Sweden rejects mandatory vaccinations?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No, you were unable to produce one study comparing the health of vaccinated people and non vaccinated people subsequent to vaccinations.

Just one study...that was all I asked for.

You linked me to google scholar looking at the effectiveness of vaccines.

Here is you post here.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?11149-Studies-on-vaccines&p=415671&viewfull=1#post415671

What you are asking for is a lit review, not a study. You might ask why there has not been a major lit review of the effectiveness of vaccines in the wider population? Probably because evidence for this is not found in vaccination studies, but demographics and epidemiology.

So why did life expectancy suddenly increase in most countries after the population received vaccines? Why do they remain lower when they don't? Why isn't smallpox a thing anymore? Why are mums and measles a thing now? What how does death at a young age trump death at an older age? How do pandemics work? What do epidemiologists do?

I'm asking you to educate yourself to the nature of disease and see how vaccines work among a population. Now if you want to examine a specific vaccine we can do that.

Now back to what you are asking us to bring to you. You are asking us to bring to you an longitudinal study isolating the health effects of vaccines in general. In order to do this we need to establish control groups and control them in sealed environments eating the same foods, forming the same social bonds, performing the same daily tasks for 50 years. We must contain environmental factors such as the emergence of high-fructose corn syrup, and sedentary lifestyles. Now how do we do all this and keep them in touch with the pathogens active in our environment? How do we control for genetic diversity?

This monumental effort would still be of little value as the circumstances of our lives are constantly changing. Therefore we use demographic and epidemiological studies to see the effects of vaccines in the overall population.

Once again I ask you to answer this question: When is dying or being disabled from a preventable disease at a younger age more desirable than living longer?

To be fair I think he agrees that vaccinations are a good thing. If he really was interested in what he's asking he'd investigate the links and and discuss the issue, not just dismiss everything as non-evidence.

Have you ever been on the receiving end of any robo-calls? That's what he reminds me of.

Anti-vaccination is an understandable mindset. It's a backlash enabled by the overwhelming success of vaccinations. It's like clean water legislation as it relates to the river beside my house. There was a time when the river was so polluted it caught fire and people couldn't swim in it or eat fish from it anymore. Now that's changed and the water is much cleaner, fish and mussels have returned, grasses, amphibians, etc. So someone starts blasting the EPA that we don't need the EPA anymore. That's a typical example. People can be very dumb.

Tupac is asking if there are studies out there comparing rivers in my area, rivers where companies were encouraged to continue dumping, where sewage continued to be dumped untreated, where mine acid was not remediated, and he wants to see studies of that over decades compared to rivers where these practices were not allowed, but rivers in the same area. I guess that's what he's asking. Kinda silly.

 

[tupac chopra]

To be fair I think he agrees that vaccinations are a good thing. If he really was interested in what he's asking he'd investigate the links and and discuss the issue, not just dismiss everything as non-evidence.
.

Look, we all understand the importance of everyone (or most people) getting vaccinated.
So these are the kinds of questions people who think of not vaccinating ask.

And we see the sorts of answers they can get. they get abused. The get misdirected. They get pointed to irrelevant studies. We really need to weed the emotional basket cases out of the debate so we can present the science.

 

[tupac chopra]

Not at all. I think we should vaccinate. But we also should try to see if we can improve vaccinations if they are having side effects.

The side effects are typically very mild. There are rare cases of extreme reactions, but they are so extremely rare they won't even register on any scale against the benefits (or side effects from the diseases they are trying to prevent).

Sure but if we let some people here explain it. It might go something like this.

Internet vaccination expert: The risks are very low of your child having an extreme reaction to this vaccine.

Mother: Yes, but I understand 1 in every 168 children require an emergency room visit after a vaccination*. So i don't want my child to be one of them

Internet vaccination expert: Why you stupid moron, how dare you, you anti science luddite.

Mother: What affects on the long tern health of my child compared to an unvaccinated child. Do we have any studies?

Internet vaccination “expert”: We have done studies, go and fucking find them you moron. How dare you challenge me, I'm an expert.

Mother: I don’t think those studies exist, You are just pretending they do.​

*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3236196/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I love strawmen!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deepak]

The side effects are typically very mild. There are rare cases of extreme reactions, but they are so extremely rare they won't even register on any scale against the benefits (or side effects from the diseases they are trying to prevent).

Sure but if we let some people here explain it. It might go something like this.

Internet vaccination expert: The risks are very low of your child having an extreme reaction to this vaccine.

Mother: Yes, but I understand 1 in every 168 children require an emergency room visit after a vaccination*. So i don't want my child to be one of them

Internet vaccination expert: Why you stupid moron, how dare you, you anti science luddite.

Mother: What affects on the long tern health of my child compared to an unvaccinated child. Do we have any studies?

Internet vaccination “expert”: We have done studies, go and fucking find them you moron. How dare you challenge me, I'm an expert.

Mother: I don’t think those studies exist, You are just pretending they do.​

*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3236196/

From the link:

Our analysis demonstrated that the 12 and 18 month vaccinations are not associated with an increase in adverse events immediately following vaccination. Instead it showed a reduced risk in this period, which is likely a result of the previously documented healthy vaccinee effect [9], [13], [14]. We identified an increase in events occurring between 4 and 12 days post-vaccination for the 12 month and, to a lesser extent and for a shorter time period for the 18 month vaccines. The majority of these events represented ER visits and at their peak, on day 9 following the 12 month vaccine, were approximately twice the baseline rate. Although there was an increase in hospital admission in each period, none of these increases were statistically significant. Overall the increase in event rate following the 12 month vaccines accounted for approximately 598 extra children experiencing one or more ER visits during the risk interval per 100,000 vaccinations. The average acuity of patients presenting to the emergency room was similar to that in the control period. The conditions for which there were the largest increase in risk for presentation to the emergency room during the risk interval compared to the control interval following the 12 month vaccine were febrile convulsions, fever and viral exanthema, consistent with the known adverse event profile of MMR and varicella vaccines. There were 20 additional febrile seizures for every 100,000 children vaccinated at 12 months.

The development of an inflammatory response approximately one week after vaccination is recognized in the literature. For example, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention list days 7 to 12 post vaccination as the highest risk period for developing fever and possibly a rash [15]. This closely coincides with our observation of the time period during which emergency room visits peaked. A previous twin study also identified the development of systemic symptoms between days 6 and 14 and peaking on day 10 [9]. A study of febrile seizures following MMR vaccination identified the highest at risk period to be 8 to 14 days following vaccination and a relative risk of 2.83 and other studies have made similar observations [5], [6], [16]. These are consistent with our findings. While it is known that vaccines can produce these adverse events, our study demonstrated the population wide impact of this effect and that these events are resulting in an increase in health services utilization. The estimated 595 additional children experiencing at least one event for every 100 000 vaccinated translates into approximately one child experiencing at least one event per 168 children vaccinated. The explanation for this effect is likely the controlled replication of the virus creating a mild form of the illness the vaccine is designed to prevent. The top diagnoses for the presentations to the emergency room during the 12 month risk interval would all be consistent with a mild viral illness.

So the findings were consistent with the expected risk profile, and the majority of events where a child was admitted to the ER were not serious. Clearly our mother isn't justified using ER admittance as a proxy for serious adverse effects from vaccines.

Too, one wonders if she could cite the statistics for ER admissions, say for febrile seizures, after infection with measles...

 

[braces_for_impact]

Obviously there are concerned parents out there, and most likely they don't have a background in medical research and critical thinking in order to be able to analyze the available information. Also, when it is an honest attempt at trying to gain information, people tend to be much more gentle in explaining the specifics to parents that are asking questions in good faith.

However, the big activists in the anti-vax movement often are not parents and even more importantly, are NOT seeking answers in good faith. They are seeking membership and signaling morally to others in their cult.

 

[Deepak]

Obviously there are concerned parents out there, and most likely they don't have a background in medical research and critical thinking in order to be able to analyze the available information. Also, when it is an honest attempt at trying to gain information, people tend to be much more gentle in explaining the specifics to parents that are asking questions in good faith.

However, the big activists in the anti-vax movement often are not parents and even more importantly, are NOT seeking answers in good faith. They are seeking membership and signaling morally to others in their cult.

When they're not foisting patent medicine on their audience.

 

[bilby]

They have the same intellectual basis for their beliefs as flat earthers - but at least flat earthers don't cause the death of children.

There's something truly despicable about a conspiracy theory that directly causes innocent people to die.

 

[tupac chopra]

They have the same intellectual basis for their beliefs as flat earthers

Yet again you have no idea. Most of them don't have hard "beliefs" around it. They are cautious and want to learn more.
Every mother wants the best for her children. Hysterical ranting and avoiding direct questions and failing to provide evidence about it, and being abusive just makes pro vaccination people seem to be kooks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They have the same intellectual basis for their beliefs as flat earthers

Yet again you have no idea. Most of them don't have hard "beliefs" around it. They are cautious and want to learn more.
Every mother wants the best for her children. Hysterical ranting and avoiding direct questions and failing to provide evidence about it, and being abusive just makes pro vaccination people seem to be kooks.

If only this mother could ask a doctor... a doctor that primarily treated children. And asked them, "Are vaccines safe?"

I suppose we can all dream.

 

[J842P]

Well that kinda proves the point doesn't it? There are only an extremely small number of studies and all of them are very narrowly focused. It's barely been studied at all. Hundreds of millions of vaccinations each year and only a few studies that look only at some very narrow things.
What a joke

German study on lower rates of asthma among the vaccinated http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(13)01860-5/abstract

Another German study: prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/
Philippine study on cognitive benefits from vaccines: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2011.566203#.VM4Ni2TF8o

Pregnant women who are vaccinated have better birth outcomes compared to non-vaccinated mothers, three studies: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/186/4/E157.long,
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f393.long
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630123.

update from 2016, study of 60 000 women finds flu vaccine cuts stillbirths by half: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/10/cid.ciw082.abstract
A 2013 meta-analysis finds the flu vaccine may lower the risk of heart attack http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1758749

Is this a joke? These are a small sample of the inumerable number of studies done on vaccines and their health effects compared to controls. Again, use google scholar or Pubmed. You've been given direct links several times.

But let's be honest, you are neither equipped nor willing to understand these studies.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yet again you have no idea. Most of them don't have hard "beliefs" around it. They are cautious and want to learn more.
Every mother wants the best for her children. Hysterical ranting and avoiding direct questions and failing to provide evidence about it, and being abusive just makes pro vaccination people seem to be kooks.

If only this mother could ask a doctor... a doctor that primarily treated children. And asked them, "Are vaccines safe?"

I suppose we can all dream.

The problem is that a mother is likely to ask ..."will my child's health be negatively affected in years going forward"?

A doctor can then say


a) Go and look in google scholar you idiot.

b) We haven't done the studies I don't know.

The mother might even refer to this poorly designed and executed pilot study, and say "Is this stuff true?"

The doctor might have to say..."That study looks like crap, but we don't have any studies to refute it"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If only this mother could ask a doctor... a doctor that primarily treated children. And asked them, "Are vaccines safe?"

I suppose we can all dream.

The problem is that a mother is likely to ask ..."will my child's health be negatively affected in years going forward"?

A doctor can then say


a) Go and look in google scholar you idiot.

b) We haven't done the studies I don't know.

The mother might even refer to this poorly designed and executed pilot study, and say "Is this stuff true?"

The doctor might have to say..."That study looks like crap, but we don't have any studies to refute it"

*self moderated response, proper response would have taken weeks for moderators to completely moderate*

 

[bilby]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447616/climate-change-science-denial-oren-cass-whos-denier-now-essay-response

The various movements who have rejected a scientific consensus share the same five characteristics of science denial : reliance on fake experts, using logical fallacies to arrive at false conclusions, demanding impossible expectations of scientific proof, cherry picking from the full body of evidence and conspiracy theories to explain the consensus.

(my bold).

 

[tupac chopra]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447616/climate-change-science-denial-oren-cass-whos-denier-now-essay-response

The various movements who have rejected a scientific consensus share the same five characteristics of science denial : reliance on fake experts, using logical fallacies to arrive at false conclusions, demanding impossible expectations of scientific proof, cherry picking from the full body of evidence and conspiracy theories to explain the consensus.

(my bold).

So, first you claim the studies are there, if only people look. Now you admit they aren't there because they are impossible to produce.

ok

 

[Will Wiley]

Is this a joke? These are a small sample of the inumerable number of studies done on vaccines and their health effects compared to controls. Again, use google scholar or Pubmed. You've been given direct links several times.

But let's be honest, you are neither equipped nor willing to understand these studies.

It's not a joke. I think the problem is you've spent too much time being a scientist and not enough understanding the problem of not vaccinating.
How on earth are the studies shown supposed to convince a parent that, say, MMR won't affect the health of their child.
If you showed them those studies, from that website they would think it was you who were joking.

First we have the strawman here.
https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/04/...health-of-unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-people/

Then the posting of studies that are pretty much irrelevant.
You were obviously joking... Or do you think if you show some the mother of a child how a flu vaccine may have lowered the risk of heart attack it might convince her not to vaccinate her child for measles.

With all due respect I don't think that will cut it.

As I've mentioned i live in a area with a high non vaccination rate, and contrary to the morons on here, who caricature people who don't think all vaccines should be mandatory, as ignorant fools, they aren't. They just want to know what the truth is so they can protect their children.
So, as i mentioned showing them a flu vaccine study that showed that vaccine might reduce heart attacks won't carry any weight at all.

.
The issue is understanding why people are not vaccinating and deal with that.

 

[bilby]

What persuaded today's anti-vaxxer's parents to vaccinate the people who are now refusing to do the same for their kids was simple - they only had to look about themselves to see the massive harm that befell unvaccinated children. Children were literally dying in their thousands, and the very idea of rejecting something that would protect your child against being next was completely crazy.

But now that the vaccinated generation are grown, and the diseases that their parents feared are a distant memory, the need to vaccinate is not so clear.

It's distinctly possible that it will take a return to the high infant mortality of the 1950s and '60s to stop this insanity.

I sincerely hope not. But it's a real possibility.

"I refuse to do the right thing until thousands of children have died needlessly" is a truly despicable position to take; but it's an increasingly common one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm finding it hard to precisely follow the story online (maybe some of our Swedish members can help), but it looks like a bill was proposed in the Swedish parliament to make (some?) vaccinations mandatory but that it was rejected.
One of the reasons seems to be that the coercion involved violated the Swedish constitution. Another was possibly this.

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

Which was I think in a statement from the Swedish NHF.

Does anyone have any insight into what happened.

I think this is from the parliament??
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/77EB646D-37F9-4E33-9A89-331A5AA0E85A

I think the NHF made some recommendations and the parliament went with those.

But what did the Swedish parliament actually say?

Laws for compulsory vaccinations is rare in any country. It typically requires extraordinary circumstances. The committee tasked with investigating this found that compulsory vaccinations would be nice (herd immunity and such) but also said that these times are not extraordinary. Unvaccinated people aren't dropping like flies in any plague at the moment. Since it's perfectly possible to live a normal life unvaccinated they didn't see a reason to force them. And this is what they're talking about. Force. They're still going to provide free vaccinations to anybody who wants them.

If I read between the lines, they're saying that being an idiot is a Swedish basic human right.

The way laws are passed in Sweden is that first a politician comes with a suggestion for a new law. Then three things can happen. It's passed, rejected, or a committee is tasked with providing more information, after which it is brought before parliament again. This is what that report is. It's the same committee for all health issues. So all health legal questions are collected into one report.

Me personally, I'm for compulsory vaccinations. Who gives a shit what idiots think about anything? Even idiots benefit from vaccinations, forced or otherwise. Vaccinations are such a no brainer. Anybody against vaccinations is wrong. Why do we have to respect people we're 100% sure are wrong? I vote no.

 

[Will Wiley]

What persuaded today's anti-vaxxer's parents to vaccinate the people who are now refusing to do the same for their kids was simple -

You would not know. You make up a theory that fits with your biases. You would have no clue whether it is true.

I doubt whether you have even met someone who doesn't vaccinate , have you? You just make it up. You just sit on your computer all day and night ( I mean you post here all day and night) and judge people who do have children.

 

[Will Wiley]

Me personally, I'm for compulsory vaccinations. Who gives a shit what idiots think about anything? Even idiots benefit from vaccinations, forced or otherwise. Vaccinations are such a no brainer. Anybody against vaccinations is wrong. Why do we have to respect people we're 100% sure are wrong? I vote no.

Nice strawman. You assume that anyone who questions any aspect of vaccination " is against vaccination." And so you continue to completely misunderstand the issue. Lots of people want to vaccinate but want to know if the present ones can be made better, or if the present ones might have unintended consequences. Pfft