Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose

Why is it that I suddenly feel trapped between a Klan lynch mob and a Panthers meeting ?

What I see here, is two sides of an issue, both with less than complete facts, with serious philosophical axes to grind, not willing to listen to a damned bit of evidence that contradicts their entrenched viewpoint.

I tell folks to do their own homework because the information is easy enough to obtain if you're interested, and mainly because I don't see the need to waste hours of time digging up stuff that's mostly dismissed out of hand by folks unwilling to re-examine positions they've held for a long time.

So, I ask you, what logical reason do you give me to bother to spend hours digging this stuff up, to show a point any rational being would instantly see, when it's simply dismissed out of hand anyway ? and for what ? a disagreement with folks who's opinions I have little interest in to begin with ?

The fact is, that there is simply NOT enough proper research on the topic, both sides have shovelled slapdash, unscientific studies to "prove their point" and loaded misinformation on top of that - and that alone tells me that maybe I should take a look and use my own damned judgement.

And that's the salient point of the matter, it's not whether you agree, or disagree, it's in the RIGHT to use ones own damned judgement.

I see this issue very much like mandatory helment laws.
Is it a good idea to wear a helmet ? sure.
Do I choose to wear one ? yep.
Should there be a LAW forcing people to ? no.

Look at the abuse of mandatory seat belt laws, as an example of a "safety" measure exploited for profit, or even in many cases, used for downright harrassment of the populace by the blue suited gang - or when redlight cameras become an avenue of income rather than a safety measure ?
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/maryland-countys-red-light-cameras-
net-2-85-million-increase/

And you would ask me to put my trust in people (collectively, as Govt) who have time and time again proven to be untrustworthy ?

Now, is there iron-clad, totally conclusive evidence linking MMR to Autism ?
Being that any real investigation has been "strongly discouraged", I could not say.
Is there SOME evidence that such a link exists ? Yes.
Is that evidence enough to warrant investigation ? HELL Yes.
Should that investigation be run by vaccine companies, or trial lawyers looking to class action those companies ? Hell no.

So, where's the independant, peer reviewed, proper scientific method study ?
Would that there was one, and in light of that lack, and the actions of both sides towards the matter, one would think there's a right to use one's own judgement.

Doctor Dave Weldon, M.D. made an excellent statement on why more research is needed, and how evidence leans toward the MMR being dangerous to susceptible people, and he quotes quite a few related studies that you'll just have to look up for yourself, because there is only so much time I will waste on this soon-to-devolve imminent flamefest.
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/pdf/Weldon.pdf

Merck (big pharma) says thier mercury is less toxic than other forms.
http://nomercury.org/science/documents/LATimes-Merck_Memo_2-8-05.pdf

But proper, scientific studies blow that utterly out of the water.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7712/7712.html
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

There also exists some evidence, referenced through the State of California DDS, of a rather sharp drop in Autism cases *after* Thimerosal was removed from common vaccines - no scientific study exists, but the numbers are there.
http://www.dds.ca.gov/autism/autism_main.cfm

I would also be skeptical of any claims of safety when the first thought isn't how to make it safer, but ass-covering and damage control.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index_np
.html
(4 pages, written from an initally skeptical viewpoint, and rather enlightening, also full of it's own sourced references.)

Here's a hint, I don't have an axe to grind, nor am I guessing, when I

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fremdfirma:
I tell folks to do their own homework because the information is easy enough to obtain if you're interested, and mainly because I don't see the need to waste hours of time digging up stuff that's mostly dismissed out of hand by folks unwilling to re-examine positions they've held for a long time.

---

What you mean folks like you? You told me I didn't have the decency to back up your argument. You attacked my very character for no reason other than I called for people to take responsibility for their own choices.

Quote:

---

So, I ask you, what logical reason do you give me to bother to spend hours digging this stuff up, to show a point any rational being would instantly see, when it's simply dismissed out of hand anyway ? and for what ? a disagreement with folks who's opinions I have little interest in to begin with ?

---

If that's the way you feel why should I read your post, in fact what pray tell are you doing here? No one's holding a gun to your head making you read the FireFlyFans.net RWED.

How about you tell me, logically, how you came to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about because I disagree with you.

Quote:

---

And that's the salient point of the matter, it's not whether you agree, or disagree, it's in the RIGHT to use ones own damned judgement.

---

Maybe you need to read my post again. To sum up what I said:

Sure no mandatory vaccinations, but if YOUR choice leads to YOU getting that disease your health service or medical insurer is under no obligation to pay for your treatment. If a vaccination is provided I see no reason why other people should foot the bill for your decision. Maybe you can provide me with a reason why they should?

Quote:

---

Now, is there iron-clad, totally conclusive evidence linking MMR to Autism ?
Being that any real investigation has been "strongly discouraged", I could not say.
Is there SOME evidence that such a link exists ? Yes.
Is that evidence enough to warrant investigation ? HELL Yes.
Should that investigation be run by vaccine companies, or trial lawyers looking to class action those companies ? Hell no.

---

There's no evidence that MMR causes Autism. All there is are parents of Autistic Children looking for someone to blame and finding MMR. I'm not saying there isn't a link, I think there should be research into it, but anyone saying there is SOME evidence is merely following a post hoc analysis.

Quote:

---

So, where's the independant, peer reviewed, proper scientific method study ?

---

http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/mmr.pdf
http://www.immunize.org/mmrautism/

Just to clarify my position some, although I realise you don't care (something I suspected when you couldn't even be bothered to read properly through my somewhat short initial post) I thought parents should have the right to choose to have single vaccinations rather than MMR if they wished, but that since MMR was offered by the NHS they should pay for the single injections themselves. If they make the choice, they pay for it.

Quote:

---

he quotes quite a few related studies that you'll just have to look up for yourself, because there is only so much time I will waste on this soon-to-devolve imminent flamefest.

---

You turn up and immediately question my decency because you've decided what you want my position to be and you've decided that I don't know what I'm talking about and you think you have a right to talk about “wasting your time on this imminent flamefest”? You're playing more than your part in creating it.

Quote:

---

Here's a hint, I don't have an axe to grind,

---

No, of course not, where would anyone get that idea?

Quote:

---

nor am I guessing,

---

But of course I must be.

Quote:

---

when I make blunt statements, I just expect people to actually do their own investigation and make their own judgement calls - if you come to a different conclusion, that's you.

---

Though of course if I do, for once, bother to think for myself and come to a different conclusion its because

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I don't have the common Human Decency not to double post, evidently.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Watching you people try to ram your beliefs down each others throats completely validates (to me) that in such a case, I must trust to my own judgement and investigation rather than simply accept the word of folks with an obvious axe to grind.

---

You think *I* am trying to ram my beliefs down the other side's throat? I have to admit I feel a bit hurt.

I must not be making myself clear.

I favor choice. Because you ARE absolutely right, Frem. There has been no good scientific research on vaccines. There is a lot of disinformation on both sides. (What would you get if all tobacco research were conducted or funded by tobacco companies? And all other literature were written by lung cancer patients' attorneys.) So we don't have the data to know what EXACTLY the benefits and risks are. Parents have to muddle through unknown benefits and unknown risks to arrive at a choice they can live with. No one else can or should do it for them.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Freedom defined is freedom denied.
-- Illuminatus

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Then let's look at the facts, since there has been a lot of disinformation, as you say:

FACT 1:

Vaccines produce immunity to the disease for which they are intended in the vast majority of those vaccinated.

There are no other facts, because the research is so poor, but we do know this:

Vaccines are given to the vast majority of American children.

In this case, we have to do some simple cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not vaccines are good. First, let's define some variables:

a = negative utility of a vaccine (this is what you might call "side effects")
b = negative utility of a disease
c = likelihood of contracting a disease when not vaccinated.

The utility of getting the vaccine, U, therefore, is described by:

U = cb - a

Now, here's the part where it gets more complicated. c is actually a function of another variable, x. So we say c(x)= what? Well, the likelihood of getting the disease is directly related to the number of people in the population who have the disease, or are susceptible to getting it.

So, for diseases that are very widespread or spread very quickly, it makes a lot of sense to get a vaccine.

However, this is what we might call a "self-interested" calculation. It doesn't consider the utility of getting the vaccine for others in the population. The more people who have the vaccine, the less likely others are to get the disease. C goes down. In the case of polio, this is illustrated quite clearly; the epidemic stopped when the vaccine was made, because c went down by an amazing degree. This is also the case with smallpox. Getting a vaccine, in either of these cases, is helpful to the entire population because it reduces the effectiveness of the disease. This remains true as long as the disease exists.

So, unless there is an epidemic currently active, a self-interested person (or "defector") will be willing to avoid taking the vaccine for philosophical reasons. A cooperator, who cares about the rest of the population, will get the vaccine despite their views. I prefer to be concerned about the greater good.

Now, you may not view yourself as being self-interested, but if you're taking your own philosophy as being better than the greater good, you're self-interested. It's how an economist would classify you. The aim of the law for mandatory vaccination is to prevent the population share of defectors from being so high that the value of C(x) becomes a problem again.

Of course, religious objections often force people to be defectors when they wouldn't otherwise be. Given that the USA guarantees religious freedom except in cases of "clear and present danger," I would argue that these people should be given a choice except when an epidemic is active (this being a rather clear and present danger).

From an economic perspective, the law, which is for the greater good, achieves its goal, so I think it's good how it is- unless philosophical objections are allowed.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
FACT 1:
Vaccines produce immunity to the disease for which they are intended in the vast majority of those vaccinated.

---

This "fact" is not undisputed. Studies showing that vaccines produce "immunity" in the "vast majority" have been challenged as methodologically flawed.

I have to date seen no studies proving vaccines to be either effective or safe in the "vast majority" of recipients. (Doesn't mean they aren't, but there is no proof. Therefore it is not as factual as you might believe.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
--Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
FACT 1:
Vaccines produce immunity to the disease for which they are intended in the vast majority of those vaccinated.

---

This "fact" is not undisputed. Studies showing that vaccines produce "immunity" in the "vast majority" have been challenged as methodologically flawed.

I have to date seen no studies proving vaccines to be either effective or safe in the "vast majority" of recipients. (Doesn't mean they aren't, but there is no proof. Therefore it is not as factual as you might believe.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
--Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

---

I didn't say anything about safe. I said effective. And the FDA doesn't approve vaccines that aren't effective. There *is* research on that, and if you haven't seen it, that's your own fault. Go to the NCBI's PubMed database and search for studies on vaccine effectiveness. They're published, peer-reviewed, and a heck of a lot better than idle speculation. I don't mean to sound agitated, but there is science out there on this and it bothers me that you're ignoring it.

You don't want to go toe-to-toe with a biomedical engineer on this. ;)

Either way, we can rewrite the equation to consider how effective the vaccine is and objecting to the vaccine is *still* a self-interested decision in cases where it has more than zero effectiveness.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME