Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 1 of 2
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
Frem,
I share your disgust with the FDA. It is now run by business for business. Any pretence at being an public agency charged with protecting citizens has been erased. But it wasn't too long ago that the FDA stood for something good. Do you remember David Kessler?
"His supporters, including public health advocates, contend that he has made FDA a more effective agency in protecting consumer safety and health. Detractors, such as those in the tobacco and medical device industries, argue that Kessler has favored too much government regulation, delaying drug and medical device development. Many in Congress agree with them and have launched efforts to reform FDA."
The anti-government, anti-regulation, pro-business fervor of the republican congress gave you everything you hate: good science and public policy killed in favor of private profit.
And as a further assault on science, university researchers who get pharmaceutical money are muzzled by their grantors.
And meanwhile, supplements are completely unregulated - you have no idea if they're pure, or safe, or effective. How's that for a complete abdication to profit?
----------------------------
BTW - have you noticed a big shift in medical drug policy since drug manufacturers have been allowed to directly plug their wares to you and me? ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT ...
... sotto voce (our bottom line).
And news openly reports on companies looking for the next big 'blockbuster' medicine - not one that necessarily solves an vital medical problem, but one that is under patent.
-----------------------------------------
No wonder you are cynical - companies are looking after their profit, and government is looking after the companies, and consumers are 'free' to chose whatever they want based on ads and propaganda.
---------------------------
There ARE some vaccines that are absolutely vital - rabies vaccines, polio vaccines (in areas where outbreaks still occur), tetanus and others. Unfortunately, because of the FDA's current perversion, you and I will have to rely on studies done in Europe and elsewhere - away from corrosive US business interests. There is probably no good information on new products, not just in terms of effectiveness studies, but safety studies as well.
-----------------
PS I think Congress's gutting of the FDA was a good model for Bush's gutting of HHS, NIH, NASA and especially the EPA. If you don't like the science - de-fund the agency, sack employees who don't go along with the 'proper' agenda, and restrict the rest.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit ?
Whafu ?!
Go back and READ what you just wrote, in light of your previous post!
Not to mention you originally demanded full evidence to back every statement, and then when I make comments related to that evidence, you dismiss the comment out of hand because you "didn't get around to looking at" the very evidence you demanded I provide.
Find your own damned links in the future.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, the issue really boils down to a single word.
Credibility.
And given their actions past and present, Big Pharma scores a flat damn zero with me.
With most people in fact, go ask em.
And so when Big Pharma says "but you need this unresearched, potentially dangerous medication!" and the Medical Care Industry says "Yes, you do, otherwise Big Pharma will go broke and then where will we be ?!"...
They can jam that medication up their ass, cause I ain't goin anywhere near it.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, what is your solution?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Informed choice, same as prettymuch everything.
Think about it, your doctor, when you set up a medical procedure, sits down with you and fully explains the risks, benefits, possible complications, ect.. to you, and YOU make the call.
You don't have to look up or research jack shit, that's what you pay HIM for, that's why he deserves the substantive income he gets.
(Although, nothing wrong with backchecking for yourself, everyone is human and falllible)
Most docs are gonna play it 100% straight with you, the threat of a lawsuit (or in the case of one doc in particular, a bit more personal than that..) is enough to keep them pretty damned honest.
Same with medication or vaccines - they sit down with you, inform you to the best of their ability, and YOU make the call.
Anything else is asinine - and when the word "Mandatory" pops up, they've taken a patient-doctor decision out of the hands of the very people who need to be making it, and handed it to the unholy trinity of The Medical Care Establishment, Big Pharma, and The Government, three forces I wouldn't trust to pour piss out of a boot if the directions were stamped on the heel.
Add in collusion for mutual financial gain, and I would say you have a damned serious collision of ethics (which not one of the three even truly has in the first place, as being establishments rather than people) with a purely financial agenda.
Ergo, as soon as the word "Mandatory" enters the equation, I go anarchic-ballistic, because I know damned well abuse will follow.
Ain't the states decision, hell, ain't even the states goddamn business, it's between me and my doc, period.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
"Think about it, your doctor, when you set up a medical procedure, sits down with you and fully explains the risks, benefits, possible complications, ect.. to you, and YOU make the call."
From whence do those impartial facts come?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, it's been my experience, as a general rule, that Doctors ain't stupid, and most of mine are actually better than me at sorting which studies are bullshit or invalid due to poor research, skewed sampling, etc.
Realistically, they read this stuff all the time, the frankensteins I have on my short-list do, and I say frankensteins as a compliment, when you're only 78% OEM parts, and have been written off by the medical establishment more than once, you really do want arrogant, well informed docs of a cussed, skeptical nature..
But I digress.
It's not that they're kind, benevolent human beings, only one really seems to be that, it's the full awareness that the consequences of shovelling bullshit aren't going to land on the head of big pharma, or the gov, those consequences are going to land on THEM, and they know it.
So pure self-interest is going to drive them to cover their ass as effectively as possible, the same principle behind giving two people a cake and telling them one gets to cut it, and the other takes piece of choice.. self interest LOOKS like cooperation or decency in such a case, but it ain't.
A lot of times you can turn human nature on itself to protect you, and this is one of em - the same way a brake mechanic isn't gonna do a halfass job because the consequences outweigh the risk, neither would any of the doctors on my short-list.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No you reread what I wrote, because your hearing what you want to hear just as you did with the quote I responded too. I don't need to read everything you wrote because I read everything pertinent to what I responded too, expecting me to read everything in your post in order to respond to one sentence is dishonest at best.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Go back and READ what you just wrote, in light of your previous post!
You took a quote (which I read) that essentially said "it's half as effective in young children so if you want full effect you need double the dose" as saying "It doesn't work at all so pump'em full of the stuff and pray!" I had no further thing to say on the rest of the evidence very much because I haven't read it. I merely pointed out your propagandising of a sentence and your twisting of it to say something you should know it doesn't say.
I quoted everything I was replying to and dealt with it directly in my post, because I didn't want to let lie such blatant propagandising while I dealt with the other evidence. You want to forcibly reinterpret that as dismissing your entire post go ahead, but I won't let you get away with propagandising quotes from me any more than I'll let you get away with it in the instance I replied to.
Quote:Not once did I dismiss 'out of hand' all your evidence because I 'didn't get round to looking at' it. I took one sentence and one quote and said that what you portrayed the quote as saying was completely not what it was saying. You respond by doing the exact same thing again to me, taking what I said and portraying it as saying something completely different, is it deliberate? Did you bother to read the quote and lines of clarification before the sentence “No where does it say it doesn't work.”? I rather think not, since those outlined exactly what I was replying to and why, a simple fact you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp.
Not to mention you originally demanded full evidence to back every statement, and then when I make comments related to that evidence, you dismiss the comment out of hand because you "didn't get around to looking at" the very evidence you demanded I provide.
Quote:I do, to back up my own argument. If you don't want to back up your own damn arguments in future that's your choice, and it'll hit your argument and your credibility, not mine so why should I give a damn?
Find your own damned links in the future.
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:Isn't that usually the case? ; )
Originally posted by rue:
CTS - I'm not quite sure what you're saying.
I am saying, the same clinical disease as smallpox is still going around. One may make the case that smallpox (the virus) has been eradicated, based on a technicality. For practical purposes, the disease has NOT been eradicated.
This eventually begs the question, can diseases be genuinely eradicated through the use of mass vaccinations? Even if specific viruses are no longer in circulation, it appears there are plenty more to take their place.
Kind of like deposing a dictatorship in Iraq or Afghanistan. You send good soldiers who die for the war, and there are dozens of dictator-wanna-bes in the waiting. Is toppling third world dictators worth the effort, let alone a compulsory conscription into the war?
Quote:I have read speculation of this. But what's the evidence for this theory? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks.
It wiped out an estimated 95 - 99% of Indians.
Quote:I would love to read anything about how the variola virus only has proteins to attach to only humans. If you have a reference, please post it. Thanks.
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.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Doctors are worse than drug dealers--they do it with such piety.
--Emma Holister
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is my humble opinion that there ARE no impartial facts when it comes to vaccines. All information out there is part of a global marketing and religious campaign on behalf of vaccines ("if we all vaccinate, we can get to eradication heaven"), or part of a bitter vaccination backlash. (As Michael Crichton said in "State of Fear": "Everyone has an agenda--except me.")
Originally posted by rue:
From whence do those impartial facts come?
Parents have to sort through a lot of muddled, distorted, and biased information to tease out what they believe would be best for their children. That is why they need to be able to choose, and not let the manufacturers or the retailers of the product choose for them. That is why they cannot let the government, who we all know has been corrupted by the manufacturers and retailers, choose for them either. None of them have the best interests of the children at heart. PARENTS have to choose for the best interest of the children. No one else.
Michael Crichton actually has a lot of interesting things to say about global warming at the end of his book (State of Fear). I found myself agreeing with almost everything (including his proposal of a blinded funding mechanism for research). His position is simply: No one knows. I find this same position applicable to vaccine research, which appears to be every bit as politicized as global warming. No one knows.
There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving that vaccines are highly effective and highly safe. There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving that vaccines are completely ineffective and highly dangerous. In absence of conclusive evidence, people should be allowed to judge what evidence exists for themselves.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They are as honest with you as they know to be. But I have found that most doctors buy into the vaccine religion so much they have never questioned it enough to read the research literature. So they don't really have very much real information to give.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Most docs are gonna play it 100% straight with you, the threat of a lawsuit (or in the case of one doc in particular, a bit more personal than that..) is enough to keep them pretty damned honest.
Same with medication or vaccines - they sit down with you, inform you to the best of their ability, and YOU make the call.
I was informed when I got the flu vaccine that there is a negligible chance for developing Guillaine-Barre. But I was not informed that dozens, if not hundreds, of people report a clinical disorder commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome shortly after vaccination as adults (hep B, flu, tetanus, etc.). This information is out there, but swept under the rug by medical authorities and therefore not recognized by most vaccine administrators and physicians.
Now if one trust medical authority enough to not need any additional information, that is that person's choice. MY call would be to do additional research on my own.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And no one has ever done a study comparing the effectiveness of vaccines vs. nutritional interventions. To study effectiveness of a childhood vaccine, they always compare its effects with those of another vaccine.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Proper nutrition and hygeine are also a factor in flu resistance, and should not be neglected in either case, also.
Would it be so difficult to have one group be vaccinated, and another group get large doses of vitamin C, and still another group get lots of green vegetables? The fact that such a study has never been done make me wonder if they are afraid of what they might find.
Where would the pharm companies be if the green vegetable group had the lowest rates of the target disease?
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
Cit, the study clearly shows the effect of the vacc in children 23 months and under is virtually nil.
I referenced that, and you went all freaky on me cause you had not read it.
I was referencing solid data there, which you did not even bother to read.
And then, having not read it, you chose to take the statement out of context, and have a go ?
This is simple freakin logic here.
The study shows the effect of the vacc in children under 23 months is virtually nil, not half, nil.
Therefore doubling the dose is unlikely to have any realistic effect, and if they're still using the thimerosal base (to save a measly $4 a shot, at that) which apparently some providers are, then they're going way over the safety limit, any way you slice it.
Double of nothin is still nothin, and to exponentially compound the risk for no gain is flat out crazy.
As far as the italicized text, it's a summary of their argument for this current flu shot push, once you've stripped all the fluff away, which is exactly what I said - not a direct quote or I would have attributed it.
It's fairly obvious you're not one bit interested in the actual evidence, unless it supports your own viewpoint (and I know you're far from alone in that respect) so I see no further point in discussing it with you, nor wasting my time on it - if you're going to demand it be provided, ask me to spend my time digging it up, you can very well have the decency to read it, especially when it's being directly referenced.
I've burned about as much time and effort on this as I am going to bother to, especially since pointing out a logical, reasonable viewpoint, and the evidence behind it is "propagandizing" to you - you're just wasting my time anyway.
Like I said, I ain't interested in changin anyone elses viewpoint, I just don't want em forcing it on me via manipulation of the law, and I have some pretty good reasons for that.
So it's time to just put a fork in this whole damned discussion, far as i'm concerned.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatever Frem, what I replied to and why was very clear, the fact you continue to lie about what I said and the reasons behind it speaks volumes.
Continue to lie as much as you like, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
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
Hi Frem
Just going down the thread so here goes:
"Rue, it's been my experience, as a general rule, that Doctors ain't stupid, and most of mine are actually better than me at sorting which studies are bullshit or invalid due to poor research, skewed sampling, etc."
That wasn't the exact direction I was going in. What I was thinking was that, as we both know, pharmaceutical companies will say all sorts of good things about their products and nothing bad about them. So, if there is no other source of information besides the pharmaceutical shills, we'd be rather stuck for any good information at all.
It takes money to fund basic research (what enzymes/ systems does this product work on), and population studies (how does the product work in real life/ who does it hurt more than helps). What I'm saying is that we need to do a better job making government work for US, rather than for the companies. We need to insist on powerful regulatory agencies that can independently do the research and run the studies, to provide valid information to doctors and consumers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
"I am saying, the same clinical disease as smallpox is still going around. One may make the case that smallpox (the virus) has been eradicated, based on a technicality. For practical purposes, the disease has NOT been eradicated. ... Even if specific viruses are no longer in circulation, it appears there are plenty more to take their place."
No pox virus quite takes the place of smallpox. Smallpox was a feared disease because of its high mortality rate (25 - 99% depending on population). Monkeypox and variola minor cause less severe diease and have lower mortality rates. (monkeypox 0 - 10% depending on strain, variola minor < 1%). In addition, monkeypox doesn't seem to have sustained human to human transmission. The other pox viruses can cause limited pox on areas of skin contact with an infected animal (camelpox).
Unfortunately my sources either require paid subscription (NEJM) or are books. I'm looking for links you can use.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
host specificity due to specific cell-receptor binding
http://awi.vlaanderen.be/documenten/COST_B28_160205.pdf
In the genus Orthhopoxvirus (OPV) camelpox virus (CMPV) is most closely related to variola virus VAR (Gubser and Smith, 2002). Both viruses are host specific. The high frequency of genomic recombination in OPVs or simple mutations in the CMPV genes coding for the virus virulence factors or for virus coat proteins interacting with the cell receptor-binding sites could cause a breakthrough in the host species barrier.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Smallpox historically causing 95 - 99% mortality among Indians. "I have read speculation of this. But what's the evidence for this theory? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks."
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/162/16200504.pdf
"Guns, Germs and Steel" Jared Diamond
If you go to google you'll find easily accessible but potentially questionable sources for the impact of smallpox on native populations. Unfortunately, if you go to google scholar, you'll find more reliable but inaccessible sources. Go figure.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree on independent research that can provide valid information to doctors and consumers. I am not sure powerful regulatory agencies is the answer. That implies that only pharm companies have a motive to lie, that only they have an agenda. And that government agencies are pure of heart and look out for public interests, if only they had the power to do so. I disagree with this latter premise.
Originally posted by rue:
We need to insist on powerful regulatory agencies that can independently do the research and run the studies, to provide valid information to doctors and consumers.
What we need are blinded funding mechanisms. Just as it is standard in most peer-review journals for the peer review to be blinded to control bias(the peers do not know who authored the study when they review it), we need to make it standard for researchers to conduct their studies without knowing who is funding them, to control bias.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's clear that mandatory smallpox vaccinations have eliminated the scourge of smallpox from around the globe. And they are close to eliminating the scourge of polio as well - even in areas of privation and poor sanitation.
This is a good thing - to free humankind of dreaded diseases that kill and cripple.
------------------------------
But if you think that I believe in the goodness of government per se you haven't been reading my posts. Even nominal democracies like the US can be - and have been - severely subverted by the monied. This subversion goes far beyond directly influencing individual researchers. Blinded funding as an answer is naïve at best. Whole areas study can be defunded so that NO ONE gets funding - ie stem cell research. Agencies can be crippled - by reducing staff, reducing budgets, limiting scope, even closing all research libraries - as has already been done to the USEPA. And groups that dole out research funds can fund politically expedient research while denying funds to others - as at the NIH.
The hard fact is, most research money comes from the US government. Most research money will continue to come from the US government. And most research is at the mercy of government funding.
With its great power of the purse, the US government is holding research hostage to political agendas; scientific merit be damned. It is that that we need to change. We need to INSIST on a government that represents US rather than the agenda of its owners. That is the only way we will get valid research.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The day I voluntarily take a flu shot is the day that they find a vaccination for the stupidity epidemic that is sweeping not only our nation, but the entire world.
Anyone who tries to stick a needle in me will end up with it in their eye.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And I think it is far from clear.
Originally posted by rue:
I think it's clear that mandatory smallpox vaccinations have eliminated the scourge of smallpox from around the globe.
Quote:That's just it. We are NOT free of the dreaded diseases. The clinical disease indistinguishable in symptomatology from smallpox still infects and kills people in outbreaks. Acute flaccid paralysis still infects people in outbreaks. And as I said before, it is highly disingenous for vaccinations to take sole credit for the huge reduction in these diseases without considering confounding factors such as better nutrition, sanitation, and hygiene; the natural waning of diseases; and "control" diseases such as scarlet fever and the bubonic plague which also disappeared and/or no longer scourges humans as before.
This is a good thing - to free humankind of dreaded diseases that kill and cripple.
When people say "smallpox is eradicated," they mostly mean they believe THIS
is not infecting and killing people anymore. In fact and practice, THIS is still occurring in outbreaks.
I think what IS clear is that the belief that the disease no longer exists is largely a myth. The victory over smallpox was declared on a technicality.
Quote:Hehe. Good luck with that. I've found insisting anything of government to be quite a futile effort.
We need to INSIST on a government that represents US rather than the agenda of its owners.
And Rue, thanks for the pdfs. I'll read them later.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zombie Mark love Big Brother.... Needs protection. Please put disease in my body... duh.... dribble... I go to watch TV now and feel happy on yummy fun good pills.... gurgle...weeeeeeeeeee "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Whatever Frem, what I replied to and why was very clear, the fact you continue to lie about what I said and the reasons behind it speaks volumes.
Continue to lie as much as you like, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
Frem's not lying you unrelenting asshat. The facts presented were referenced, you focused on a particular thing Frem said without reading the data behind it and tried to crucify Frem for it. You were called on in and your continued persistence to ignore what's right in front of your face is staggering.
Bottom line, Cit, if you want to let Big Pharm force feed you vaccines that don't work or aren't needed, that's your choice. Even if they do work, beyond a reasonable doubt (and that is a feat that has yet to be achieved), it's still not up to the state, the government, the schools, Big Pharm, or least of all you, what is put into my, and my children's bodies, end of story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You go, Baby!
Originally posted by babywiththepower:
...it's still not up to the state, the government, the schools, Big Pharm, or least of all you, what is put into my, and my children's bodies, end of story.
And thanks to 6ixstring and Frem for speaking up for choice too. I appreciate every voice for choice.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
-------
We're prochoice on everything.
--The Libertarian Party
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No need for thanks CTTS. I am for pro choice on EVERY issue. Well... lets say that I am against a centralized government in league with large businesses (in this specific case, pharmacutical companies) making these decisions for us. Following this path I believe that it will not be too long until it will be against the law for somebody to refuse vaccinations for any reson, religious or otherwise. Could you imagine a scenario where you're being charged with a felony for say something along the lines of "Conspiracy to Spread an Otherwise Preventable Disease", simply for refusing them to inject your kids with disease, poison, and who knows what else comes along with these shots?
I've had all of these shots when I was a kid and I'm mad as hell about it. I never made that choice for myself, and my parents belonged to a generation who questioned their government up until the point they had children of their own and then, for the most part, they all sold out.
A good example of my belief in personal choice is my answer to whether or not I am in support of abortion. In the most extreme of cases, say a girl being impregnated while being raped, then I can find sympathy in that otherwise horrific act of abortion if the girl chooses to go that route. As a human being, of course I am going to have feelings on this one way or another, and I realize that others will have differing opinions whether they be religious, moral or selfish or otherwise. Personally, I could never sit back and watch my future child be aborted. What really angers me on this topic is that if I was to get a girl pregnant that it is ultimately her choice alone and she can get an abortion without my consent because it's her body, and you bet your ass I would do anything within my power to prevent her from doing that. I think that perhaps a joint decision needs to be reached before a life decision like that is made. However, I would never dream of giving our centralized government the right to decide that for us, even if that meant losing my child in the process. This is my fault for sleeping with a girl who didn't share my vision. It is just not BigGov's place to decide this.
When one uses the arguement that BigGov has no right making a particular choice for them, they cannot claim that they are pro-choice on one issue because it is convenient and it fits their vision of right and wrong, only to abandon the freedom of choice on another topic when in no longer suits their agendas.
Please tell me that you are not one of those Anti-Smoking Nazis.... if you are, then you are no different than Citizen is, and we would just be pitted against each other when that thread comes along.
It's all or nothing. We really need to give power back to our communities and take it out of the hands of centralized governments.....
But the wheel in the sky keeps on turning and we all have reality TV to watch. That reminds me... I have to download the last episode of Battlestar when I get home. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I HATE cigarette smoke. I have left restaurants in the middle of my meal before because someone lit up in the smoking section! It makes me gag, and then I can't eat.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Please tell me that you are not one of those Anti-Smoking Nazis...
But like you with abortion (and me too), I would not legislate a ban on smoking. Laws (and force) need to be used sparingly, for crimes for which there is no other recourse: rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc.
I am prochoice on everything.
But you bring up a very important point. I am scratching my head over these staunchly prochoice folks on abortion like Rue and Citizen and Signy being antichoice on vaccinations. "Your body, your choice" applies to only one issue, it seems.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
You would be a flat-earth Holocaust denier if it supported your ideology.
There is no pox virus that comes close to smallpox in its fatality rate or infectivity. There is no single cause or combination of causes of acute flaccid paralysis that even come close to polio. By claiming otherwise, you put yourself in the category of anti-vaccination crackpots. In fact, you claim all sorts of patently absurd notions just because they support your manias. Good luck in the real world.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
CTS,
You would be a flat-earth Holocaust denier if it supported your ideology.
There is no pox virus that comes close to smallpox in its fatality rate or infectivity. There is no single cause or combination of causes of acute flaccid paralysis that even come close to polio. By claiming otherwise, you put yourself in the category of anti-vaccination crackpots. In fact, you claim all sorts of patently absurd notions just because they support your manias. Good luck in the real world.
Don't even bring Polio into it again. Has it already been forgotten that in the first incarnation of this thread that the major decline in polio outbreaks was due, in large part, to the redefinition of what was polio then to what polio was right after mass vaccination rather than the vaccination itself? You preach about facts but you seem to forget those that contradict your ideology, so your entire post was pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.
Also, as stated above, this boils down to a matter of choice. And sorry, Rue, but you, and people like you, have no right to make my choices for me. End of story. If you want the vaccines, by all means take them, but don't try and force that decision on others. If there is some sort of pandemic, you will, afterall, be vaccinated. And if the vaccines are as good as you claim and preach them to be, than you should be safe, right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Baby,
You apparently wll believe any CLAIM made if it suits your agenda as well.
I posted many many links showing that even in places of squalor, where existing polio is confirmed by PCR, polio vaccines DO indeed eliminate all but a handful of AFP cases - which are confimed by PCR as well.
This is not some strange statistical trick from the US in the 1950's. It's a documented fact over decades of genetic AFP polio surveillance around the globe. How did you miss that? Oh that's right - you don't read things you disagree with.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sheesh - it looks like the nutcases are crawling out of the woodwork now.
Look folks,
Its true that not everything the government does is right. It's also true that not everything the government does is wrong.
If you are so biased as to think the elimination of smallpox and polio are BAD things just because the government did them, you have a severe case of lunacy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You apparently wll believe any CLAIM made if it suits your agenda as well.
I posted many many links showing that even in places of squalor, where existing polio is confirmed by PCR, polio vaccines DO indeed eliminate all but a handful of AFP cases - which are confimed by PCR as well.
This is not some strange statistical trick from the US in the 1950's. It's a documented fact over decades of genetic AFP polio surveillance around the globe. How did you miss that? Oh that's right - you don't read things you disagree with.
Nowhere in my post did I say that polio vaccinations don't work, all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio. It was missleading numbers that made the polio vaccine seem like a wonder drug when in fact, many people that were 'cured' were never infected to begin with. Now, how did you miss that? It seems you like to infer what you want out of a post when what you are going on about was never even implied to begin with. Thanks for skewing my words though. I like word games.
Oh, and it's not a 'claim' as you seem to believe. If you read the post regarding this, and the links that were issued, polio has been redefined by the WHO and similar organizations world wide. So, this 'claim' is in fact, fact. But then I guess the opinions of Big Pharm, with no unbiased studies to back them up, are more credible than facts when it suits ones purpose.
Listen, Rue. We can dance like this from here until the end of times, and it won't make a lick of difference. You obviously have no problem with an organization stripping you of your freedoms for 'the greater good' and I personally think you are a worthless piece of flesh for doing so, whereas you think you are a crusader for the health of the world (or some such) and I am an unrelenting piece of shit for not blindly following Big Pharm. I get that. And you know what? You know what's the greatest thing about this country? We are both within our rights to do so. So why don't we agree to disagree and leave it at that. Just keep your
ing needles out of me and mine.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Baby,
"Nowhere in my post did I say that polio vaccinations don't work, all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio." You mean in the US, a looooong, long time ago, once.
What about the drop in polio around the globe? To the point where total annual polio cases can be counted in the hundreds (if that). That wasn't due to a redefinition. Nor was it due to an improvement in global poverty and sanitation. Nor was it due to misattribution. That was real, it was good, and it was done with polio vaccines. By governments. If you want to argue one small isolated statistical case b/c it proves your point, go right ahead. If you want to ignore a decades-long global success b/c you disagree with the politics, go ahead. You can deny the effectiveness of the polio vaccine all you want.
Arguing the SCIENCE of erradication is exactly what puts you in the nutcase category.
And BTW the lunar landing was faked. And the earth really is flat.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sheesh - it looks like the nutcases are crawling out of the woodwork now.
You seem awfully quick to start calling people who disagree with you names. Maybe you should turn that self-righteous light inwards a little/
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you are so biased as to think the elimination of smallpox and polio are BAD things just because the government did them, you have a severe case of lunacy.
Never once have any of us said this is a bad thing. I just contest the numbers. Eliminating a disease is a great thing (though both diseases are still active in areas, by your accounts, so they were never in fact, eliminated), but forcing people to take vaccines that have questionable health risks involved when there is no indication or reasonable possability of another outbreak, is lunacy.
And the flu vaccine (as an example) is among the worst out there. The flu is a minor annoyance, sometimes not even requiring time off from work or school. But many people get sick when they get the flu shot because it weakens their immune systems for a time while they combat the 'dead' virus. So I ask you, where is the benefit? Either risk getting the flu or garuntee you're going to get sick. I'm a gambling man, so I'll risk the flu. And the same (or similar) can be said about other vaccines as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"though both diseases are still active in areas, by your accounts, so they were never in fact, eliminated"
No, by my accounts smallpox is gone. And polio nearly so.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bullshit.
all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You seriously need to learn how to use the quote feature, it makes reading your drivel easier.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You mean in the US, a looooong, long time ago, once.
What about the drop in polio around the globe? To the point where total annual polio cases can be counted in the hundreds (if that). That wasn't due to a redefinition. Nor was it due to an improvement in global poverty and sanitation. Nor was it due to misattribution. That was real, it was good, and it was done with polio vaccines. By governments. If you want to argue one small isolated statistical case b/c it proves your point, go right ahead. If you want to ignore a decades-long global success b/c you disagree with the politics, go ahead. You can deny the effectiveness of the polio vaccine all you want.
That's excatly what puts you in the nutcase category.
No, America wasn't the only one to do it, it was the WHO (World Health Organization, in case you didn't know) that redefined it as well, not just the FDA. So if you're going to be ignorant and debase an argument, please at least get the facts straight. Again, you pull a small snipet out of my post and disregard the rest of it in an attempt to vilify your rant, and it's getting quite amusing. Again, you are accusing me of saying the vaccines don't work, and never once have I said that. All I have said, in all my posts, is that the figures have been skewed to make these vaccines look better than they are. And since there is no impending threat of a global polio epidemic, why is it that I am forced to pump my children full of drugs that have questionable side effects for a disease my children will mostlikely never get? And that is the question you, citizen, and every other supporter for mandatory vaccinations has side stepped. Rather than answer it you throw figures in our faces or call us nutcases and think that ends it. It doesn't.
You think I'm a nutcase lady? Frankly I think you're batshit crazy. But you don't see me attacking you personally, largely in part to the fact that I'm not a child, but you continue to do whatever it is that works for you.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And BTW the lunar landing was faked. And the earth really is flat.
So you think that by comparing my desire to keep legislation from forcing me and mine to get vaccines immediately lumps me in a group of conspiracy junkies? What does that make you? You seem to blindly accept the 'facts' presented by Big Pharm and their offhanded dismissals of the dangers of some of their drugs. Give me a factual, independant, unbiased study (if that is even possible) telling my that all the vaccines that are being force fed us today (not in the 1950s, today) work and I'll back down. Until then, keep your needles out of me. It's my body, and I have final say over what can be done with it. End of
ing story.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bullshit.
Bullshit, huh? Maybe you didn't read this in the last thread, so let me put it here for reference:
Vaccine Effectiveness in Question
Prochoice activists question whether the effectiveness of vaccination has been exaggerated. It is not the first time someone exaggerates benefits of a product in order to sell it. If vaccines are not as effective as believed by authorities, herd immunity issues and public health threats blamed on the unvaccinated become less compelling.
Part 1: Polio
The polio vaccine is one of the main success stories of mass vaccination. Or is it?
Ninety-nine percent of polio causes no symptoms/flu symptoms (90%) and non-paralytic symptoms (9%). Of the remaining 1% that get paralysis, half recover fully within days or weeks. Only 0.5% of those who get polio die or remain with prolonged/permanent paralysis. Polio is mostly a benign disease, with even half the paralytic cases resolving themselves within days or weeks. Severe sequelae occurs in a very small fraction of sufferers.
In the 1950's, the normal incidence rate was around 20,000 a year. One year before the introduction of the vaccine, the incidence rates went up to 58,000 in 1952, and 35,000 in 1953. In 1953, Salk tested his vaccine, and mass vaccination was launched in 1955. By 1957, the incidence rate had gone down to 5600 cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio
Pretty impressive, right? Until you find out the definition of polio changed after the vaccine was introduced. Before the vaccine, anyone with non-paralytic symptoms and anyone with paralysis lasting at least 24 hours was diagnosed with polio. After the vaccine was introduced in 1955, the diagnosis was changed to only paralytic cases lasting at least 30 days. The good majority of polio cases, those with nonparalytic symptoms, were renamed something else. A big fraction of paralytic cases recover within days to 2 weeks, so this subset was automatically eliminated as polio cases as well.
People who would have been diagnosed with polio before 1995 were now labeled with Coxsackie virus or aseptic meningitis. Data available from a Los Angeles county during that period showed about an increase in aseptic meningitis very roughly matching the decrease in polio cases. http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf (pg 242)
When diagnostic criteria change, either people were misdiagnosed before, or misdiagnosed afterwards. Was the incidence of polio inflated before the vaccine because of misdiagnosis? Much of the acute flaccid paralysis cases (primary symptom of paralytic polio) is shown today to be not related to the poliovirus. Were they also not related back then, but was mistakenly attributed to polio, then was corrected after the vaccine? http://www.chronicillnet.org/articles/paralyticpolio.html
Was the success of the polio vaccine exaggerated by renaming the disease?
These questions are not to say the vaccine is ineffective. They simply cast reasonable doubt that the vaccine was as effective as it claimed. If the vaccine is less effective than purported, parents should be allowed to decide exactly what the benefits are and if they are worth the risks.
-------References below--------
Definition change in the USA:
Quote:
Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required.
In 1955 the criteria werNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh please. This has been already argued - and since abandoned by CTS.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh please. This has been already argued - and since abandoned by CTS.
Regardless, the redefinition happened. Again, and let me be real clear this time. I DO NOT ARGUE THE FACT THAT THE POLIO VACCINE WORKED! I simply believe the figures were overblown. That is all.
What this whole thing boils down to, a fact you continue to ignore, is choice. All you've done is thrown page after page of government and pharmicutical studies at us without ever once telling us why, exactly, you think our civil liberties should be ignored so we can be pumped full of today's gauntlet of vaccines?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What? I did NOT abandon it.
Originally posted by rue:
Oh please. This has been already argued - and since abandoned by CTS.
This is it, Rue. I told you, stop telling outright lies about what I say or want to say.
There can be no debate when when you make shit up out of thin air.
This is my last post to you. Period.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hehe. Oh c'mon Sig. I know you can argue better than that!
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Bullshit.
all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio.
I will reiterate. I have never said vaccines are completely ineffective. I simply question the effectiveness rates claimed by mandatory vaccination proponents. Can those rates have been exaggerated? Yes, and I presented evidence on how they were exaggerated. Do we know what effectiveness rates REALLY are? No, because too many confounding variables have been dismissed or ignored outright.
Reality sucks, Sig. Esp when they contradict your cherished beliefs about vaccines. Reality is effectiveness has been exaggerated throughout vaccination history. Effectiveness rates quoted to support mandatory vaccination policies have not taken into account an army of confounders, subclinical diseases, outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, and changes in definition. Reality is that your cherished beliefs about vaccines being highly effective for an overwhelming majority of recipients is not supported by evidence meeting minimum scientific standards. Those cherished beliefs are just that, your beliefs.
That is fine. Interpret the scanty and confounded evidence that exists however you want. Just allow me to disagree.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
"When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies."
--U.S. Representative Ron Paul
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I finally read those pdf files Rue shared. Here are my comments.
Quote:First, for context purposes, this is a research proposal, not a published scientific paper. This little section Rue was kind enough to copy for us was the only relevant section in the entire proposal.
http://awi.vlaanderen.be/documenten/COST_B28_160205.pdf
In the genus Orthhopoxvirus (OPV) camelpox virus (CMPV) is most closely related to variola virus VAR (Gubser and Smith, 2002). Both viruses are host specific. The high frequency of genomic recombination in OPVs or simple mutations in the CMPV genes coding for the virus virulence factors or for virus coat proteins interacting with the cell receptor-binding sites could cause a breakthrough in the host species barrier.
Second, it makes this statement: "Both viruses [camelpox and variola] are host specific." There is no explanation on which hosts they are specific to (though one can make an educated inference). And there is no reference to know how the author came to this conclusion. This paper, therefore, offers no evidence in itself to conclude smallpox has proteins that can only attach to human hosts.
Third, it states the entire genus of Orthopoxviruses (including monkeypox, camelpox, and variola) frequently recombines genetically, which could cause a "breakthrough in the host species barrier." Again, there is no reference so one does not know how this conclusion is supported. But for argument's sake, assuming both statements can be supported, even if smallpox is host-specific, it could breakthrough this host-specific barrier. Who is to say it hasn't already?
I don't have enough information from this paper to come to any conclusions about the claim that smallpox is genetically restricted to human infection, and remained that way in its entire lifetime.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Smallpox historically causing 95 - 99% mortality among Indians.
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/162/16200504.pdf
I read this paper authored by Kenneth Howell for Dialogos Latinoamericanos. I did not find any information in this paper itself that supported the claim that smallpox caused 95-99% mortality among Indians.
The author proposes a theory to explain how infectious diseases wiped out entire Native American civilizations. He states that Europeans brought a host of infections with them to the Americas, including: "smallpox, measles, influenza, typhus, bubonic plague, yellow fever, and malaria." The native population had to fight wave after wave of infections as Europeans continually arrived to the Americas. These relentless infections incapacitated or killed working adults, which then left the rest of the population to starve to death.
In one place, the author states smallpox and measles were the most devastating of all the imported diseases. In another, the author states that in Central Mexico, smallpox had an 80-90% mortality rate. He references two books, "Cambridge World History of Human Disease" and "Epidemics and History," respectively. Without reading these original sources, I don't know how the authors arrived at these conclusions, and how well supported those conclusions are.
It may be that these sources are accurate and these claims are supported. But there is nothing in this paper that supports Rue's claim that smallpox caused 95-99% mortality rate among the Indians (implying the Indians were wiped out because of smallpox). Repeated infections and incapacitation because of disease is not the same thing as a high universal mortality rate of the disease itself.
I do appreciate Rue's effort in digging this up though. It was educational.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS, BWP- I wonder first of all how old you are? Over 50, like me?
Several of my aunts and uncles never grew up. One died of TB, one of meningitis. One has post-polio syndrome. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I don't feel like I need complicated statistics to tell me that smallpox is no longer a scourge. That from "thousands" of cases "pox" you'd have to look long and hard to find a few hundred of "possibly" related pox diseases.
I'm really busy right now so I don't have time for a long discussion. But it seems to me that you're rejecting a ton of science: how to make accurate diagnoses, how to distinguish between one etiology and another- in favor of what seems to be exaggerated fear.
What your concerns seems to be lacking is a coherent mechanism to explain HOW vaccines (of ALL types) are "dangerous"
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS - as I indicated before, my sources are books. Specifically they are often microbiology and virology textbooks. I did dig up as much information as I could off the web. Unfortunately I can't reproduce the specific information, and I especially can't reproduce the exhaustive laboratory data that went into that type of post. If you really want to know about how viruses (or bacteria) infect a host you'll just have to get some books. There's simply no way around that. If you want to look up smallpox specifically you'll have to get books on CBW as there are many studies going on now as to how smallpox might be made more deadly and/or escape detection and/or vaccination protection.
-----------
If you want to get a general idea of how viruses (or bacteria) infect cells here is one link:
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mhunt/replicat.htm
The first step in infection of a cell is attachment to the cell surface. Attachment is via ionic interactions which are temperature-independent. The viral attachment protein recognizes specific receptors, which may be protein, carbohydrate or lipid, on the outside of the cell. Cells without the appropriate receptors are not susceptible to the virus.
----------
I'm presuming you do NOT have a background in biology or medicine, and therefore you are unaware of these very BASIC concepts. But I simply have no interest in trying to educate you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The thing that almost everybody, on both sides, seems to be largely ignoring is freedom of choice.
Anyone on this thread who is against your choice of what you choose to shoot in your children's veins had better not be Pro-Choice when it comes to abortion. I'm tired of people throwing around our basic freedoms of free thought like it exists only to serve their particular views on things.
Let's say, hypothetically speaking of course, that vaccines did prevent disease "A" 100% of the time. Documented or not, Family "1" decides to get vaccinated while Family "2" chooses not to. Now Disease "A" sweeps through their town and Family "1" is protected completely because they were vaccinated while Family "2"'s members all become very ill and some even die. Looks like Family "1" did the right thing and took the shots. None of them will be getting sick.
Now I ask you... what the hell business is it of yours or Family "1"'s if Family "2" chose not to take the vaccine? No skin off your nose, figuratively or literally. Now you have somebody that you can feel superior to as well.
Bottom Line: It is not centralized Government's place to decide this for us. The Government is there to serve the people, not the other way around. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If it did work that way vaccination would be simple. But since no vaccine is 100% your hypothetical example is moot.
All it takes is about 10% 'defectors' to sustain a polio epidemic - including among the vaccinated. (at a 90% effective rate) A small percentage of unvaccinated can put a number of others at risk.
That changes the calculation considerably.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well cry me a river about it man. You're going to have a hard time convincing the non believers to get injected with your drugs. You can just put that on my long list of offences that the fascists will put me away for when freedom of speech and choice are things of the past.
Welcome to the United States of Rueian Fascism "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, it just changes the calculation.
Let's say you have a dearly loved child not vaccinated against polio. Would you prefer your unvaccinated child to live in a polio-free environment or one where polio is endemic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Listen Rue. I see the point you're trying to make here, and all doublethink aside I do believe it's a valid one.
I can't even say that if I had a child I definately not allow a doctor to give them shots for polio or small pox. I would do my Fatherly duty and do my own research on these topics and I would discuss the issue with my wife/fiencee/girlfriend and we would make the decision for our child together, without BigGov threatening me with prison time or fines if I choose not to have my child vaccinated.
What I am saying here, is that I would rather my child grow up in a world where choices, such as this, are still left in the hands of the individual and not the collective.
In my eyes, if we don't have freedom to make these choices for ourselves, then none of the other questions you ask me would matter at all. I would be little more than a robot and none of my opinions would matter if they were not shared with the collective. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A small percentage of unvaccinated can put a number of others at risk.
If yon vaccine is so damned effective, why would the vaccinated be at risk from those who aren't?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because vaccines, while effective, aren't 100% effective. I think that's been explained several times already.
There is a huge logical gap in the anti-vaccine contingent: vaccines aren't effective, and therefore I'm not going to vaccinate. But if vaccines AREN'T effective (as they claim) then the chances of getting the actual disease SHOULD be quite high. And the disease itself is FAR more dangerous than the vaccine. It seems there's a bit of doublethink going on... while backhandedly counting on vaccine effectiveness (my kid will never get smallpox) they disparage the vaccination process. Just look at CTS' argument about smallpox: It's not that bad. It didn't wipe out 95-99% of the population, it "only" wiped out 80-90%. WTF???? Who CARES if it's "only" 40% fatal? It's still a tremendously dangerous, contagious disease that used to kill people by the tens of thousands.
And I still haven't heard a possible mechanism to show how vaccines of ALL types are so very very "dangerous".
Some people focus on mercury. But there are many other sources of mercury- including fish- and it mercury were such an issue why aren't they getting on King George's case for letting coal-fired power plants and (just yesterday) cement kilns continue to emit vast quantities? Besides, I have a feeling that even if thimeroseal were eliminated (as it was in Britain) they'd still be against vaccines (as people still are in Britain)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe you, 6string, or you baby, can quote where I was anti choice before crucifying me for it, or maybe give it up and crucify me for what I actually said. Oh I see CTS said the same thing, since you're constantly bitching about people having to expressly quote everything maybe you can for once return the favour?
So you tell me, is saying my position is something I've flatout said it is not lying, not bothering to get your fact straight or merely deamonsing anyone who doesn't carbon copy all your opinions?
I saw a quote being misrepresented, and I said so, and you bunch of knee jerk reactionaries pulled out the crucifix, then imply I'm a facist, bravo.
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
Siggy, I really don't think either end of the continuum here is gonna be reasonable enough about it to discuss it rationally, from what I have seen - I made my point about risks versus benefit earlier, when I pointed out that my employment necessitates taking greater risks in order to ensure the safety of my customers, although I do draw the line at a dubiously effective flu shot.
I take a bit of ribbing from other drivers about having a bucket of Scrubs Hand Sanitizer Wipes in my cabs cupholder, and using them, but you know, since I have done so - I've not come down with the flu even once.
But then, I actually keep a clean cab too, so I guess imma bit of a weirdo in that respect.
My issue with this, as it is with just about anything, is that scary little word "mandatory" - because it would involve entities that I feel to be wholly untrustworthy making personal decisions for me that they have no business doing, especially when they have a history of mucking such things up via incompetence, collusion, or just plain stupidity.
When folks bring up the idea of the FedGov and Big Pharma wanting to mandate any medication, be it vaccines, psychotropics, or what have you, it's gonna set me off because the whole concept is a scary, slippery slope we do not ever wanna find ourselves on.
"For your own good" is the worst of all possible tyrannies.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really not sure where I ever singled you out Citizen. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do.
My stance on this is that it is not your choice that I let them stick the needle in my arm, nor is it their choice. I'm through even discussing the effectiveness of any of the vaccinations. I've already said that I'm not sure what I'd do and that I would do my own research on the subject before making my decision.
The quickest way to make me not get a shot is by telling me that I have to get a shot under duress.
It's bad enough we have to worry about our phone conversations being unconstitutionally invaded. I'm not going to sit by and do nothing while they invade our homes and our bodies and tell us that it's for our own good. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm really not sure where I ever singled you out Citizen. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do.
Quote:So, which type of Nazi am I?
Please tell me that you are not one of those Anti-Smoking Nazis.... if you are, then you are no different than Citizen is, and we would just be pitted against each other when that thread comes along.
EDIT:
I read BabyWithThePowers post, then yours which named me specifically as anti-choice. I realise there was some confusion earlier in part one of this thread group caused by my poor wording, but I specifically cleared that up. I don't know if either you or BabyWithThePower saw that, but CTS was posting in that thread, so I can only assume she chose to ignore those comments. And frankly given Frems continued desire to not listen to my reasons for saying what I did and misrepresent my comments I don't think an accusation of lying is completely uncalled for.
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:I never said it isn't "that bad." I said it wasn't as infectious as people think it was. This point was to compare smallpox's infectiousness with the infectiousness of monkeypox, to show how they may not differ as much as they say. It was not a commentary to dismiss the severity of the disease. Put things in context please--and if you are going to say what I am arguing, please do what I asked Rue to do: copy and paste. And the 80-90% was ONE statistic in Central Mexico. I pointed that out to show how it was not UNIVERSAL. Again, read my comments in context. I didn't point it out to show how a 10% difference makes it "not that bad." WTF back at ya!
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just look at CTS' argument about smallpox: It's not that bad. It didn't wipe out 95-99% of the population, it "only" wiped out 80-90%. WTF????
Quote:I've been so far focused on questioning vaccine effectiveness. I haven't gotten to vaccine side effects yet. Vaccine side effects constitute a weak argument, because the truth is, just as there are no conclusive studies proving high vaccine effectiveness, there are no conclusive studies proving high vaccine dangers. I can bring in all sorts of correlations found between vaccines and adverse events, but those correlations don't prove ANYTHING. One has to use the same standards in evaluating the evidence, on both sides (effectiveness and dangers).
And I still haven't heard a possible mechanism to show how vaccines of ALL types are so very very "dangerous".
I have to say I am very disappointed that the arguments you and Rue are resorting to is to distort what I say. There is no integrity in this debate when you have to change my position to make a case against it.
-------------------
And one last thing. We all KNOW vaccines are not 100% effective. (Isn't that the thrust of my position, that effectiveness is not as high as they make it out to be?) What we want to know is HOW not being 100% effective makes unvaccinated people a threat to vaccinated people? Common mechanisms for this threat include the following arguments.
1. Infection. Unvaccinated people contract the disease and infect failed-vaccine recipients.
Problem 1: Vaccinated people in whom the vaccine failed can contract the disease themselves and infect other failed-vaccine recipients. This is evidenced by the fact that outbreaks occur in highly or fully vaccinated populations. This argument attempts to scapegoat unvaccinated people for the failures of the vaccine itself.
Problem 2: Vaccinated people contract the disease subclinically and infect failed-vaccine recipients. At the height of hypocrisy, mandatory vaccine proponents ignore an army of Typhoid Mary's to scapegoat a few unvaccinated people. They make easy targets since symptoms are highly visible in them.
2. Herd immunity. Unvaccinated people threaten the herd immunity protecting failed-vaccine recipients.
Problem 1: The fact that outbreaks occur in highly and fully vaccinated populations illustrate that herd immunity is unpredictable and doesn't work the way people think it does. This argument scapegoats unvaccinated people for a failure in herd immunity that can happen anyway.
Problem 2: People choosing not to vaccinate has never been in large enough numbers to threaten herd immunity. This fear is hysterical and groundless in reality.
3. Eradication. Unvaccinated people maintain a reservoir for the pathogen, making it impossible to eradicate the disease. THIS IS THE REAL REASON behind mandatory vaccination policies. As we have shown before, both the infection and herd immunity arguments obviously do not hold water under critical scrutiny. The real reason behind requiring everyone to vaccinate, the real reason behind the emotional vehemence against unvaccinated people, is that unvaccinated people are perceived as stubborn obstacles, the selfish holdouts that prevent "eradication heaven" for everyone. Smallpox and polio are the examples used to demonstrate the success of eradication.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your tone of ridicule and wanting to put restrictions on choice implied to me that you were anti-choice. Allowing choice under specific conditions that are unlikely to happen is not prochoice.
Originally posted by Citizen:
Hell lets make everything choice. Why should chefs be forced to washing their hands before preparing food if they don't want to? Maybe their religion bans hand washing....
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.
(And why can't I use the health insurance I paid for? I'll agree not to use health insurance for treatment of vaccine-prescribed diseases, if I can get a discount on my insurance premiums for not vaccinating and using those services. I also want a discount on my insurance to not pay for treatment of children who were injured by vaccines. If no one has to pay for my choice, I don't want to pay for their choice.)
So citizen, I'll ask you point blank what I asked Rue. If you could vote on it, would you 1) vote against mandatory vaccination for school attendance and 2) vote against any AMA initiative to rescind nonmedical exemptions from all 48 states that have them? No addendums, amendments, or anything. It's come for vote the way it is and you have to decide. If your answer is yes, I will apologize to you for mischaracterizing your position.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quit acting like a prat, Cit.
You demanded evidence, didn't bother to read it and then went off half-cocked, and then when you got called on it - jam your fingers in your ears and call someone a liar ?
Doesn't do wonders for your credibility, that.
I'm not the one who keeps changing their story.
You own actions in this thread condemn you more than anything I could say.
The only person around here who even seems to understand my position on the issue is Jack, and that because he holds the exact same one for many of the same reasons.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ouch.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Siggy, I really don't think either end of the continuum here is gonna be reasonable enough about it to discuss it rationally, from what I have seen...
The only person around here who even seems to understand my position on the issue is Jack, and that because he holds the exact same one for many of the same reasons.
I hate to disagree with you, Frem, because I see eye to eye with you on most things. But when you say neither "end of the continuum HERE is gonna be reasonable enough to discuss it rationally," I gotta take issue. If I haven't been reasonable or rational, you gotta point out where.
The continuum HERE is not anti-vaccine vs. pro-vaccine. I have not seen any anti-vaccine arguments for the most part. It is anti-choice vs. pro-choice. 6ix, Baby, you, and I are on the pro-choice side, though we tackle the issue from different angles. Cit, Rue, and Sig lean towards the anti-choice side, though Cit may actually be a moderate (choice with contingencies). I don't see how our end of the continuum has somehow been unreasonable or irrational.
I understand you. I agree with you. Choice should be based on the principle of the thing. But that doesn't mean the debate can't be argued by questioning assumptions underlying current policy (re effectiveness, public threat, etc).
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By living with other people we have given up total freedom. So it's not fair to characterize the issue as "choice" versus "no choice" because that characterization is too global. For example, I happen to be "pro-choice" when it some to abortion, but not "pro-choice" when it comes to driving on the wrong side of the freeway. I think we're all in the middle of this very wide spectrum between "no choice" and "total freedom".
Part of whether something is optional depends on who else it affects, and how badly. ASSUMING (I realize that this is an assumption) that vaccines are about 90% effective, there are several ways that an unvaccinated population can affect the vaccinated population:
1) The unvaccinated becomes a risk once they make up a significant portion of the population. If vaccines were 100% effective, this wouldn't be a problem, but since they're not there is a percentage of the vaccinated who will be exposed to more carriers and have a higher risk infection through no choice of their own. One could argue that your choice not to vaccinate takes away choice from those who do. To make this mathematical, if the unvaccinated population is nearly 100%, they represent a 10% risk to others. I would prolly make it a requirement that at the first sign of an outbreak all unvaccinated or previously uninfected be required to stay home- that means from work as well as from school.
2)The specific costs of treating a disease that is mainly preventable. People who catch pertussis, measles, polio, meningitis etc and who go on to develop debilitating illness and sometimes permanent disabilities cost lots and lots of money, placing additional burden on insurance rates and taxpayer dollars. I would solve this problem by simply requiring that those who do not receive a MEDICAL exemption from vaccines sign a waiver that they will pay for all treatment and rehabilitation costs if they cotrnact a non-vaccinated illness.
3) The general societal costs of disease including pandemic including lost productivity and so forth. There is simply no way to recoup these costs. But it can be a huge drain on economies, and those with and without malaria demonstrate.
There are a few things I would change as far as vaccinations are concerned:
Remove mercury.
Be prepared to give single vaccines.
Create more liberal criteria for medical exemptions, including a family hx of autism, autoimmune disease, or a high mercury burden.
Create better reporting of post-vaccination complictions. I know of two children who had very specific, debilitating vaccination complications, and to see the CDC poo-pooing reported complications is troubling.
Provide lifelong medical services for those with post-vaccine complications.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To that I would add:
innoculate with liquid up the nose rather than injection, wherever it makes sense (eg flu)
use graduated innoculations - parts, killed, then attenuated
and look into innoculating breast-feeding moms rather than babies
If I have time I'll get back to the thread later.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But they don't. Especially in the school environment where exemptors have never exceeded 2% of the population. So the point is moot.
Originally posted by SignyM:
1) The unvaccinated becomes a risk once they make up a significant portion of the population.
Quote:You and Cit both bring this up. First, mandatory vaccination law has nothing to do with health care costs. It has to do with being allowed to attend school.
2)The specific costs of treating a disease that is mainly preventable.
Second, I personally do not have a problem opting out of treatments for vaccine-prescribed diseases. (I very rarely see MDs for anything anyway.) I just want a discount on my insurance premiums for opting out of those services. I should also be able to opt out of paying for treatments for vaccine injuries incurred by other people's choices. If they aren't willing to pay for my risks, I shouldn't be forced to pay for their risks. I think that is fair. But when all's said and done, even if we all got what we wanted re health care costs, none of this has anything do with with current mandatory vaccination law.
Quote:Well, vaccine injuries cause economic drains as well. It is just the cost of living together, that we all bear some cost for each other's choices. But again, this point has nothing to do with mandatory vaccination law.
3) The general societal costs of disease including pandemic including lost productivity and so forth. There is simply no way to recoup these costs. But it can be a huge drain on economies, and those with and without malaria demonstrate.
I agree with all the suggestions you made.
I would, of course, add this reform:
Vis a vis school attendance, the small fraction of unvaccinated children do not threaten the public health of the vaccinated population at school. Therefore mandatory vaccination laws for school attendance should be repealed. Short of that, nonmedical exemptions must be granted in all 50 states.
Mandatory vaccinations in order to attend school has more to do with attempting universal vaccination coverage than with protecting health environment at school. It is simply easier to get at the babies and preschoolers than to convince adults to vaccinate. If lawmakers were really concerned about public health at school, they would mandate current vaccination coverage for all teachers and school personnel as well. You can have a never-vaccinated school teacher, but you can't have a never-vaccinated child at school. What kind of double standard is that?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quit making up what I'm saying, quote me (for once) or stop making things up.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quit acting like a prat, Cit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And your overall tone paints you very much as anti-vaccination in all circumstances, but when pointed out you demand quotes, so I'm demanding the same thing.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Your tone of ridicule and wanting to put restrictions on choice implied to me that you were anti-choice. Allowing choice under specific conditions that are unlikely to happen is not prochoice.
I like how you purposefully ignore everything I subsequently say.
Quote:I don't get to vote in America unless you drastically changed your system of governance or Britain has unfortunatly become the 51st state recently. I'll reiterate I like the system in Britian fine, vaccinations aren't mandatory, in fact you'd probably like it because if you don't get a vaccination and fall ill the NHS will still treat you free of charge, no consequences for your desitions, just like you and Frem want.
So citizen, I'll ask you point blank what I asked Rue. If you could vote on it, would you 1) vote against mandatory vaccination for school attendance and 2) vote against any AMA initiative to rescind nonmedical exemptions from all 48 states that have them? No addendums, amendments, or anything. It's come for vote the way it is and you have to decide. If your answer is yes, I will apologize to you for mischaracterizing your position.
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:But what happens if you make vaccination optional and that small fraction becomes a LARGE fraction? Do you re-institute mandatory vaccination if that faction becomes more than X%? The problem is that you advocate a policy that not "everyone" can follow. In essence, you want to be treated like a special case, and that's not a policy.
Vis a vis school attendance, the small fraction of unvaccinated children do not threaten the public health of the vaccinated population at school. Therefore mandatory vaccination laws for school attendance should be repealed. Short of that, nonmedical exemptions must be granted in all 50 states.
Quote:Not a very good policy, altho I expect the assumption is that most teachers have either been vaccinated or have already had the usual diseases. I do know that teachers are routinely tested for TB. That's one of the diseases that the USA DOESN'T vaccinate for, altho many other nations do. The USA policy on TB is screening and treatment, not vaccination. And it's not too much to expect that a teacher (or student) who tests positive for TB not have contact with others.
If lawmakers were really concerned about public health at school, they would mandate current vaccination coverage for all teachers and school personnel as well. You can have a never-vaccinated school teacher, but you can't have a never-vaccinated child at school. What kind of double standard is that?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
just like you and Frem want.
Bullshit.
Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
Posted Monday, November 27, 2006 - 11:32
So how about you just shut your pie hole before you embarrass yourself further, moron.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I said quote me you stupid arsehole, not your self, what are you, a fucking retard?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
just like you and Frem want.
Bullshit.Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
Posted Monday, November 27, 2006 - 11:32
So how about you just shut your pie hole before you embarrass yourself further, moron.
And its good saying that, then you go on about how any possible consequence is unfair. You're fine with the consequences as long as there aren't any.
Not allowing your children to pass on contagious diseases is 'unfair'.
Having to pay your own medical bills for preventable disease is 'unfair'.
Dealing with any consequences is unfair, apparently. You evidently like the idea of taking the consequences yourself, just not the practice.
Besides, what hypocricy, you didn't reply to my entire post, just one quote, I guess your going to shut up about me doing the same thing, or you know continue being such a collosal hypocrite.
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
As a matter of fact....
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.
Monday, November 27, 2006 - 11:32
Quote:
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
Monday, November 27, 2006 - 15:24
Quote:
As for responsibility, turn that one on it's head - do you think it's fair for me to pay (cause some of it does indeed come out of my tax dollars here in the US) for the lifelong care of people harmed by vaccinations that are legally mandatory ?
*I* did not make the decision to vacc someone with pre-existing risk factors without seeking alternatives.
So why should I then be stuck with the bill ?
Morally, it works in both directions, or neither.
I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 13:33
Quote:
At no time, under no circumstances, did I say that other folks should foot the bill for someones own, personal, medical decisions - all I have ever said, and continue to say, is that I should not have to foot it for decisions forced upon me by others.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 13:33
Keep diggin, why don't you ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh good, you decided to be a hypocrite. Hows it up there on your high horse with the rest of the idiot hypocrites?
Quote all you like, you say one thing and express another, so the fact you have quotes of you saying you want to deal with your own consequences while obviously not wanting too is hardly surprising.
Saying I'm digging a hole doesn't make it true, just like everything else you say.
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
I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.
I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.
I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.
I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.
======================================
What part of this statement are you not getting ?
Is it written in invisible ink ?
Or is it coming across in a language you do not read ?
You repeatedly, and continually in this entire discussion go on about how I wish to have the decision without the consquences, and I have continually stated in no uncertain terms that this is not the case - and that forcing the decision on me, and the consequences of a decision I did NOT make, or was not legally allowed to me, is idiotic.
And you then continue on saying I wished to have the decision and avoid.. yadda freakin yadda.
I stated my position repeatedly, you distorted it, repeatedly, and continue to do so.
You demanded I dig up evidence, much of which has had to be posted twice to you as you ignored it or didn't get around to looking at it.
Either you're as crazy as PN is, or at this point you're just being malicious.
So which is it ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And then you bitch how every consequence is unfair.
You repeatedly, and continually in this entire discussion go on about how I wish to have the decision without the consquences, and I have continually stated in no uncertain terms that this is not the case - and that forcing the decision on me, and the consequences of a decision I did NOT make, or was not legally allowed to me, is idiotic.
Quote:None of that had been posted before, so this is a blatent lie. You're not even trying. The only thing you had to post twice was stuff I had already looked at but you assumed I couldn't have looked at it because I didn't come to the same conclusion as you. Says more about you than me.
You demanded I dig up evidence, much of which has had to be posted twice to you as you ignored it or didn't get around to looking at it.
Quote:I continually restate my position and you continually distort it. I said as much and then you 'counter-accuse' me of the same thing.
I stated my position repeatedly, you distorted it, repeatedly, and continue to do so.
...
Either you're as crazy as PN is, or at this point you're just being malicious.
Either you're as crazy as PN or you're just being malicious.
Which is it?
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
One of us is nuts.
And you know, I don't think it's me.
I'll be filing you with Zero and Asshat in the future Chit... sorry, I tried to reason with ya, but it just ain't possible.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
I thought I'd start addressing some of your less than honest arguments.
This is the first - you are merely pro-choice.
Perhaps you recognize these words: "This argument rests on the assumptions that the vaccine in question is both effective (confers immunity) and safe (doesn't confer anything else). Those people who refuse vaccines generally do so because they have serious doubts about both assumptions--doubts so serious they are willing to risk contracting the disease."
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
Summary: getting vaccines is more dangerous than disease.
Conclusion: anti-vaccine argument
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It takes two to argue, but you all over, "it's nothing to do with me, it's all their fault, I'm completely innocent!" It's that prevailing attitude of yours which goes part way to showing why, for all you go on, you want someone else to suffer the consequences for your actions. After all it was really their fault wasn't it.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
One of us is nuts.
And you know, I don't think it's me.
I'll be filing you with Zero and Asshat in the future Chit... sorry, I tried to reason with ya, but it just ain't possible.
For an anarchist you sure hate taking responcibillity for your own actions. Three year olds can't do that either.
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:There is a difference between being PERSONALLY "anti-vaccine" and being POLITICALLY anti-vaccine. Obviously people who do not vaccinate are "anti-vaccine" personally--they do not want vaccines for themselves. This is not the same as being politically anti-vaccine, as campaigning for everyone else to not vaccinate.
Originally posted by rue:
Summary: getting vaccines is more dangerous than disease.
Conclusion: anti-vaccine argument
I am obviously "anti-vaccine" personally, and I am here arguing for the right and the freedom to be personally "anti-vaccine." But I am politically PROCHOICE--people should have the right to choose whether they are for or against vaccines on a personal level. My arguments have NOT been to persuade anyone here not to vaccinate, but to allow people to choose to be against vaccines for themselves, or not.
To use the abortion analogy, I am anti-abortion personally (would never have one), but I am prochoice politically (would vote for others' right to choose). I describe my position on abortion as prochoice, because prochoice obviously includes the right to be both for and against abortion.
All right, this IS my last post to you. I am truly tired, so very tired, of all the personal insults and attacks coming from you and Citizen. I have no interest in that kind of mean-spirited debate.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In most other industrialized countries, such as Germany, England, and Japan, there exists no mandatory vaccination policy to attend school. They have never had a problem with the small fraction becoming a large fraction. They've had ups and downs, but nothing that required them to resort to compulsory vaccination laws. And they are just fine.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But what happens if you make vaccination optional and that small fraction becomes a LARGE fraction? Do you re-institute mandatory vaccination if that faction becomes more than X%?
It comes down to this. If vaccines are truly as effective and safe as manufacturers and retailers claim, then most people will use it voluntarily. You don't need to FORCE the majority of folks to use a good product. This has been demonstrated the world over, where most industrialized countries do not have mandatory vaccination laws and continue to have high coverage.
People will only stop using a product if they start to question its effectiveness and safety. And if they have those questions, they should be allowed to ask them, according to the medical ethos of informed consent.
If the PUBLIC debate ever shifts from whether to force a minority to use a product to the merits of the product itself, you have a different sort of problem. If a "large fraction" decides to challenge a product, you have to deal with the political force of the large fraction. Mandatory vaccinations is only an issue when the majority wants to force a minority to conform. If it ever gets to a point where the majority, or even a large fraction, no longer believes in a product to voluntarily use it, they will not support a mandatory vaccination law to force the product on themselves.
Imagine if 40% or 50% of the American public no longer believes in vaccines enough to use them. The mandatory vaccination laws will become repealed anyway, so that won't be the issue. If 40-50% of Americans have already decided they don't want vaccines, then vaccines will not be assumed to be the most effective or safe way to handle these disease. It would be a different climate entirely. Without those assumptions, blaming the unvaccinated as a public health threat will not be a problem. The issue will be to deal with diseases as they occur, if any, and which alternative intervention Americans prefer to deal with their prevention and sequelae.
Quote:And we both know that that the corollary assumption, that they are therefore currently immune, is seriously flawed. The fact is, it is widely known that vaccine-induced immunity doesn't last a lifetime, and these teachers who were vaccinated as preschoolers are most likely not currently immune. It supports the contention that authorities are not as genuinely interested in public health as in universal consumption of vaccines, as often as they can get away with, in the most accessible segments of our society: babies and preschoolers.
altho I expect the assumption is that most teachers have either been vaccinated or have already had the usual diseases
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- Unfortunately, I don't think that populations always come to the most rational decisions. Beta is better than VHS, Linux is better and cheaper than Microsoft, and Blue-Ray is better than HD. Hundreds of millions of people smoke. The Easter Islanders drove themselves to cannibalism through rapcious and totally obvious environmental destruction.
The USA is particularly prone to propaganda. Advertizers know that USAers have the greatest "brand loyalty" and are more easily swayed by commercials. The unvaccinated population is a risk for others, especially in the USA which has the worst health care of all industrialized nations, where people actually die of preventable diseaes.
Quote:
Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough from 1979 to 1996 while testing a new vaccine. In a study of the moratorium period that was published in 1993, Swedish physicians found that 60 percent of the country's children got whooping cough before they were ten. However, close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year during that period.
Boulder, which has the lowest school-wide vaccination rate in Colorado, has one of the highest per capita rates of whooping cough in the United States. .... "At first we called it an outbreak; then we started calling it a sustained outbreak; now we just say it's endemic," Ann Marie Bailey, the county nurse epidemiologist when I visited Boulder last year, told me... From its reservoir in the under-vaccinated population of Boulder pertussis has branched out: neighboring Jefferson and Denver Counties had more cases in 2000 than Boulder did. Some of the people who live near Boulder are angry. "There is a constant presence of whooping cough here, and it's because of Boulder Valley;" says Kathy Keffeler, the chief school nurse for Longmont, a growing city just north of Boulder... In 2000 it killed seventeen people in the United States, including two Colorado babies, both of whom were taken to the hospital too late... Tina Albertson, a pediatric resident who cared for one of the infants, told me "She was a six-week-old girl with a sister and a brother, four and six. The family had chosen not to immunize, and the week she was born, her siblings both had whooping cough. When they're real little, the babies don't whoop--they just stop breathing. This little girl was septic by the time they got her here."
Like most in Boulder, Ann Marie Bailey, the nurse epidemiologist... cedes nonvaccinating parents the right to decide what's best for their children. But she gently points out that they're fooling themselves if they think no one else is affected by their decisions. "We've been able to show very definitely that whooping cough spreads from these pockets in small communities.
http://www.immunize.org/genr.d/issue341.htm
Also
Quote:
The authors measured the impact of children with personal exemptions on community risk. "After adjusting for confounders, the frequency of exemptors in a county was associated with the incidence rate of measles [1.6 times greater risk] and pertussis [1.9 times greater risk] in vaccinated children," they write. Also, "schools with pertussis outbreaks had more exemptors (mean 4.3 percent of students) than schools without outbreaks (1.5 percent of students)," they continue. "At least 11 percent of vaccinated children in measles outbreaks acquired infection through contact with an exemptor."
www.hbns.org/newsrelease/measles12-26-00.cfm
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sick and tired with you always twisting the debate around to "either you agree with me or you're insulting me". No retraction I see. No quote either.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am truly tired, so very tired, of all the personal insults and attacks coming from you and Citizen. I have no interest in that kind of mean-spirited debate.
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:
Originally posted by Canttakesky:
If you could vote on it, would you 1) vote against mandatory vaccination ...
Quote:Hence the phrase, IF YOU COULD VOTE ON IT....
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't get to vote in America...
Quote:I'm glad to know you like the system in Britain. The question remains, do you like the mandatory vaccination system in the USA? Or would you like to see it repealed and changed to a voluntary system like the British?
I'll reiterate I like the system in Britian fine, vaccinations aren't mandatory...
Quote:I DID quote, and I explained I interpreted those quotes. I already said I'll apologize when I see you favoring choice in America, where choice is prohibited by law.
No retraction I see. No quote either.
It is not my fault if you don't read what I quote or what I write.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The point is the question is rather useless because I don't know. You can ask what president I'd vote for, but I don't know that either, probably not Bush, but then I can only really look at foriegn policy, ajnd they've all been pretty bad at that. I might as well ask you "If you could vote in the next general election who would you vote for?"
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Hence the phrase, IF YOU COULD VOTE ON IT....
Quote:I thought that would be implied by saying I liked the British system? I think you'd do well to adopt a more British health care system full stop, not just vaccines. Does that help? Though I thought it was implied by constantly saying that your profit before care system sucked in the previous thread.
I'm glad to know you like the system in Britain. The question remains, do you like the mandatory vaccination system in the USA? Or would you like to see it repealed and changed to a voluntary system like the British?
I got pulled over coals because I apparently didn't let you guys speak from a position of experience in respect to your countries of origin. Isn't it a might hipocritical to then expect me to speak from a position of experience in respect to your country of origin?
Quote:You never said anything about America, plus see the preceeding paragraph. I have to play everything your way or I'm entirely a Nazi, is that it? Good take.
I DID quote, and I explained I interpreted those quotes. I already said I'll apologize when I see you favoring choice in America, where choice is prohibited by law.
It is not my fault if you don't read what I quote or what I write.
However I apologise that that quote was grossely ambiguous, I was talking about your insinuation that I insulted you, which I'd like you to quote because I don't remember doing.
As to your accusation of not reading what you've posted, well given you've ignored most of what I've said prefering to pigeon hole me because I don't agree that vaccines are more dangerous than disease, because they're not perfect nor one vaccine combats all (I refrence the idea that the smallpox vaccine hasn't worked because it hasn't erradicated monkeypox, a wholly different disease) I find it hard to believe you've read what I quote or what I write and that is hardly my fault.
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:Well, not really. The issue here is not really health care, but whether children should be prohibited from attending school by law unless they have been vaccinated. Do you support this prohibition, which currently exists in the USA, or do you oppose it?
Originally posted by citizen:
Erm, I think you'd do well to adopt a more British health care system full stop, not just vaccines. Does that help?
I have tried several attempts at asking this question, but I feel you still haven't given me a straight answer. Maybe you're only prochoice in Britain, and anti-choice in the States. I don't know.
As far as the insults go,
Quote:I cannot find any instance where you flat out said you are NOT anti-choice. You imply you are prochoice (preferably with restrictions on choice), but stop short of saying it outright. I am still not sure I was completely wrong to say you are anti-choice. Then you called me a "knee jerk reactionary" who pulls out a crucifix.
So you tell me, is saying my position is something I've flatout said it is not ...
I saw a quote being misrepresented, and I said so, and you bunch of knee jerk reactionaries pulled out the crucifix, then imply I'm a facist, bravo.
Quote:Many of the insults were actually directed at Frem and whoever else you meant. Even if not directed at me, I lose interest in arguments that attack people rather than argue a position. There are more quotes, but that gives you an idea.
Oh good, you decided to be a hypocrite. Hows it up there on your high horse with the rest of the idiot hypocrites?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because you won't settle for answer from me, you'll only settle for an answer from an American, which is what I can't give you. And why should I? You and frem went off at me for saying your system wasn't the only one because you were talking about your system, then when I talk about our system you go off at me for not talking in reference to yours. Does this not strike you as at least a bit hypocritical? You seem unprepared to look at things from another perspective yet unprepared to let others look at things from their own perspective.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Well, not really. The issue here is not really health care, but whether children should be prohibited from attending school by law unless they have been vaccinated. Do you support this prohibition, which currently exists in the USA, or do you oppose it?
I have tried several attempts at asking this question, but I feel you still haven't given me a straight answer. Maybe you're only prochoice in Britain, and anti-choice in the States. I don't know.
But to verbosely reiterate what I have already said, four or five times now:
In Britain Vaccines are not mandatory.
In Britain un-vaccinated children can attend school.
I think the British Healthcare system is vastly superior in both practice and ideology to the American system.
In fact I rather think I did answer your later question, which I remind you was:
Quote:Which sounds to me like "Do you think the American system should be more like the British?"
do you like the mandatory vaccination system in the USA? Or would you like to see it repealed and changed to a voluntary system like the British?
To which I replied:
Quote:Which sounds to me like "Yes".
I think you'd do well to adopt a more British health care system full stop, not just vaccines.
Paraphrasing:
You: "Do you think the American system should be more like the British?"
Me: "Yes"
Where's the problem?
Quote:It seems nothing short of saying 'CTS is always right about everything' would suffice.
As far as the insults go,
...
I cannot find any instance where you flat out said you are NOT anti-choice. You imply you are prochoice (preferably with restrictions on choice), but stop short of saying it outright. I am still not sure I was completely wrong to say you are anti-choice. Then you called me a "knee jerk reactionary" who pulls out a crucifix.
I was replying to the accusation that I was a fascist, so it's okay to call me a fascist as long as I say nothing back is it? Please look at some of the things I was replying to before accusing me of being overly insulting.
Quote:Replying to insults directed at me, you conveniently fail to notice. It's good to see you'll give frem, and 'whoever else' a free pass because they are 'on your side'.
Many of the insults were actually directed at Frem and whoever else you meant. Even if not directed at me, I lose interest in type of insult. There are more quotes, but that gives you an idea.
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:Agreed. However, in a democracy, the minority leadership who knows better try to persuade the public, not force the public. When the majority is forced against its will, even for its own protection, the system becomes a dictatorship. Obviously, such force is a system of rule that I disapprove of.
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- Unfortunately, I don't think that populations always come to the most rational decisions.
Quote:It is such correlations that persuade me that vaccines have some effectiveness. Just how much effectiveness is unknown from such observations. Also, the whole subclinical disease effect needs to always be considered a confounder in such correlations. It is very possible for pertussis infection to be underdiagnosed while the vaccine was in use, because no one had symptoms. Then when the vaccine is withdrawn, symptoms reappear, looking like a huge resurgence of infection, when it might have only been a huge resurgence of symptoms. We just don't know, because no one does good research.
Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough from 1979 to 1996 while testing a new vaccine. In a study of the moratorium period that was published in 1993, Swedish physicians found that 60 percent of the country's children got whooping cough before they were ten.
Quote:These are beliefs and statements of angry people who find it easy to blame unvaccinated people. But is the blame accurate? Who knows? There are no controls and no systematic study of other cities. This is what is called "anecdotal" evidence. It can be persuasive, but it is not enough to base legislation on. If one found a correlation between the city with the highest vaccine coverage and a high autism rate, one would not legislate a ban on vaccines to prevent autism based on that correlation alone.
From its reservoir in the under-vaccinated population of Boulder pertussis has branched out: neighboring Jefferson and Denver Counties had more cases in 2000 than Boulder did. Some of the people who live near Boulder are angry. "There is a constant presence of whooping cough here, and it's because of Boulder Valley;" says Kathy Keffeler, the chief school nurse for Longmont, a growing city just north of Boulder...
Quote:That is a tragic story. I am sure unvaccinated kids do die from disease. I am likewise sure that vaccinated kids also die from disease they were vaccinated against, or die from a vaccine itself, and that is just as tragic. But what does that mean? Again, without controls and systematic study, it is anecdotal evidence, and people tend to interpret that kind of evidence based on one's existing beliefs.
The family had chosen not to immunize, and the week she was born, her siblings both had whooping cough. When they're real little, the babies don't whoop--they just stop breathing. This little girl was septic by the time they got her here."
Quote:She is entitled to her opinion. But where is the very definite proof? Again, one needs to consider that it is easy to point the finger at unvaccinated kids who have very apparent symptoms for the spread of disease as opposed to others with subclinical disease. How did they find out who is actually spreading what? (BTW, the link didn't work.)
But she gently points out that they're fooling themselves if they think no one else is affected by their decisions. "We've been able to show very definitely that whooping cough spreads from these pockets in small communities.
Quote:First, they don't say how they calculated these risks. After reading many such studies, I have found they never explain how they "adjust" for confounders, which means you just have to trust the authors that those numbers are valid. Second, there is no mention of statistical significance. You can massage ratios in whatever direction
After adjusting for confounders, the frequency of exemptors in a county was associated with the incidence rate of measles [1.6 times greater risk] and pertussis [1.9 times greater risk] in vaccinated children,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:These are yes or no questions. But you won't answer yes or no.
Originally posted by citizen:
Where's the problem?
I asked about a mandatory vaccination system, and you answered about a health care system. Maybe those two things are the same in your mind, but maybe they are not. I don't know. I frankly do not know how to interpret your answers. For all I know, you may believe in the principle behind mandatory vaccinations, but you are willing to compromise and allow vaccination choice in exchange for nationalized health care. I don't know.
This is what I know. 1) You are prochoice in Britain. 2) You favor Americans having a health care system more like the British.
This is what I don't know. 1) Do you oppose mandatory vaccinations in the USA as a requirement for school entry? 2) Would you support having nonmedical exemptions in order for unvaccinated kids to attend school in all 50 states?
Again, these are yes or no questions. If you actually answered yes or no, I'd have a much better idea where you stood. Or you could qualify, "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." That would help too.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's just the point, they aren't yes or no questions, in fact in real life there are very few yes or no answers. Your questions are analogous to me asking you "do you think less people should/would get vaccinated" and demanding a yes or no answer, with the caveat that if you answer yes you're defiantly anti-vaccine.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
These are yes or no questions. But you won't answer yes or no.
I'm not entirely sure why accepting un-vaccinated children being barred entry to state school would automatically make me anti-choice just because you say so and it's a consequence you don't want to bear.
Quote:No I answered that the vaccination system as part of an overarching health care system, I feel this was very clear. Given that most of the problems people have had so far with vaccines stem directly from the American profit before care big pharma model I'd say that my answer which includes an opinion on health care (rather than excluding vaccines which I did not do) is actually more pertinent.
I asked about a mandatory vaccination system, and you answered about a health care system.
Quote:Evidently, but I did paraphrase one quite succinctly.
I frankly do not know how to interpret your answers.
Quote:Or maybe I'm pro-choice but I realise that when living in society one can't always get one's own way.
or all I know, you may believe in the principle behind mandatory vaccinations, but you are willing to compromise and allow vaccination choice in exchange for nationalized health care. I don't know.
Quote:Which logically concludes with pro-choice in America no?
This is what I know. 1) You are prochoice in Britain. 2) You favor Americans having a health care system more like the British.
Quote:Well this isn't actually a yes or no question, it depends on a great many things. In the situation you describe within the US I'd have to say yes, because stopping all access to any schooling on vaccination grounds and to then make having no access illegal is ridiculous.
This is what I don't know. 1) Do you oppose mandatory vaccinations in the USA as a requirement for school entry?
Quote:Well yes, but whether those would stretch to "I think the saucer people use it to control peoples minds" is doubtful. What I mean is that not everything you can invent should be a valid non medical excuse.
2) Would you support having nonmedical exemptions in order for unvaccinated kids to attend school in all 50 states?
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
Well, Citizen, thanks for finally answering my questions. "Yes, but..." is good enough for me.
If I understand your position correctly, you are anti-unvaccination, pro-universal-vaccination, and yet prochoice in that you object to forcing vaccination by legally withholding public or private schooling. To use the abortion analogy, that would be like someone who is anti-abortion for everyone (in objecting to the use of abortion in general), but is prochoice in not wanting to legally prohibit abortion. I mistook the anti- position for an anti-choice position.
So, I humbly apologize for mischaracterizing your position as anti-choice. I further concede the point that I made the same mistake I accused you guys of making, which is to confuse a personal position for a political/legal one. So I extend apologies to Rue and Sig as well for being so harsh with you when you mistook my position as anti-vaccine.
Since you clarified your position and corrected me, I will no longer characterize you as anti-choice. I hope you, Rue, and Sig can extend me the same courtesy and no longer characterize me as anti-vaccine, after I likewise clarified my position. (I do not even hold an anti-vaccine position for everyone or in general, only for myself and my family.)
I actually commend you, Cit, for feeling so strongly about this issue, and yet still respect the right of individual choice. That's actually remarkable.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree. I think I respect Citizen's stance on this issue much more now.
My only argument is that if I don't want vaccinations because the Flying Spagetti Monster told me they were evil, that should be good enough to get out of them. This is my body and it's none of their damn business why I would choose not to put any of their concoctions (that I must pay for) in it.
The responsibility to convince me to get vaccinations without resorting to cohersion lies with the dealers.
------------------------------
I live in Wisconsin now and they do not have laws here, as they do in Illinois, stating that it is mandatory to have liability car insurance if you drive. The end result, obviously, is that liability insurance in Wisconsin is much cheaper than it is in Illinois where they made it mandatory. When government does not meddle, free trade is allowed to take place and the market then decides the going rate for things.
When does it stop? Who's to say if this passed that the drug companies could one day find a way to make mood/behavioral altering drugs mandatory by law? One such as Phillip K. Dick might have imagined a world in the future where laws such as mandatory vaccines and mandatory schooling lead to a future where drug companies would be well within their ability to effectively charge the populace into debt for these mandatory vaccinations and drugs so no man could ever hope to create his own business and get out from under the debt, thereby enslaving mankind to the system. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- You're overlooking facts that don't fit in with your mind-set. The facts are that populations near highly unvaccinated ones tend to get those communicable diseases at higher rates that populations that aren't near unvaccinated ones. The factors that aren't controlled such as income and education actually tend to work in vaccination favor, because it is generally the affluent who do NOT vaccinate and the poorer who do. The poor simply don't have the time, resources, or energy to fight the system.
As far as "the system" being a dictatorship: We are "forced" not to murder. We are "forced" not to run red lights. There is a system of punishment and control that "makes" us do things we don't want to do like paying taxes and working at crappy jobs with no security and having to deal with unresponsive insuracne companies. "The system" just allowed continued massive mercury pollution from cement kilns and coal-fired power plants. Why aren't you protesting these other things? Why stick at vaccination?
When you run a red light, you deprive someone of the choice to drive safely through a green. If you kill someone, you deprive them of the choice to have a life. Don't you think that your "choice" takes away from the ability of others to make a choice? That last paper that I looked up just made me think that mandatory vaccination for school attendance is a good thing, and that's probably where I will land.
BTW- there have been countless statistical studies looking for a correlation between vaccines and autism, and they haven't found one yet. But they HAVE found correlations between autism and mercury. (Also autism and VIP, autism and father's age, etc.) Since vaccines are such a small source of mercury (fish is the big one) we prolly should be aiming at reducing mercury pollution.
However, I agree that "the system" needs fixing. The first problem is that we have a miserable failure of a health system. I think that part of the reason why the USA pushes vaccinations so hard is not because the pharmas makes such a big profit off it (they don't) but because it's seen as the CHEAPEST way to obtain lower disease rates. If we didn't vaccinate, we'd need a health surveillance system. We'd need universal medical coverage to treat the ill, whether they were rich or poor, so that nobody would die of pertussis. We'd need for insurance companies not to take a 30% whack out of our health-care dollars every time they pass thru the system. In other words, we'd need a well-funded governmental single-payer system.
We need a research system that is not funded by the pharmas. We need a good reporting system for vaccination after-effects. One of the simplest ways to do this is simply to have the vaccine administrator sign a statement that the recipient was in good health and neurologically normal at the time of vaccination... that would require an exam to rule out obvious illnesses. We need citizen involvement in the rule-making.
I acknowledge that there are many things wrong with the heatlh-care system in general and the vaccination system in particular. But even with that, most vaccines work. (The flu vaccine? Prolly not) If effort is to be expended in fighting the system, I think it should head in a more fundamental direction.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME