so don't pretend you what you are doing is discussion, you are simply here to be controlling and abusive.

And he meant ALL vaccines because she had already shown allergies and with the physical problems she had he did want to take the chance of making her worse.

You are abusive, it's the only way you know how to behave, and you are controlling.

sassy wrote:Abusive again, calling someone a liar about what happened to their own child is abuse pure and simple, so don't pretend you what you are doing is discussion, you are simply here to be controlling and abusive.

Gobbledygook, calling someone a liar is not abusive when as seen I am reasoning my points.
If you could prove your stance I would happilly apologise but as seen your reasoning makes no sense and is based off singular vaccines, where it would only make sense on boosters. If you think stating you are lying is abusive then I ask that you report this and allow Ben to decide if not believing someone is abusive.
I know you have screwed up here and meant boosters but you have not the ability ever to admnit you made an error.

So do not accuse me of being abusive as not believeing someone is not abusive, are you going to tell me its abusive I think Christianity and Islam is a lie?

Behave, you are talking nonsense

Abusive

sassy wrote:Abusive

Which by your reasoning makes you abusive daily where you have often claimed I am lying and have even done so on this very thread. That would also then make you hypocritical and show the worst double standards.
Like I say put it up before ben, or are you afraid of being shown to be wrong b y someone who activelly protects you daily with your constant abuse to posters?

I think this says more about the sort of things people put on Facebook than anything else. Why would someone post a pic of themselves and their kid at the doctors? I'm amazed that anyone was very interested in such a mundane event.

Didge wrote:

sassy wrote:Abusive

Which by your reasoning makes you abusive daily where you have often claimed I am lying and have even done so on this very thread. That would also then make you hypocritical and show the worst double standards.
Like I say put it up before ben, or are you afraid of being shown to be wrong b y someone who activelly protects you daily with your constant abuse to posters?

Telling someone they don't know what happened to their own child is abuse.

sassy wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which by your reasoning makes you abusive daily where you have often claimed I am lying and have even done so on this very thread. That would also then make you hypocritical and show the worst double standards.
Like I say put it up before ben, or are you afraid of being shown to be wrong b y someone who activelly protects you daily with your constant abuse to posters?

Telling someone they don't know what happened to their own child is abuse.

So questioning whether someone is telling the truth is abuse to you?
You really talk the worst nonsense.
I have every right to challenge your claim, as its you make the claim, nobody else.
Again  on this very thread you have claimed the same, making you by your methodology a completel hypocrite.

Again ask Ben if questioning if someone is telling the truth is abuse.

Telling someone they are not telling the truth when it happened to THEIR child is abuse.

You are being abusive and controlling.  So much for your claims.

sassy wrote:Telling someone they are not telling the truth when it happened to THEIR child is abuse.

You are being abusive and controlling.  So much for your claims.

Not its not abuse, because I am fundementally challenging your claimed ans based on the reasons given.
I think you screwed up and meant boosters and have not the guts to admit you got it wrong.

I have now reported this to Ben, if he claims I am being abusive he will say so, if not your claim is groundless and you will have to suck it.
Of course as seen you have no problem claiming I am a liar countless times, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you have a meltdown.
Well, that is tough, if you cannot take it, do not make accusations onto others, its that simple
Now maybe you will learn, but I doubt it

Good, I hope he reads the whole thread.

You are abusive and controlling.

sassy wrote:Good, I hope he reads the whole thread.

You are abusive and controlling.

So do I, as he will see it has been you and others that have been abusive, claiming I have mental health problems, thus insulting those with mental health, If I am having a stoke, thus insulting stroke victims, depression etc, all things people suffer with as if to insult someone with. This is just the tip of the iceberg of things said, so I am very happy that he reads it and see that nowhere have I been abusive but actually have constantly been on the receiving end on here simply because your claim does not add up and how reasoning this has led to you and others being utter vile.

Also reported to Eddie, I just think its a joke a person can constantly excuse me of lying and then has a meltdown if accused of lying. That shows the worst double standards and proves that you cannot take it, even though you are happy to dish it out and again you have done it again on this very thread. I suggest you read back and see what you said

You see the effect that Facebook has on people?

Raggamuffin wrote:You see the effect that Facebook has on people?

lol, now that did make me laugh

Okay just going to quickly step in here for a moment guys.
Firstly, it's not abusive if someone doesn't believe something you say, it's their entitlement not to believe you if they wish. If they're calling you a liar it's not really considered "abusive".

Secondly, perhaps we should all approach every "personal story" as true, ie why would someone lie?
Accept what someone says on face value, which is all you can really do on a forum, otherwise you can't go forward in a debate.

eddie wrote:Okay just going to quickly step in here for a moment guys.
Firstly, it's not abusive if someone doesn't believe something you say, it's their entitlement not to believe you if they wish. If they're calling you a liar it's not really considered "abusive".

Secondly, perhaps we should all approach every "personal story" as true, ie why would someone lie?
Accept what someone says on face value, which is all you can really do on a forum, otherwise you can't go forward in a debate.

Thank you Eddie

As I say I have been accused many times, and its up to people to believe or not.
To me this story did not add up and I think sassy really meant boosters but because she has a personal issue with me, does not want to back down. To me it only makes sense on boosters, as vaccines are different to what they have as ingredients. As to a personal story, I think she got it mixed up which people can do and I have done so myself on something I have said, so I do not think that is wrong to question that.

eddie wrote:Okay just going to quickly step in here for a moment guys.
Firstly, it's not abusive if someone doesn't believe something you say, it's their entitlement not to believe you if they wish. If they're calling you a liar it's not really considered "abusive".

Secondly, perhaps we should all approach every "personal story" as true, ie why would someone lie?
Accept what someone says on face value, which is all you can really do on a forum, otherwise you can't go forward in a debate.

It is abuse when it is something about someones child, it's bullying, it's abusive and it's controlling.  As I am the only one who knows what was said, and he contonues in this vein, it's abusive.  He even said that the triple vaccine didn't exist until the 1980s and I proved him wrong, so there can be no other reason for continuing than being abusive.   You and I both know that's what he does, he doesn't like to acknowlege it as abuse, in fact I don't think he even realises what he does.  But trying to make out I am lying, when I didn't even say it to him, it was to you, one mother to another, so there was no other reason for him to start on it.   He doesn't know her medical record, he doesn't know the problems she was born with, he doesn't know that the doctor didn't want her to be put at even the tiniest risk, so to continue it on is simply to goad.

He's a bully, that's what he does.

Do you know this is what disappoints me, where both Sassy and Korben went off calling me everything under the sun on here from mental health problems, to claiming I do not have kids, that is acceptable and not bullying to them, but if I question the validity of a claim, its bullying to sassy.
She shows the worst hypocrisy and doublse standards and all because the pair of them are driven by hate and bitterness for those who oppose their views. Its pathetic and childish and to be honest I cannot be bothered with their supposed victimhood anymore as seen it just does not cut it. The pair of them need to grow up. If I can stop abusing people, then there is no reason why the pair of them cannot stop doing so also. Like I say they show the worst double standards and have no propblem of excuising me of lying, but that is okay when they do and their reasoning to claiming abuse goes out of the window.

Like I say the pair of you need to grow up

See, he just can't stop, and always the victim, never owning what he does.

sassy wrote:See, he just can't stop, and always the victim, never owning what he does.

Er you used the cuases on the later vaccines and then tries to palm that off as the originals, which are very different.
So please go away you immature child, as you are not fooling anyone, we both know you mean boosters but you have not the guts to ever admit you are wrong. At least I can admit when wrong but I never made any complaint to either Ben or Eddie of the abuse I received, in fact I ignored it, which proves again you are talking utter nonsense.

If tyou are upset over this maybe you will learn not to excuse others, but because you are driven by hate, you will never learn.

Grow the hell up

The cause and advice were exactly the same for DTP as they are for DTaP.  I thought you knoew everything about medicine.

Threats again I see - abusive, controlling, bullying, demanding, playing the victime.     Now, what are symptoms of?

All I will say didge, is that when dealing with a mother who has a lost her child, perhaps treading gently or backing away from the debate might be better?

I can't tell you what to do, it's your prerogative, but be mindful that when discussing her child, sassy will always be tender.
Just bear that in mind please X
That's all.

eddie wrote:All I will say didge, is that when dealing with a mother who has a lost her child, perhaps treading gently or backing away from the debate might be better?

I can't tell you what to do, it's your prerogative, but be mindful that when discussing her child, sassy will always be tender.
Just bear that in mind please X
That's all.

That does not excuse her behaviour Eddie, sorry, but if people are going to go off the rail because of an inconsistency in the story, then of course I am going to question that. We have all lost people very close to eddie and I would never used that as an excuse in regards to a debate.

I understand where you are coming from but the abuse I again got on here just from challenging was unwarranted and even then for sassy to claim my children do not even exist is showing the worst double standards, as I am sure she would goi off the rails if I claimed this off her.

It works both ways Eddie

x

sassy wrote:The cause and advice were exactly the same for DTP as they are for DTaP.  I thought you knoew everything about medicine.

Threats again I see - abusive, controlling, bullying, demanding, playing the victime.     Now, what are symptoms of?

They are different vaccines and all you showed was the side effects of DTaP
Again there is no way a doctor would avise after one vaccine to stop all others.
Only where there is boosters, would they maybe advise this as doctors are very backing of having vaccinations, as they save countless lives.
There was no threadts or abuse made, you clearly have no comprehension what is abuse or a threat and as seen nobody is buying it, not even the mods.

It's threads like this that caused me to change the welcome message

LOCKED