Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 1 of 16
This is a continuation of the thread "Mandatory Vaccinations vs. right to choose" found here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
There is a stereotype that those who do not vaccinate are ill-informed, superstitious intellectual hillbillies. What if they are actually educated or have suffered vaccine injuries/death or have genuine religious objections? Would you support their right to choose?
Let me throw out a new question. Specifically, of the following people, who should have the choice not to vaccinate? Some of them? None of them? All of them?
All these people are real non-vaccinating folks I've come across (not hypotheticals). Medical exemptions are not available for any of them.
-------
1. A mother has 2 autistic children who developed autism shortly after vaccination (they were completely social and interactive and normal before). She does not want to take that chance with her third child, and chose not to vaccinate.
2. The father is an MD, PhD (in immunology and physiology if I remember correctly), and the mother is an MPH (Masters of Public Health) getting her doctorate in Public Health. I have not met 2 people more highly educated on the question of vaccination. They do not say they will never vaccinate, but they had not vaccinated their 4 and 6 year olds yet, and did not intend to in the near future.
3. A Christian who believes God made our bodies with natural defenses against that should be supported by natural means, not vaccines with toxic ingredients. She also believes vaccines mess with a natural balance in the world that God has created.
4. A father believes that the government and pharm companies use vaccines, among other instruments, to make people sicker and more dependent on them.
5. A chemistry professor (PhD) and his chemist wife (MS, also teaches college) decide they will not vaccinate because of toxic ingredients in vaccines and because there is no good science proving that vaccines are effective or safe.
6. Amish people often eschew modern medical practices as well as other modern technology. Many of them do not vaccinate as part of their religious lifestyle, though there are increasing numbers who are choosing to vaccinate.
---------
If your answer is to grant choice to some of these people, but not to all, please explain why.
P.S. I'm still hammering away at the smallpox issue. Sorry for the delay.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
----------
As well consult a butcher on the value of vegetarianism as a doctor on the worth of vaccination.
--George Bernard Shaw
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If someone is unwilling to get vaccinated there is little that can currently be done about them. The exception would be in some sort of plague situation where forced isolation of those who refuse preventative medical treatment can be initiated.
So long as you're willing to take the risks inherent with refusing vaccinations and agree to pay out of your pocket for any treatment necessary if you get sick from something that a vaccine could have prevented, I don't really care whether or not you get vaccinated.
I feel sorry for any kids who get sick/die of something they could have been vaccinated against, but otherwise ... meh.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You can be prohibited from attending school in 2 states. In the other 48, you can claim a religious exemption. So whether one's refusal to vaccinate has to do with religion or not, one has to come up with a religious excuse for not vaccinating in order to send an unvaccinated kid to school. School includes public school, private school, and daycare.
Originally posted by tkid:
If someone is unwilling to get vaccinated there is little that can currently be done about them.
The AMA wants to rescind all religious exemptions from all states. That is, the AMA wants to prevent all unvaccinated children (except for those who qualify for medical exemptions) from going to school.
I should clarify my question: Should any of the above people be allowed to refuse vaccination and still go to school? If so, which of those people would you allow to be exempt? Do you agree with the AMA that none of them should be allowed to attend school?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
To rely on the drug companies for unbiased evaluations of their products makes about as much sense as relying \on beer companies to teach us about alcoholism.
--Marcia Angell, MD, Executive Director, New England Journal of Medicine
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Has Smallpox Been Eradicated?
According to the WHO, the last case of smallpox occurred in 1977. In 1980, the WHO announced the first successful eradication of a disease/virus. By 1982, most countries had discontinued mass vaccination of smallpox.
There are two clinical presentations of smallpox: variola major and variola minor. They both have identical symptoms, but variola major is more severe and has a much higher mortality rate (reported at 25%) than variola minor (reported at 1%). The viruses that cause variola major and variola minor (also known as alastrim) can be distinguished in sequence analyses of genetic material (PCR assays). They both belong to the genus Orthopoxvirus, which also includes cowpow, camelpox, monkeypox, and vaccinia (the virus of unknown origin used in smallpox vaccines).
One of the characteristics of smallpox that made eradication conceivable is that smallpox is believed to have no animal reservoir; that is, it has no animal carriers. When the disease disappeared among humans, there is no fear that humans will be one day reinfected from an animal carrier.
In recent years, that fear is being revisited under the name of human monkeypox. Monkeypox produces a clinical disease indistinguishable from smallpox (8), described as of intermediate severity between variola minor and variola major (10). See pictures (4). The monkeypox virus can be distinguished with PCR assays (sequence analyses of genetic material).
Monkeypox was first identified in an outbreak amongst laboratory monkeys in 1958. It was first thought to be confined to lab monkeys and unknown in wild monkeys. In the 70's, smallpox was waning, smallpox-like outbreaks occurred in various smallpox-free regions of West and Central Africa. (12) They were identified as cases of human monkeypox, and the presence of monkeypox in wildlife was confirmed. (8) No one was particularly worried because it was believed that monkeypox required an animal vector and human-to-human transmission was negligible.
From 1981 to 1986, 338 cases of monkeypox were reported in the DRC, with a mortality rate of 9.8% amongst persons unvaccinated for smallpox. (1) In 1996-97, an outbreak of 511 cases of monkeypox occurred in the Dem. Rep. of the Congo (DRC) with a fatality ratio of 1.5% (2). In June 2003, six midwestern states in the USA experienced an outbreak of 71 cases of monkeypox (3).
Is monkeypox a variant of smallpox?
Some question whether monkeypox might fill an ecological vacancy left by smallpox (4). Others question whether monkeypox will cause more
human-to-human transmissions in addition to having an animal reservoir, which is a worse scenario than the original smallpox. (5)
I question why monkeypox is not called simine variola. [After all, there is ovine variola (sheep) and caprine variola (goats).] What exactly is so different between monkeypox and the two variola viruses that makes monkeypox a separate species instead of a variant of the variola species? That is the question I am still researching.
Monkeypox causes the same clinical disease as smallpox. It causes deaths, like smallpox. It is reported to respond to the smallpox vaccine, like smallpox.
Compare the case definitions provided by the CDC:
Smallpox case definition: An illness with acute onset of fever >101°F (38.3°C) followed by a rash characterized by firm, deep seated vesicles or pustules in the same stage of development without other apparent cause. Plus PCR assays.(6)
Monkeypox case definition. Rash (macular, papular, vesicular, or pustular;
generalized or localized; discrete or confluent), Fever (subjective or measured temperature of ?99.3°F [?37.4°C]). Plus PCR assays. (7)
Sure, monkeypox has clinical variations, but variola major itself causes clinical variations such as flat rash (instead of raised pustules) and hemorraghic smallpox. Sure, it requires PCR assays to distinguish it from variola viruses, but variola minor requires PCR assays to distinguish it from variola major. The fact that b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll get back to this at some point. I've been busy - got the main waterline replaced, signed a contract to landscape the front yard (my design, but the architect thinks it's good and the city approves - drought tolerant, low maintenance, bird-friendly and complete plant coverage - it's awesome, I'll be doing the heave-ho work), doing the holidays, and ... working ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saw two interesting articles related to this discussion today, and had some thoughts I figure worth sharing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_he_me/research_ethics
This first one involves a federal researcher and some pretty damned harsh conflict of interest issues, something all too common, and mostly unenforced, particularly with the FDA.
http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/2005/02/24/cx_mh_0224fda.htm
l
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/washington/17fda.html?
ex=1318737600&en=3b306118bd436f4d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(last link spaced to avoid window stretch)
The FDA in particular has had problems with conflict of interest concerning vaccine approval.
http://www.wcanews.com/archives/2000/Nov/nov0600e.htm
The whole Rotavirus "vaccine" mess left carnage in it's wake, and thus this Hep B vacc looks suspiciously similar with insufficient research, and more of a solution in need of a problem than anything else.
One good result is that due to conflicts of interest, and the CDC's seeming unwillingness to do much about them, they may well be in for a taste of real oversight by a seperate agency (although adding yet another bloat-a-bereau makes me just cringe at the thought) if only to inspect and verify their research.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219538,00.html
And now, the realllly interesting part.
You'll note, at the bottom that this story has been "re-edited" to the party line, that 'no clear evidence' exists, in spite of the story mentioning an independant study that does conclude a link.
Not really an issue, as newspapers as a general rule these days tend to avoid rocking boats, but what jumped out at me was this line, in respect to the second story I saw today.
Quote:
Still, Weldon questions whether the CDC's conclusions are based on enough sound, objective research, particularly in the area of mercury. Up until 2000, mercury-based thimerosal was used in all childhood vaccines as a preservative. Many blamed it for an increase in emerging autism cases.
Pharmaceutical companies stopped using thimerosal six years ago upon the recommendation of the federal government, even though the government never gave official acknowledgement that mercury levels in vaccines could cause developmental problems in children.
Government officials said that infants had not been exposed to high enough levels of mercury through the thimerosal, but its removal was done as "a precaution."
Sooo... no more Thimerosal, right ?
Wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061205/cm_usatoday/whyyourchildneed
saflushot
Now this just creeps me out, it really does come off as a (albeit well-meant) propaganda piece, and either this guy is woefully misinformed, which given his employment, he should not be - or they're still using Thimerosal in spite of the statement above - it'd be within reason to want to know which that is.
What really, totally creeps me is this -
Quote:
Indeed, recent studies have indicated that the shot might be less effective in children younger than 2 because of weaker immune reactions. Two shots appear to be necessary to achieve comparable results.
Did I just hear that correctly ? It doesn't work, so double the dose?!
This in spite of some damned good research which seems to conclude that the flu shot is all but worthless in children 2 and under.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912
I dunno, but it really doesn't strike ME as a good idea, just on common sense grounds.
And I doubt it's ever been researched, but with the callous, cattle-car, assembly line style of much modern medical practice, especially among state providers and/or providers who deal mainly with the poor, there's also cause to wonder about psychological trauma being inflicted with potentive long-lasting effects.
(Good site relative to this http://www.needlephobia.info/ )
This can manifest into a downright avoidance or automatic hostile response to medical personnel, so no matter where you stand, THA
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS - I'm not quite sure what you're saying.
The pox viruses are genetically and antigenically distinct from each other. Variola viruses are most similar to camelpox, and more dissimilar with monkeypox. That is why monkeypox isn't put in the same family as variola.
Smallpox in an immunologically naive population - like the N and S American Indians - is a highly communicable and devastating disease. It wiped out an estimated 95 - 99% of Indians.
As we know from 'bird flu', viruses need to attach to cell receptors to infect the host. If the virus has the (genetically determined) proteins to attach to only one species its range of hosts will be limited. That is why smallpox virus (as determined by PCR) infects only humans. OTHER pox viruses with demonstrably different genetics do have a different host range.
Not anything to do with anything, but I find it interesting in general that viruses can seem to come out of nowhere. At the time, the flu pandemic of 1917 was just as mysterious in its sudden appearance as the "English sweating sickness" 1485 - 1551. (But with its recency to modern technology, the virus that caused the 1917 pandemic has had its geneology traced. So one great mystery has now been reduced to showing its humble origins.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No you didn't, you heard what you wanted to hear. It says that in young children it is half as effective so to achieve the same results as in older children you have to double the dose.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Indeed, recent studies have indicated that the shot might be less effective in children younger than 2 because of weaker immune reactions. Two shots appear to be necessary to achieve comparable results.
Did I just hear that correctly ? It doesn't work, so double the dose?!
No where does it say it doesn't work.
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:
No where does it say it doesn't work.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912
I love how you demand I dig up the evidence, and then arbitrarily dismiss out of hand stuff I spent hours digging up, either look at it, or quit asking for it.
Also, this current hard push for flu shots right now, go have a gander at their reasoning behind it, look for yourself at what they are saying.
All doubletalk aside, THIS is the reasoning behind it.
"If pharma companies don't make enough profit, they won't stockpile the stuff, in case we have a pandemic or emergency."
Tell me, is Big Pharma's profit a substantive reason to give children without significant risk factors these shots ?
Especially children under 23 months, in whom it has virtually NO effect ?
And since it has virtually no effect, you should shoot em up twice ?
Pardon me if I think that whole chain of logic sucks.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I love how you say I'm saying something I'm very obviously not. I'm not dismissing your evidence, I haven't had time to look at it yet. I'm dismissing you obviously twisting a quote to parade it as saying something it is obviously not saying.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
No where does it say it doesn't work.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912
I love how you demand I dig up the evidence, and then arbitrarily dismiss out of hand stuff I spent hours digging up, either look at it, or quit asking for it.
Also, this current hard push for flu shots right now, go have a gander at their reasoning behind it, look for yourself at what they are saying.
All doubletalk aside, THIS is the reasoning behind it.
"If pharma companies don't make enough profit, they won't stockpile the stuff, in case we have a pandemic or emergency."
Tell me, is Big Pharma's profit a substantive reason to give children without significant risk factors these shots ?
Especially children under 23 months, in whom it has virtually NO effect ?
And since it has virtually no effect, you should shoot em up twice ?
Pardon me if I think that whole chain of logic sucks.
-Frem
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