Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Thursday, December 7, 2006 07:56
VIEWED: 21145
PAGE 13 of 21
Quote:There are some vaccines- pertussis for example- that wane with time, so it's possible to catch in infection while your antibodies are on the way down... enough to prevent significant symptoms, but not enough to prevent infection or infectiousness. But there are OTHER vaccines that seem to confer nearly 100% protection for life- the polio vaccine, for example. What I gather is that this is vaccine-by-vaccine basis.
However... while vaccines appear to protect against symptoms, they do not appear to protect against infection or infectiousness. All these people with subclinical disease are silent carriers who are not taking any "civic duty" precautions (speaking of typhoid Mary...).
AFA being quarantined- it is always a good idea to quarantine people during an epidemic. For decades that was the ONLY method of controlling epidemics... and it wasn't especially effective in the pandemic of 1917-17 or the various polio outbreaks for example. But if your kid is not vaccinated, it seems that you should be ESPECIALLY careful to keep them isolated, because while MOST people have SOME level of protection, your children have none.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or maybe the child always had Autism and it wasn't diagnosed until four weeks after the vaccination?
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If that wasn't horrendous enough, the NVICP denies this case for 10 years before awarding the parent some measly amount of money. Now you have death here, not just autism, occuring FOUR freaking hours after the vaccination, and authorities still insisted it wasn't the vaccine that killed her. How likely is it for a child who developed autism weeks after a vaccination to get awarded any kind of compensation?
There are well defined and proven scientific proofs that support vaccinations work. Vaccinations have been around for hundreds of years, and inoculations for thousands, you don't get to say there's no proof they work just because you don't like them.
Quote:And this leads on to a second point. At the same time you say with certainty Vaccinations don't work (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) you say Vaccinations DO cause injuries, with no firm evidence to back that up.
No, most vaccine injuries do not get reported, let alone compensated. You get the unlucky shot out of that Russian Roulette, you pay for it.
It is Post Hoc analysis to say vaccinations cause Autism, because all there is to support that position currently is that a few peoples children were diagnosed with Autism after getting vaccinated. By comparison saying "vaccinations protect you from disease" is not a post hoc analysis as you assert earlier. The evidence isn't merely, vaccinations followed by less disease, there's much more evidence than that backed up with well defined mechanisms for how they work. I can only suggest forgetting the "vaccinations don't work" line because you really are wrong and all your going to end up doing is destroying any other perhaps more correct arguments you may have by sticking to it.
Quote:Then you need to sort your system out. On one side you have people suing because they ate themselves into obesity, and on the other no recourse thus no responsibility on the part of big pharmaceuticals. I mean what sort of system is that?
I have not heard of a successful lawsuit against a pharm giant since the establishment of the NVICP in 1986. Those corporations can't be touched--not when it comes to vaccines. So how many lawyers do you think actually devote any expertise to this field?
The fact is Vaccinations do work, and any ill effects are by far less likely than the dangers of the disease. To use the Russian Roulette analogy, in your vaccination gun you may have one bullet in the chamber, but for no vaccination you have five. It seems fairly irrational to me to then assume the best recourse is to take the gun with five bullets, though that is not to say there shouldn't be a choice, just that trying to make the case that vaccinations don't work is baseless, a sure looser and just going to harm any other point you may have.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:followed shortly by...
There is no good research that conclusively proves, by scientific standards, that vaccines are highly effective or highly safe for the vast majority of recipients
Quote:It's hard to tell one postion from the other, the way you phrase it.
If I were anti-vaccine, I'd be telling people not to vaccinate. I would tell people vaccines are completely ineffective and completely dangerous
Quote:So if you don't mind me asking... what was the vaccine? What kind of reaction? Was it the same for both of you?
My husband and I suffered injuries shortly following vaccinations. I suffered the most I had ever endured in my life.
There are a couple of valid points in this thread. One of them is that the pharmas are overly protected. I know of a child (mentioned before) who seized after his first shot. The ped blew it off, the mom (who has spent the last four years kicking herself) had her son given the remaining vaccines, which both caused IMMEDIATE neuro reactions (seizures etc) and left the kid permanently brain-damaged from vaccine encephalopathy. The ped wanted to cover his *ss and wouldn't testify on behalf of child, the parents had to move heaven and earth just to get the courts to rule that it WAS vaccine damage. I don't how one can sort out the anomalous reactors ahead of time- it seems this would warrant a lot of research but only if the pharma's feet are held to the fire.
The second is that serious negative reactions CAN occur after vaccination, and are prolly under-reported.But IMHO the statistical risk of serious negative reactions is far higher from the disease itself. I can point to our daughter, who caught chicken pox, which precipiated an hour-long tonic clonic seizure. Her seizure frequency doubled after that. If there had been a chicken pox vaccine available, I think that would have been safer.
AFA autism- the causes of autism have yet to be sorted out. But there is strong evidence that a large proportion of autism is something children are born with. Preserved neonatal blood samples were tested years later for eight peptides thought to affect neural development. The samples were from children who had been dx with autism, cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome and a control set. The children with autism, CP w/ MR, and DS had far higher concentrations of four peptides in their blood- especially vasoactive intestinal peptide- than others. Sicne the blood samples were tkane right after birth (California's requirements) - before vaccinations- this was obviously not caused by vaccine damage. There are other clues that this is a hetitable condition: an identical twin of an autistic child has a 9/10 chance of also having autism.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would never get a flu vac(if I was old or it was a strain like the pandemic, yes). It is there for the drug companies to make money. To not take a vaccine for a disease that can kill or harm is idiotic. I mean, come on people, we have posters saying the only reason they were not vaccinated is because their mother was a pagen.......What?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Somehow you just ain't gettin it, Cit.
Read the title of this thread, and the first (patronizing, sarcastic) sentence of your initial post.
Never said I didn't much care what you, or anyone, had to say - I said I had little interest in what your opinions are, as they're yer own bizness.
Quote:
Both you and CTS make the same assertion, so I'll answer it here:
Just because your system doesn't work doesn't mean no system works. Nor does it mean that by extension vaccinations are wrong.
Quit handing out strawmen.
We questioned the integrity of the system, something that SHOULD be done - and you went on to make blanket, all-inclusory statements that were in essence NOT true because your own countries laws and regs are somewhat different from ours.
Which got quickly pointed out, obviously.
The strawman argument that either me, or CTS is 100% anti-vacc, or (in my case) even thinks a majority of vaccines are dangerous and unsafe is complete bunk.
My argument is that the person in question should have informed consent and the option to refuse if they feel the risks outweigh the benefits, on their own responsibility without any additional consequence beyond their own responsibility for themself
- something you addressed with scorn and mockery in your initial post.
You were then addressed in kind.
Quote:
Just because your government is more interested in protecting big buisness than ordinary citizens doesn't mean that is always how it works nor that all governments are like that.
Yeah, but I LIVE here, that means I gotta deal with the realities in front of me.
One of those is that particular collusion, which directly impacts the safety and quality of medicine in THIS country, and thus affects my decisions and choices.
Nice backpedal btw, but take your own posts and read them sequentially, and have a look at how you're coming across, why don't you ?
You're not exactly supportive of an informed, responsible choice, and in fact hostile, patronizing and sarcastic towards the idea, which makes your position pretty clear, doesn't it.
You also expressed a desire for other, ridiculous levels of consequence other than personal responsibility for those who dare to actually make an informed choice.
And you might wanna go back and re-read some of the stuff you dismissed without a glance (as I stated would happen when I dug it up) before you go accusing folk of the same flaw, and/or not having evidence to support a conclusion.
There's evidence, and whether or not it is sufficient to make blanket statements, it *IS* sufficient to encourage a certain skepticism when combined with the actions of Big Pharma upon those discoveries.
Just because you chose to dismiss it out of hand without so much as a glance, doesn't make it not exist, your own zealotry against any skepticism is every bit as ridiculous, in all honesty.
All I want is the surety that any vaccine offered to me is as safe as possible, has benefits that outweigh the risks, and has been thoroughly vetted by people who do NOT have a financial or political interest in the outcome.
And if any of those qualifications are suspect, with sufficient evidence to cause my skepticism, the right to refuse such vaccine and/or seek alternatives that do meet those qualifications.
You can ridicule that position all you like, but when the idea of making that decision for me rears it's ugly head, I've got my own set of jackboots for that occasion, clang, clang, clang.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
I don't care how you classify yourself.
You make completely bogus statements like:
exemptors do not threaten herd immunity
the literature on vaccination effectiveness and safety meets the standards of most experts but not mine
rabies vaccines do not prevent rabies
Those people who refuse vaccines (you ??) do so because they have serious doubts about effectiveness (confers immunity) and safety (doesn't confer anything else).
The Nuremberg Code
people are unnecessarily injured and killed every year
childhood diseases disappeared on their own
How likely is it for contagious diseases to become deadly with current nutritional and treatment options?
eradication is a myth
if you are looking for anti-vaccination arguments, you're not going to get any from me
polio vaccines have not been successful in eradicating polio
There has been no good scientific research on vaccines
Studies showing that vaccines produce "immunity" in the "vast majority" have been challenged as methodologically flawed.
no studies prove vaccines are either effective or safe in the "vast majority" of recipients
I have read dozens of original published research BUT disagree with their conclusions
Give me a study that you believe is conclusive proof of effectiveness and I'll tell you what is wrong with that conclusion.
vaccines are worse than full blown disease
pertussis was not dangerous at all
correlation is not causation
there is reasonable doubt the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks
We don't have enough information to judge EXACTLY how effective the polio vaccine is
Point in fact, you don't give a crap about how much information is out there, where it comes from, and how conclusive it. You refuse to believe it because if you gave it any credit, you couldn't hang onto your irrational biases.
It's pretty clear - you do not believe ANY vaccination is safer than disease, or that ANY vaccination program is effective. In your eyes it's ALL a fraud.
Rabies vaccines? Never helped stem rabies - even though baited vaccines are being used to contain and drive back rapidly advancing epidemics. Polio vaccines - didn't help then and aren't helping now - even though surveillance tracks all cases of AFP, definitively identifies causative organisms, and proves polio vaccines DO stop polio outbreaks. Pertussis - really a gentle, mild event, not dangerous at all. Vaccines don't confer immunity - even when neutralizing antibodies and memory cells are produced after vaccination. And so on.
You've come out of the closet on this one, and there just is no going back in.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now I want to reply in general.
I am actually not a vaccination Nazi. But I feel I have to refute the bogus statements CTS has 'come out' with.
Thimerosal should have been eliminated years ago - just on suspicion. It wasn't, b/c the government is cozy with business in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, rather than protection the interests of citizens. Mass vaccination studies should have been conducted to find what determines the small minority who react badly to vaccinations (or if indeed it is a problem). Public health and disease surveillance should be beefed up to detect any incipient outbreaks of anything. Studies should be run by neutral parties, and if we don't trust government-funded university-run studies, they should be run by foreign countries. And so on.
Given the state of US vaccination today, of course there should be exemptions.
But you really don't help the discussion claiming that no vaccine is better than the disease itself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There have been a lot of doubts of the science of this, but I really don't see anyone citing reviews challenging the science of vaccination effectiveness.
I've been looking into it, and everything I can find seems to support the assertion that vaccines are effective.
I'm not sure what anyone means by "good science" since all the stuff I've been reading is peer-reviewed research, meaning it's good science. Bad science is rarely published, especially in well established fields.
So basically, can somebody put their money where their mouth is on this "bad science" claim?
"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
freeradical42,
CTS will come back to you and say that to be effective, a vaccine must totally and forever immunize 100% of the people vaccinated. (Oh, and with zero potential for side effects, no matter how trivial.)
If it doesn't hold that standard, then no matter what the report says, it's 'bad science'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Therein lies the problem. Do I have to be completely for or completely against vaccines? How about somewhere in the middle?
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:It's hard to tell one postion from the other, the way you phrase it.
canttakesky wrote:
There is no good research that conclusively proves, by scientific standards, that vaccines are highly effective or highly safe for the vast majority of recipients...If I were anti-vaccine, I'd be telling people not to vaccinate. I would tell people vaccines are completely ineffective and completely dangerous
Quote:Mine was a flu vaccine. Yeah, once upon a time, I trusted the medical profession so much I got a freaking flu vaccine. I had symptoms almost immediately afterwards. In the following weeks and months, I experienced a cascade of autonomic dysfunction and neurological symptoms that resulted in my collapsing 6 months after the vaccination. I was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome. At my worst, I couldn't walk, read, count, sleep, or think for 3 months straight. It was like a conscious coma; CFIDS patients joke with each other about knowing how many holes are in their own ceilings. Though I got a little better over the years, I remained disabled and unable to work for 10 years. Since then, I have met dozens of others online who also developed CFIDS shortly after vaccination. In addition, Gulf War Syndrome, which is identical to CFIDS, is also often attributed to vaccination. Moreover, CFIDS and autism share quite a number of biomarkers and other features in common, and vaccination has also been implicated in autism. This doesn't prove vaccines did it, but it does suggest the possibility that a subset of the population may react to vaccination with immune system, neurological, and autonomic dysregulation.
So if you don't mind me asking... what was the vaccine? What kind of reaction? Was it the same for both of you?
Are they researching this to prevent others from suffering the same fate? No, they won't acknowledge anything of the sort, so people keep getting shots without knowing that these reactions are possible. That is how the authorities get informed consent, without the informed part. Now I won't tell people not to vaccinate, but I do tell people to please research the benefits vs. the risks before they do so. Get informed on your own, because the medical establishment isn't going to inform you.
My husband got a yellow fever vaccine before going to Africa. Immediately, he became bedridden for 2 weeks with symptoms of yellow fever. To add insult to injury, after a few weeks in Africa, he became bedridden for 2 more weeks, with yellow fever. Guess who felt completely scammed?
Quote:I am sorry to hear about your daughter. And that is my point exactly. The vaccine benefit/risk ration differs so much from person to person that in my view, it is not only dishonest, but irresponsible, to apply the same vaccine policy to everyone, simply based on some perceived statistical average. For one individual, the vaccine may be a lifesaver; for another, it is a life destroyer.
I can point to our daughter, who caught chicken pox, which precipiated an hour-long tonic clonic seizure. Her seizure frequency doubled after that. If there had been a chicken pox vaccine available, I think that would have been safer.
Since my children may have inherited whatever it is that caused me to collapse after vaccination, I am not going to take that chance with them. I know kids with CFIDS. The disease is cruel for adults; it is unbearable in children.
So there, there is my personal position, for what it's worth.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?
--Will Rogers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME