Manadatory vaccination (Part 3)

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 05:16
VIEWED: 3424
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, December 29, 2006 4:05 PM

The last couple psts went like this....

SIGNY:

Quote:
When making medical decisions, the first thing I look at is the risks and benefits of doing something versus the risks and benefits of doing nothing. (Most people don't realize that there are risks to doing nothing.) I look for ways to understand when risks are imminent (such as blood tests) and for ways to minimize them. If I initiate a treatment, I try to do so gradually. I keep a journal to help track long-term changes. But if there is no question whatsoever on the safety of a treatment- in this case, a vaccine- then my decision to vaccinate (or not) would be a pocketbook decision because there's no downside healthwise. At $10, it would be a no-brainer. At $1000 it would require some thought.

CTS

Quote:
Right, exactly. I've gambled plenty trying out different things in health food stores. They're cheap though, and I am relatively certain there are no health risks (low dose vitamins, minerals, foods). With herbs, I am a bit more careful.

So to answer your question directly, if vaccines were 100% safe, I would probably vaccinate if the cost per dose were about the same as dinner for two at a moderate restaurant (about $30 or less). But that would have to be the cost of the product, not my co-pay or the part not subsidized by government, or any partial price like that. Given what I have seen in the studies I've read, I personally and tentatively conclude (and I could very well be wrong because the data is so scanty and distorted) that vaccines are effective for some people, but for much fewer people than claimed--more like 20-45% rather than 80-95%. So for me, given my interpretation of the data, the questionable benefits are not worth a high price. I'll pay something for it, but not too much. I feel a price that is too high is a con exploiting parental fears, and is objectionable on principle.

www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25661

My understanding is that the actual cost of the typical dose is fairly low, in the realm of $25-$40 for a routine vaccine like DTaP or MMR (altho newer ones like HPV cost $100+). Here is a price list: www.cdc.gov/nip/vfc/cdc_vac_price_list.htm

Cost does not appear to be a big issue. Although I'm sure that the pharmas are making SOME money on these products I don't think that they're big-ticket items like Viagra or Lipitor. To put this in context, I spend far more each year on fish oil, magnesium, and potassium (somewhere in the realm of $1000 for a family of three) than I do on vaccines.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

RUE

Friday, December 29, 2006 8:41 PM

CTS,

I just wanted to carry over a few unresolved issues.

The first is your reversal on herd immunity; and the questions of whether or not you know what herd immunity is, how it is supposed to work, and what are the required vaccination rates for herd immunity to be in effect.

At issue are your straw-man arguments saying herd immunity 'doesn't work' the way 'people' say it does.

However, you don't come up with any links, or quotes, or even summaries of what 'people' say about herd immunity.

So, what do YOU think 'people' say about herd immunity?

Quote:
Those are the people protected by "herd immunity." Now I can go into detail about how exemptors do not threaten herd immunity and such, but that is a different thread.

Now there is debate on how exactly herd immunity works and if it works at all. But even assuming it works

the small percentage who experience vaccine failure should have been protected by herd immunity in a highly vaccinated population. They weren't.

Vaccines and/or herd immunity DO fail in unexpected ways.

herd immunity is unpredictable and doesn't work the way people think it does

People choosing not to vaccinate has never been in large enough numbers to threaten herd immunity.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, December 30, 2006 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My understanding is that the actual cost of the typical dose is fairly low, in the realm of $25-$40 for a routine vaccine like DTaP or MMR (altho newer ones like HPV cost $100+). Here is a price list:

Thanks for the price list. So, IF vaccines were 100% safe, I'd probably get some of these and not others.

IF. I'll address vaccine risks next, when I have time. But I am having less and less time to spend in front of the computer, so I might not be reliable. I apologize ahead of time.

I wanted to share a link on Immunization Policy. I don't necessarily agree with everything this guy (a mathematician) says, but he summarizes some good points about conflicts of interest and other policy flaws. For example,...

Quote:
Do they have any monetary conflicts of interest?

Yes. There are laws against it, but they are routinely waived. Vaccine officials sometimes change their positions after payments from vaccine makers, as explained in the Money magazine article.

The US Congress (House Committee on Government Reform) recently held hearings on the subject, and discovered that those who voted for the rotavirus vaccine at the FDA and CDC had a financial stake in it. See the June 15, 2000 statements and staff report. Eg, ACIP member Paul Offit admitted under oath that he is actually a paid lobbyist in behalf of a vaccine manufacturer.

http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

To jumpstart into potential vaccination risks, let's start with the ingredients of vaccines.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/June2001/VaccineIngredients.h
tm

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/appendices/B/excipient-table-
1.pdf

Without going into correlations in human populations (which are horribly messy, scientifically speaking), we can start by looking at ingredients and their individual toxicities.

The question naturally arises, if these ingredients are not desirable by themselves, what are the risks of making a cocktail of them and injecting that cocktail directly into the bloodstream of infants? The amounts injected are minute, that is true, but what do we know of the cumulative effects of dozens of doses of these cocktails over the first years of a child's life?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
--Will Rogers (1879 - 1935), quoted in Saturday Review, Aug. 25, 1962

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:32 PM

Rue - Do us a favor and see if you can find a concise, simplified explaination of what "herd immunity" is and how it works, yadda yadda - so that the principles being discussed, agreed or disagreed on are fairly solid and we layman have some clue what the heck is being discussed ?

We talkin statistical averages or what ?

At least a solid basic outline would be nice.

-F

RUE

Monday, January 1, 2007 10:16 AM

Hi Frem -

The idea behind herd immunity is that if enough people are immune, a disease won't be able to propagate through a population. That way those who aren't immune face little risk of catching that disease.

The numbers change depending on how 'catchy' a disease is. The more catchy, the higher a percentage of people need to be vaccinated, and the other way around.

For something very catchy, like measles, more than 95% have to be vaccinated for there to be herd immunity. For something a little less catchy, like polio, only 70 - 80% need to be vaccinated to prevent propagation.

I have a list of links but they're on my other computer. I'll post them when I get there some time tomorrow.

PS If I remember correctly, 'herd immunity' was dicovered by frugal farmers who realized they didn't need to vaccinate every animal to get good protection.

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL !!! : silly hat, stringers, and noisemakers :

RUE

Monday, January 1, 2007 9:57 PM

Hi FremD

The first link is to a google search from edu sites on herd immunity. Almost any one of the sites has useful information.

The next three links are specific ones pulled from the search. The first is general and written for the public. The second is technical and fairly complete. The third is a power-point which just reiterates some information. To specifically find 'herd-immunity' just edit/search, grep or whatever you use and look for 'herd'.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22herd+immunity%22+vaccinati
on+rate+polio+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search

http://www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/parenting/c64.html

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2080.htm

http://www.medmicro.wisc.edu/undergraduate/courses/554/ppt/10

http://www.rhodes.edu/biology/glindquester/viruses/vaccines.html

Information not found in the above sites:
Infectivity "is a measure of the ability of a disease agent to establish itself in the host."

As an example, if I were to take a ml of blood from a person infected with HepB and dilute it in a municipal-size swimming pool of water, and expose 100 people to the water, all 100 would become infected. If I did the same with HIV, no one would become infected (source: Laboratory Medicine - not available to the public). So HepB is more 'infective' than HIV.

So something which is highly infective infects nearly everyone who comes in contact with it. That's why vaccination rates have to be high to establish herd immunity in those cases, otherwise the disease will propagate through the population. But if there is a disease that has low infectivity, only a fraction of exposures will result in infection. So the chances of it propagating are lower, and vaccination rates can be lower to establish herd immunity.

Also, disease, infection, agent and other terms are sometimes used interchangeably. In common use, disease might mean the agent that causes that illness (like the measles virus), or the illness itself. But to be more accurate, causative agent should be used to talk about the bacteria, virus etc. Attachment is the start of any colonization or infection. Colonization is having that agent in or on you. Infection means having the pathogen persist in or on you. It's possible to be infected and not be sick (eg as a carrier). DISEASE means being infected and taking on damage from it.

One of the sites very clearly states that vaccines prevent DISEASE, not infection. That's an important distinction that gets lost in the shuffle.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:15 AM

I think that there's waaaaaaay too many of us here as it is. We've thrown nature on it's bottom and we're bleeding the planet dry to support our insane, unchecked procreation rate. I'm all about space exploration and expansion, but until that happens, we're going to have some real problems here if we keep breeding at the rate we do without allowing nature's checks and balances.

The only people that aren't having any kids anymore, on a mass scale, is the white, public school educated demographic. We grow up wanting our toys and nice houses like our parents wanted, and pass up on having 5 or six kids like our parents or grandparents had. That will change, of course, and people of all color and background will have less offspring as we become more integrated as a species (probably the only pro I see about the inevitable One World Government we'll probably all see as a result of our "War" on terror).

I say let nature do it's job. I'm one of the ones that won't be vaccinated, so I feel entitled to say it. If I'm wrong and I'm not strong enough to survive on my own, then I will go with no regrets.

Aren't you scientists? Don't you believe in survival of the fittest?

I happen to be of the school of thought that God and Evolution and, subsequently, Survival of the Fittest can all work hand in hand. I haven't made up my mind what I actually believe in yet, but I see no reason that they all can't co-exist.

Still not going to get me to take a shot by law though.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:32 AM

"I think that there's waaaaaaay too many of us here as it is."
YES

"pass up on having 5 or six kids ... as we become more integrated as a species"
NO. That will probably happen as a result of the demographic transition. Though whether planet earth can wait for the haves to let sumthin sumthin trickle down to the have nots is in serious doubt.

"One World Government"
YES We may have that already in the form of elites at the head of multinationals.

"I say let nature do it's job."
Our rulers don't seem interested in long-term human survival anyway.

"Don't you believe in survival of the fittest?"
What scientists believe in is survival of the best adapted to the environment of the day. That might mean fast reproduction, high mutation rates plus short life-span, eating stuff nothing else eats, living under conditions nothing else lives under, cooperation, reasoning skills ... It doesn't mean head to head gladitorial competition, or brutish zero-sum scenarios. Not until we exhaust critical resources, anyway.

In which case neither of us is slated for survival as we are genetically cash-deficient. :ironic:

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I think that there's waaaaaaay too many of us here as it is."
YES

Hey look! We agree on something Rue!

Quote:
"pass up on having 5 or six kids ... as we become more integrated as a species"
NO. That will probably happen as a result of the demographic transition. Though whether planet earth can wait for the haves to let sumthin sumthin trickle down to the have nots is in serious doubt.{/B]

I think that's more or less what I was getting at, perhaps in a more round-about way. I'm assuming, of course, that your use of elipses were meant to include the statement in its entirity without reposting it, rather than omiting what you felt was unimportant.

Quote:

"One World Government"
YES We may have that already in the form of elites at the head of multinationals.

"I say let nature do it's job."
Our rulers don't seem interested in long-term human survival anyway.

Man Rue... I think we agree on a lot more than we think we agree on.

Quote:
"Don't you believe in survival of the fittest?"
What scientists believe in is survival of the best adapted to the environment of the day. That might mean fast reproduction, high mutation rates plus short life-span, eating stuff nothing else eats, living under conditions nothing else lives under, cooperation, reasoning skills ... It doesn't mean head to head gladitorial competition, or brutish zero-sum scenarios. Not until we exhaust critical resources, anyway.

Point taken. Shame on me for being general about a topic which I'm sure you know much more than I do.

Human behaviour seems to follow that pattern you describe here. For example, my aunt who has chronic smokers cough and chest pains. She was hospitalized and wasn't allowed to smoke the entire two weeks she was admitted. While there, she visited the church area they had (it's a Catholic hospital), and she spoke with God several times in what I could imagine had been the first time in many many years. She swore up and down that she wouldn't smoke anymore, yet, when she was released, the very first thing she did was get a pack and light up.

On a broader scale, people won't actively protest the war like the 60's and 70's because there is so many pleasurable distractions for us everyday on top of the fact that our kids aren't being drafted. I think it's pretty safe to say that if they reconstituted the draft you would see protesters everywhere again.

I am positive we will deplete this wonderful planet of all of its resources and beauty before we make steps to conserve and protect or planet and even actively explore space for other habitable planets. I would love to lay all of this blame on BigGov, but the truth is, I enjoy things such as filling my tank with gas and driving wherever I want, and I'm sure I'd rather throw away dirty diapers rather than wash a cloth one if I ever had kids. We've had life made here, particularly in America, for quite a while now. I don't think it would be easy for most to adjust to life the way it was a 100 or so years ago. Of course there would be those who would adapt much quicker and more efficiently than others, and in a world like that the would make the most attractive mates. The "Metrosexual" would be dead.

Anyways.... given this much more specific definition of "survival of the best adapted to the enviornment of the day", where do you think this leaves the future of the planet when you're talking about preventing nature from taking it's course in a world which is already overpopulated, with no real prospects of voluntary population control on a world-wide scale any time in the near future? As the self proclaimed smartest species to have ever existed on planet Earth, wouldn't one suppose that maybe we would have more than a fleeting interest in what life will be like for our great grandchildren if we continue down this path?

I think I just discovered today that along with my arguements against legislated vaccinations I really believe that, in t

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 4:23 AM

You'd find this lil bit amusing, Jack...

Concerning survival of the fittest, in my youthful school days I read a story that left me wondering about something, and thus proceeded to duplicate the feat - that being, build a small, human-lethal catapult with naught more than one sharp rock to start with.

Took a while, but as long as the basic principles are understood well, you can build tools to build more tools to build just about any damned thing, the only limits being ingenuity, availability of materials and time.

One of my friends is a radical post-apocaplyicta (they call it TETOWAKI, I think ?) nutter of sorts, and I pointed out that one smart guy, with one sharp rock, is all it takes to rebuild society in time, and run it right down the hill into the same destructive social flaws which will wreck it again, and again, and again, because we humans never learn, it's just not in our nature - any study of history will show this.

Anyhows, while some of us like our creature comforts, not all of us are helpless without em, and it's really worth learning at least some simple basics... an amusing, interesting, and educational use of your time, I would think.

If you've got a back yard, go ahead and try, start with one sharp rock, build a forge, make some charcoal, and see if you can't make a decent hunting spear - get in touch with your primitive roots.. might help ya understand why humanity is so very muffed up, if ya think about it.

Thanks for the herd-immunity links, Rue...
I'll still with Jack on the whole legally mandated thing, and in all honesty, the more study put into this, it seems these things are less and less effective then they have been advertised as, really.

-Frem

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE