Jump to content

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/live/2019/feb/07/equine-flu-outbreak-racing-faces-shutdown-as-british-cards-cancelled-live-talking-horses


All British race horses are vaccinated, coiuld

there possibly be another reason for this outbreak ruling out unvaccinated. Herd immunity???

They haven't even analysed what strain of EF it is yet; it may well be one that's never been seen before, so hold your horses (ha!) before trying to push your anti-vaxxer agenda. Or can I say that all your claims about vaccines are wrong because there are no horses with autism?

Rosetta, on this BHR link it says all British race horses as vaccinated.


RH Yes it may well be a strain that vaccine does not cover, similar ro our flu jab which often does not cover the strain. Which on its own rules out and contradictscthe basis of herd immunity.



https://www.britishhorseracing.com/press_releases/bha-update-regarding-equine-influenza-case/

You don't appear to understand the concept of herd immunity (or are willfully pretending not to understand it). Herd immunity does not mean the whole herd is immune, it means that when a tipping point is reached where the vast majority of the herd is immune (either through immunisation, acquired immunity or developed immunity) those who are not immune are very much less likely to come into contact with a virus. The fact that only three horses out of twenty thousand have contracted the incredibly contagious and easily spread EF is proof that vaccination works, not vice-versa. There will always be some individual animals (or humans) for whom a vaccination won't work, whether from poor administration, errors in manufacturing process of vaccination, genetic resistance etc.


It works. You'll have noticed we don't have much of a problem with whooping cough, TB, smallpox etc any more? The only threat to herd immunity comes when a group of credulous naive individuals start believing rubbish spoken by a discredited, disgraced, struck off, mercenary charlatan which has not a shred of medical evidence in its support and refuse vaccination that the numbers of people who catch these viruses rises and starts to threaten herd immunity. As previously noted, if you want to risk your life, go ahead. Risking that of your children is somewhat less acceptable. Risking the lives of other people's children on the basis of ridiculous unfounded beliefs is criminal.

RH , I cannot go into a reply in great detail as I am busy today, but briefly how efficient do you think vaccines are, It has been shown every year the efficiency of the flu vaccine given in uk haz nowhere near had thhe efficiency scientists believe is needed for herd immunity. Herd immunity. The media have been happy to blame unvaccinated children, and the usual thing of blaming where vulnerable people are concerned, regardless of the fact when live vaccines are administered the parents are told to keep there children away from immunocomprimised, ill people. Why do you think that is? I comecunder one of those category. So it works both ways rendall I suppose the difference is where you believe the source of the problem lies.


Edit to say sorry for typing errors, phone, rushing

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RH , I cannot go into a reply in great detail as I

> am busy today, but briefly how efficient do you

> think vaccines are, It has been shown every year

> the efficiency of the flu vaccine given in uk haz

> nowhere near had thhe efficiency scientists

> believe is needed for herd immunity.


Of course it doesn't confer herd immunity, as it's only given to a minority of the population, and there are many different forms of the influenza virus. Nobody has ever claimed the flu vaccine would offer herd immunity. Typical red herring from the anti-vax argument.


> regardless of the fact when live vaccines are

> administered the parents are told to keep there

> children away from immunocomprimised, ill people.

> Why do you think that is?


That is because with a small number of live vaccines (oral polio, cholera and typhoid) and nasal spray vaccines (flu) there is a chance that the vaccinated person may excrete a small amount of the original live virus which could be dangerous to a very immunocompromised person (e.g. chemotherapy patient). None of the injected vaccines (including the anti-vs great bete noir, MMR) pose any danger at all to any other individual, immuno-compromised or not. Certain vaccines (e.g. chickenpox, shingles) are recommended for those who come into contact with those with compromised immune systems as these diseases pose a significant risk to such patients. I daresay you and your fellow anti-vaxxers would say no, no vaccine for us, and they'll just have to take their chances?

Rh I understand herd immunity, just do not agree with it. It is impossible to have herd immunity enen by the logic of believers. The efficiency of vaccines, specifically the flu vaccine make it impossible.

Here is a link to stats of flu vaccine effectiveness from 2017/18 PHE public health England.

I actually believe you, if you have children, are the one taking a chanc. For years I've heard people agreeing about corrupt pharmaceuticals, impossible to ignore the billions of pounds been paid in fines by these companies, but vilify anyone who would not trust these companies with there childrens health.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flu-vaccine-effectiveness-in-2017-to-2018-season

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rh I understand herd immunity, just do not agree

> with it. It is impossible to have herd immunity

> enen by the logic of believers. The efficiency of

> vaccines, specifically the flu vaccine make it

> impossible.


"Specifically the 'flu vaccine" - as above, nobody has ever claimed that the 'flu vaccine could result in herd immunity, as it's never been rolled out over a wide enough cohort and influenza viruses are continually mutating. It's such an obvious red herring, it really does undermine any credibility you might have. I'd love to know why you think we no longer have smallpox, TB, whooping cough etc as major problems (and child killers) in this country? Did they just vanish magically?


The spectacular cheek of calling people who agree with all scientific findings "believers" when the anti-vaxxers pursue a quasi-religious course with absolutely no scientific evidence is breathtaking.



> I actually believe you, if you have children, are

> the one taking a chanc.


So protecting your child against some of the world's most dangerous diseases, ones which killed literally millions prior to the introduction of vaccination, is taking a chance? And letting them go unprotected is responsible parenthood? Laughable.


As I continually ask you with all your ludicrous claims, may we have a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows vaccines are harmful?

Rh Ludicrous claims, lets hope you don't work in the vaccine damage payment goovernment office, I can see you would have compassion and an ooen enough mind. Maybe you should look up the history of concientios objecters, you may be surprised to hear it didn't start with wakefield.


I am curious how much money is spent in the horse industry on this particular flu vaccine. Big money I'd imagine, it seems it is the same virus but mutated, iI think it'll be an odds on bet no one will have to answer for it.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rh Ludicrous claims, lets hope you don't work in

> the vaccine damage payment goovernment office


Vaccine damage claims department FOI request: "From 2007/08 to 31 January 2017, there have been a total of 759 claims and 11 awards made." Eleven awards, one a year, and they are all for people who have been damaged by vaccines which they were mistakenly given when they shouldn't have had them due to underlying medical conditions - doctor error. Eleven awards in ten years - against the tens or hundreds of thousands of children alive today in this country who would be dead if vaccinations for smallpox, whooping cough etc hadn't been invented.


. Maybe you should look up the history

> of concientios objecters, you may be surprised to

> hear it didn't start with wakefield.


I'll politely ask you not to try to co-opt the term conscientious objectors if you don't mind, it is not applicable. My family on one side are Quakers and we lost several members in both World Wars serving gallantly as medics and stretcher bearers due to being conscientious objectors. Silly people who believe the claims of discredited struck off charlatans and thereby risk the health and indeed lives of their children and others have no right to that honourable name.

Rh You speak like this term is only applicable to you and your family history. You do not know me or my family history or of pain and injury brouvht by war.

The Britizh Vaccination Act of 1898 provided a consciece clause to allow exemptions to mandatory smallpox vaccines. This cause gave rise to the term "conscientios objector" which later came to refer to those opposed to military service.


https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/government-regulation

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rh You speak like this term is only applicable to

> you and your family history. You do not know me or

> my family history or of pain and injury brouvht by

> war.

> The Britizh Vaccination Act of 1898 provided a

> consciece clause to allow exemptions to mandatory

> smallpox vaccines. This cause gave rise to the

> term "conscientios objector" which later came to

> refer to those opposed to military service.

>

> https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/conten

> t/articles/government-regulation


In point of fact (that's fact, meaning something that is verifiably true) conscientious objection has existed in this country since at least 1757, when Quakers were permitted to conscientiously object to joining militias. It has existed in the USA since the Revolutionary War, when Quakers were permitted to object on the grounds of conscience on payment of a fine. The history of conscientious objection stretches back to Roman times. Trust me, I know this stuff (but feel free to Google it yourself). The term wasn't created by or for anti-vax whackadoodles, nor does it provide justification for your bizarre and totally unfounded paranoid beliefs.


Nighty night!

Rh Maximilianus may have been the first recorded concsientious objector, whether that term was used or not I don't care. You obviously feel it only applies to people who do not fall into the category of some of the insults you have thrown my way. I was merely pointing out the law regarding vaccine refusers being regarded concientious objectors is far from new, it is not a term either me or any whackadoodles I know have termed. If you wish for it to be removed from history, so it can only relate to people you believe deserve to use it, I suggest you take action, in the mean time it will not change my perception of the different people it relates to. But feel free to apply for the certificate of authorization to have sole say who termed and who can use the term at your approval sir.

"This cause gave rise to the

> term "conscientios objector" which later came to

> refer to those opposed to military service. "


Rather typically of an anti-vaxxer, you clearly made a claim that the term was coined for anti-vaxxers, and then say you said nothing of the sort.


However, let us leave that side issue and return to business. Thank you for alerting me to the existence of the vaccine damage claims department, of which I was not aware. At a rough estimate, there must have been around seven million children vaccinated in the last ten years, yet successful claims to said department have amounted to a grand total of eleven. Why might this be, when vaccines are so out and out evil? Government in the pay of Big Pharma, I'll be bound.

Rh, Im assuming you are also unaware of the procedure and the fight parents have on there hand up against a system that has covers up and refuses to believe this is a real problem.

I did not make a claim regarding conscientious objectors, I posted a link that included the law. When these words were first termed I have no idea, but I can see it matters to you, this does not give you the right to say I can't use it.

Regarding vaccine damage, mayde you should look at the procedure how many people apply, etc and the US, scheme.


There is not much info coming out about the equine vaccine, i'm not sure if it is Proteq that has been administered in these cases. Anyone know.Very interesting reading. Big industry vetinary pharmaceuticals, although there has still been fines around equine flu vaccines. It is to difficult for me to put up links on phone at moment, i'll try. Out for the day.


https://www.hyperdrug.co.uk/ProteqFlu-Te-Injection-10-dose/productinfo/PROTEQFLTE


W

Right, it's all a big coverup. Which presumably explains why you can't produce a single peer-reviewed scientific paper? Piece of piss, being a conspiracy theorist, isn't it? "The fact that there isn't any evidence proves that there's evidence."

Rh Have a good day, of course theres no cover up, we live in a world where everyone is open, all goverments can be trusted, oh no wait a minute didn't you agree before abbout how big pharmy can't be trusted. I get it,only on the level you don't trust, cause that may make you feel like you don't know everything. Have a good day, by the way Boehringers make equine flu above, lovely company, in top 20 for size and money, musn't question there ability of making vetenary and human medicines cause they use all these lovely safe ingredients that Mr RH says can only be questioned if peer reviewed, seriosly get a life Rendal. I'll post there rap sheet later.


Sorry another typing error edit

Despite it being about a different style of conspiracy theory, I offer this as an example of how people will feel the need to insist - INSIST! - that despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary the small bits of anecdotal fodder they?ve located somehow add up to damning proof.


As Gove (sort of) said, people are tired of experts, and apparently always have been. I?m always astounded by the way otherwise quite rational people will dismiss out of hand the opinion of educated, experienced specialist just because it doesn?t fit with their own world-view. What a sad place to find oneself in...


https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Right.  Already too many people saying “labour pushed for longer and more stringent lockdowns” which if nothing else, does seem to give credence the notion that yes people can be brainwashed    Nothing ...  Nothing Labour pushed for was about longer lockdowns.  Explicitly, and very clearly they said “lock down early OR we will be locking down for longer “   ie they were trying to prevent the longer lockdowns we had   But “positive thinking” and “nothing to see here” from Johnson led to bigger problems    as for the hand-wavery about the economic inheritance and markets being spooked by labour budget - look - things did get really really and under last government and they tried to hide it.  So when someone tries to address it, no one is going to be happy.  But pretending all was tickety boo is a child’s response 
    • What would you have done differently, Rockets? I cannot, for the life of me, think of a financial strategy that would have satisfied 'working people' and businesses and driven growth and reduced the deficit. But I'm no economist. On another note, since we're bashing Labour, one thing that really got my goat was Labour's reaction to  Kemi Badenoch being elected leader of the opposition. When our own dear Ellie Reeves was asked for her reaction to KB's election, the first thing she said was "I'm proud that she's the first black woman to lead a political party, but..." Congratulating someone for being black (she's Nigerian FFS, not 'black') and female is such an insult. You'd be forgiven for thinking that that's all Labour sees... and it completely detracts from her achievements as a politician. It's almost as if they were implying that she'd done well in spite of her race and sex. If that's not racist... I think Kemi is an absolute nut job. People in her own party have said she'd start a brawl in an empty room and would cross the street to bite your ankle. But that kind of makes me like her. And if anyone can hold Labour's feet to the fire, she can.  (Ex labour party member here, who voted Keir for leader of the party, BTW, in case anyone wants to start a pile-on and call me a Tory lover). 
    • Their comms has been diabolical. The "son of a toolmaker" and "working people" soundbites may have placated an electorate before an election but they will come back to haunt you after it and will bite you hard if things don't go well.  If they don't improve things soon it is going to be a long parliament for them and there are no signs things are getting better. Amazing as they had 14 years to prepare for this but being in opposition is far, far easier than running a country.  
    • Or turning left,  continuing on down Forest Hill Road and turning right further up.  Google maps has Dulwich marked at the junction by the old Grove, where the South Circular heads off towards the rest of Dulwich. But whatever, yes you can definitely get to Dulwich by going in the direction shown on the signpost! I'm not sure you would get "anywhere" by going straight down, though, let alone 23 miles down 🤣 I like the "Now here" though!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...