|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 24, 2021 12:54:10 GMT
of course there are medical reasons why people cannot be vaccinated and that is easy to manage, while being pregant is hardly an illness
try and get off the whole crazy thinking, the sooner people stop taking non-science from the internet/mate in the pub etc the better
My daughter is a PhD researcher and university lecturer in a medical science. I can assure you there was no crazy thinking, non-science, mate in the pub thinking involved. She is an expert researcher and read every paper going on the subject, with her critical thinking cap on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 12:57:04 GMT
thalidamide is not a vaccine, it was a medication
having a whole lot of love for her unborn child does not make her a bad person, nor does it make her right
nor does it make her not a place for Covid to mutate in so the rest of us are at risk
clearly she did not think that deeply having decided to be pregant in the middle of a worldwide covid crisis when she knew a vaccine was coming
PhDs, who doesn't have them?
But my point is still, fine, just double her taxes
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 24, 2021 13:17:45 GMT
thalidamide is not a vaccine, it was a medication
having a whole lot of love for her unborn child does not make her a bad person, nor does it make her right
nor does it make her not a place for Covid to mutate in so the rest of us are at risk
PhDs, who doesn't have them?
She recognised the risks to herself and others and kept a pretty low profile, away from others, given her precarious situation. You perhaps missed the bit where I said she was desperate to have the jab. Lifted from your link above... with my own emphasis... - "There is no evidence so far that any of the Covid-19 vaccines in use in the UK are unsafe for pregnant people".
- "From the studies conducted so far, there is no evidence the Covid-19 vaccines cause harm to unborn babies or pregnant women".
- "...the evidence so far suggests that mRNA in the two vaccines recommended in pregnancy is unlikely to cross the placenta".
Just like they told us about thalidomide. She had to weigh up the risks for herself and the baby and judged that 7 months in was the tipping point in favour of taking the jab. It was a horrible time, juggling with her conscience, the risks and the science. I'm reminded of, "Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes".
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 24, 2021 13:21:20 GMT
clearly she did not think that deeply having decided to be pregant in the middle of a worldwide covid crisis when she knew a vaccine was coming
But my point is still, fine, just double her taxes
Are you for real? Speechless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 13:47:36 GMT
Just to be clear, an educated person, in the medical sciences, who knew she was not going to take the vaccine for an extended period for her own (selfish) reasons and so could harbour this filthy thing that has killed and injured so many friends and relations and you are speechless? Guess what, me too.
All I'm asking is if you have to make that decision apart from good sensible medical reasons then pay double more tax and don't suck on the state's nipple.
There are precidents in UK history, to live by your own decisions and pay for the pleasure of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Nov 24, 2021 13:56:06 GMT
Just to be clear, an educated person, in the medical sciences, who knew she was not going to take the vaccine for an extended period for her own (selfish) reasons and so could harbour this filthy thing that has killed and injured so many friends and relations and you are speechless? Guess what, me too.
All I'm asking is if you have to make that decision apart from good sensible medical reasons then pay double more tax and don't suck on the state's nipple.
There are precidents in UK history, to live by your own decisions and pay for the pleasure of doing so.
If you are looking for the line it is behind you.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,653
Likes: 5,039
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 24, 2021 15:50:45 GMT
You perhaps missed the bit where I said she was desperate to have the jab. But not, it seems, desperate enough to wait until after having had it before getting pregnant? People in their 30s became eligible for the vaccine in May, six months ago. People in the second half of their 20s, early June.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 24, 2021 16:22:16 GMT
You perhaps missed the bit where I said she was desperate to have the jab. But not, it seems, desperate enough to wait until after having had it before getting pregnant? People in their 30s became eligible for the vaccine in May, six months ago. People in the second half of their 20s, early June. They'd been trying for ages with no success and were about to enter an IVF program when she suddenly and unexpectedly fell pregnant. In those circumstances, you accept that blessing if it happens. Sometimes real life gets in the way of what might be everybody's preferred way forward.
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Nov 24, 2021 16:25:50 GMT
"...while they are now confident on the risk/benefit trade off for those who are pregnant"Remember they were equally confident about prescribing thalidomide. Luckily my mother declined it when carrying my second sister. Nobody can state with 100% confidence that the vaccine is safe for the unborn. There simply hasn't been enough time. To be fair, that's not an apples to apples comparison. Thalidomide was developed in the 1950s under completely different regulations to those that apply today. Additionally, medical science's understanding of physiological and pharmacological processes back then was comparatively poor. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-the-thalidomide-scandal-led-to-safer-drugs#:~:text=Key%20regulatory%20reforms,potential%20side%20effects
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 24, 2021 17:32:16 GMT
But not, it seems, desperate enough to wait until after having had it before getting pregnant? People in their 30s became eligible for the vaccine in May, six months ago. People in the second half of their 20s, early June. They'd been trying for ages with no success and were about to enter an IVF program when she suddenly and unexpectedly fell pregnant. In those circumstances, you accept that blessing if it happens. Sometimes real life gets in the way of what might be everybody's preferred way forward. I was going to say, but going out to sort dinner took priority, that I think it is rather unfair and a touch presumptive to criticize someone for getting pregnant at a sub-optimal time when you don't know anything about the person's circumstances, the most obvious one being that someone may have been trying for a considerable period, or were at a particular age, (or both) that putting the attempt on hold might be considered unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 24, 2021 17:39:32 GMT
"...while they are now confident on the risk/benefit trade off for those who are pregnant"Remember they were equally confident about prescribing thalidomide. Luckily my mother declined it when carrying my second sister. Nobody can state with 100% confidence that the vaccine is safe for the unborn. There simply hasn't been enough time. To be fair, that's not an apples to apples comparison. Thalidomide was developed in the 1950s under completely different regulations to those that apply today. Additionally, medical science's understanding of physiological and pharmacological processes back then was comparatively poor. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-the-thalidomide-scandal-led-to-safer-drugs#:~:text=Key%20regulatory%20reforms,potential%20side%20effects plus as has already been pointed out: one was a medication, the other a vaccine. I have sympathy for pregnant women's reluctance, and I am not in that position, but nonetheless comparison between the two situations is a false one. And while one drug was designed to treat (the scourge) of morning sickness, the other is intended to protect your life or onset of serious illness which itself carries a significant risk to the unborn. Still, given that original advice was for pregnant women to not get vaccinated, in the absence of sufficient data, then a reluctance is understandable but on the flip side the fact that advise has now changed perhaps it could be viewed through the microscope of decisions being made cautiously, not injudiciously.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 24, 2021 17:39:48 GMT
"...while they are now confident on the risk/benefit trade off for those who are pregnant"Remember they were equally confident about prescribing thalidomide. Luckily my mother declined it when carrying my second sister. Nobody can state with 100% confidence that the vaccine is safe for the unborn. There simply hasn't been enough time. To be fair, that's not an apples to apples comparison. Thalidomide was developed in the 1950s under completely different regulations to those that apply today. Additionally, medical science's understanding of physiological and pharmacological processes back then was comparatively poor. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-the-thalidomide-scandal-led-to-safer-drugs#:~:text=Key%20regulatory%20reforms,potential%20side%20effects Let me state straightaway that neither I nor my daughter are anti-vax, quite the opposite. I accept your statement above, that medical science has moved on. Nevertheless, today's doctors and scientists were still caught out by certain effects of the Covid-19 vaccine which were completely unanticipated, despite all the assurances how safe it was... www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-and-blood-clotting/covid-19-vaccination-and-blood-clotting"Recently there have been reports of an extremely rare but serious condition involving blood clots and unusual bleeding after AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccination. Some people with this condition have suffered life changing effects and some have died. These cases are being carefully reviewed but the risk factors for this condition are not yet clear."I say again, nobody can state with 100% confidence that the vaccines are safe for the unborn. It simply hasn't been trialled yet - that's happening in real time. On this occasion, after weighing up the risks to herself and those around her, my daughter was not willing to gamble her son's future life on a hitherto unproven vaccine, still in its experimental phase. Believe me, my wife and I went through purgatory with worry (she's all we've got) and would have preferred she protected herself at the time by taking the vaccine when offered, but we can well understand her reluctance to do so.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,419
Likes: 1,701
|
Post by benaj on Nov 24, 2021 17:40:51 GMT
😬
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 2,754
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 24, 2021 18:14:55 GMT
Let me state straightaway that neither I nor my daughter are anti-vax, quite the opposite. I accept your statement above, that medical science has moved on. Nevertheless, today's doctors and scientists were still caught out by certain effects of the Covid-19 vaccine which were completely unanticipated, despite all the assurances how safe it was... www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-and-blood-clotting/covid-19-vaccination-and-blood-clotting"Recently there have been reports of an extremely rare but serious condition involving blood clots and unusual bleeding after AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccination. Some people with this condition have suffered life changing effects and some have died. These cases are being carefully reviewed but the risk factors for this condition are not yet clear."I say again, nobody can state with 100% confidence that the vaccines are safe for the unborn. It simply hasn't been trialled yet - that's happening in real time. On this occasion, after weighing up the risks to herself and those around her, my daughter was not willing to gamble her son's future life on a hitherto unproven vaccine, still in its experimental phase. Believe me, my wife and I went through purgatory with worry (she's all we've got) and would have preferred she protected herself at the time by taking the vaccine when offered, but we can well understand her reluctance to do so. To me the risk of not getting vaccinated and getting Covid while pregnant seems worse than getting the vaccine and worrying about any side effects, but it's definitely a choice that needs thought. Where you live and how careful you are being to protect yourself might weigh in the equation.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,454
Likes: 2,902
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 24, 2021 18:50:23 GMT
Let me state straightaway that neither I nor my daughter are anti-vax, quite the opposite. I accept your statement above, that medical science has moved on. Nevertheless, today's doctors and scientists were still caught out by certain effects of the Covid-19 vaccine which were completely unanticipated, despite all the assurances how safe it was... www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-and-blood-clotting/covid-19-vaccination-and-blood-clotting"Recently there have been reports of an extremely rare but serious condition involving blood clots and unusual bleeding after AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccination. Some people with this condition have suffered life changing effects and some have died. These cases are being carefully reviewed but the risk factors for this condition are not yet clear."I say again, nobody can state with 100% confidence that the vaccines are safe for the unborn. It simply hasn't been trialled yet - that's happening in real time. On this occasion, after weighing up the risks to herself and those around her, my daughter was not willing to gamble her son's future life on a hitherto unproven vaccine, still in its experimental phase. Believe me, my wife and I went through purgatory with worry (she's all we've got) and would have preferred she protected herself at the time by taking the vaccine when offered, but we can well understand her reluctance to do so. Appreciate you opening up your personal life in this area for the benefit of the discussion. I agree with your points in spades but I'd got further (which you may not agree with) and link some of your thoughts to the attitude I'm seeing from many medical scientists. I've said before I think, this is a big moment and for some of them they have become extremely powerful as a result. Further, I don't believe all of them are being 100% transparent all the time about what they know is true and what is conjecture. As for "anti-vax", I'm remain pro-vax and will be getting my booster in a couple of weeks but I shouldn't have to say that in order not to be labelled "anti-vax" or vaccine denier or some such. I do believe people should have a choice and it should never be mandatory such has happened in Austria. I don't have a problem with "gentle" persuasion such as restricting access to non-essential venues to the un-vaxed but no more than that. After all, when we look back I think we were sold something at the start of the year that has turned out to be nowhere near as good and like most medicine comes with its own side effects. As for Thalimiade, what does it matter if that was just a "drug" and these are vaccines? They are both drugs. Medicine, science and rigour has moved on but will no-doubt be considered primitive by those looking back in 50 or 100 years time. Thus it is entirely understandable that conspiracy theories and refuseniks sprout up. There are a lot of unknowns and the risks of any drug should always be considered in a sensible manner without being labelled "balls of infection" or "anti-vax". Lets hope those that advocate mandatory vaccine injections, don't become one of the 1 in a 100,000 (at the least) who suffer heart disease or death due to known side affects.
|
|