Do Not Get Vaccinated!

Off Topic
41

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
SpookMayest wrote:
Hi, being a biology major, I am aware of the complexities of the immune system.

I’m way to young to be calling anyone a dumb kid, but since Rainjack isn’t here anymore…

Are you a Doctor? Do you specialize in Immunology? Virology?

No, you’re a student majoring in biology. You maybe aware of the tip of the iceberg, but the rest is far beyond your comprehension.[/quote]

Does it really matter whether or not she is a doctor? People call Moulden who is clearly quite accomplished a “quack”, like how much proof do you want? On one hand you have someone who is clearly very educated telling you one thing and on the other you have people no where near his level saying the same thing, exactly who do you want to hear this from?

42

[quote]Soccerstr078 wrote:
SpookMayest wrote:
Hi, being a biology major, I am aware of the complexities of the immune system. That does not make me anymore likely to get vaccinated. Never said I don’t think we should stop giving them. It’s a personal choice on my part as it is for everyone else. I’m simply representing one side of the matter as a non-vaccinated person.

Hi, being a neuroscience major, I am aware of the complexities of the entire body. One thing that I have learned is that people who do not get vaccinated put everyone they know at risk for the illness (even the vaccinated ones) because vaccines are about 95% effective. I am actually very happy when I hear that people who don’t live near me aren’t getting vaccinated. The world needs a good population curbing and you are doing us all a favor. You don’t deserve to get lectured about the importance of vaccines; you deserve a reward. Your trophy is in the mail, but hopefully it gets there before the swine flu does.[/quote]

Full of Win.

43

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Young Mother: We’re not vaccinating.

[Baby giggles and coos]

Young Mother: [Takes a toy frog and starts to make frog sounds]
Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit. [Giggles]

[Baby smiles and giggles too]

House: Think they don’t work?

Young Mother: I think some multinational pharmaceutical company wants
me to think they work. Pad their bottom line.

House: Mmmm. May I? [He takes the frog and starts to do the gribbit
noise with the baby]

Young Mother: [Whispered] Sure.

House: Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit. [The baby laughs] All natural no
dies. That’s a good business: all-natural children’s toys. Those toy
companies, they don’t arbitrarily mark up their frogs. They don’t lie
about how much they spend in research and development. The worst a toy
company can be accused of is making a really boring frog.

[Young Mother laughs and so does House. The baby giggles again]

House: Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit. You know another really good
business? Teeny tiny baby coffins. You can get them in frog green or
fire engine red. Really. The antibodies in yummy mummy only protect
the kid for 6 months, which is why these companies think they can
gouge you. They think that you’ll spend whatever they ask to keep your
kid alive. Want to change things? Prove them wrong. A few hundred
parents like you decide they’d rather let their kid die then cough up
40 bucks for a vaccination, believe me, prices will drop REALLY fast.
Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit, gribbit, gribbit.

[/quote]

That was awesome. Best post in this thread.

44

[quote]Soccerstr078 wrote:
Are you also against Gardasil which prevents cervical cancer? 12,000 females are diagnosed every year and 4,000 die from cervical cancer. We should probably go against everything that scientists do to prolong life.[/quote]

Gardasil is said to protect against 4 HPV strains that are associated with cervical cancer. There are 12 other high risk strains, and over 100 HPV strains total, that the vaccine doesn’t necessarily protect against. Gardasil is not a cervical cancer vaccine, it is an HPV vaccine that could reduce the risk of cervical cancer because of the link between HPV and cancer.

I’m all for getting vaccinated against things like MMR, but at $350-400 for the Gardasil shots, no studies on the long term safety of the drug, and people pushing to make it a required vaccine for young women, you have to wonder whose best interest is in mind and who is benefiting from this drug.

45

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
Soccerstr078 wrote:
Are you also against Gardasil which prevents cervical cancer? 12,000 females are diagnosed every year and 4,000 die from cervical cancer. We should probably go against everything that scientists do to prolong life.

Gardasil is said to protect against 4 HPV strains that are associated with cervical cancer. There are 12 other high risk strains, and over 100 HPV strains total, that the vaccine doesn’t necessarily protect against. Gardasil is not a cervical cancer vaccine, it is an HPV vaccine that could reduce the risk of cervical cancer because of the link between HPV and cancer.

I’m all for getting vaccinated against things like MMR, but at $350-400 for the Gardasil shots, no studies on the long term safety of the drug, and people pushing to make it a required vaccine for young women, you have to wonder whose best interest is in mind and who is benefiting from this drug. [/quote]

I am a fence sitter when it comes to vaccination. I believe that some are warranted (DPT) and others are either not (chickenpox), or at the very least, not well studied at this time in order to recommend to the masses (Gardasil). I have also suffered what myself and my GP believed to be a fairly severe neurological reaction to the Hep B vaccine so my opinion of vaccines in general may have been colored by my experience.

But I just wanted to share a report that I came across the other day, I hope you find it as disturbing as I did. It certainly speaks to the point that buckeyegirl made…

Novartis Says It Won’t Give Poor Free H1N1 Vaccines

LONDON (Reuters) Jun 15 - Swiss drugs company Novartis will not give free vaccines against H1N1 flu to poor countries, though it will consider discounts, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

“If you want to make production sustainable, you have to create financial incentives,” the FT quoted Novartis Chief Executive Daniel Vasella as saying in an early edition of Monday’s paper.

The director-general of the World Health Organisation, Margaret Chan, has called for drugs companies to show solidarity with poor countries as they develop vaccines against the pandemic H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu.

As well as Novartis, U.S. company Baxter International and Europe’s Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline and Solvay are working on vaccines.

H1N1 has infected around 30,000 people globally, mostly in North America, though there have been few deaths outside Mexico and the United States. Europe suffered its first death on Sunday after a patient with pre-existing health problems died in Scotland.

46

[quote]Gabe299 wrote:
influenza kills 36,000 people annually vaccines kill 0. Think we should stop giving them? When was the last time you saw a kid with polio in an iron lung? Never. Polio was pretty common when my parenst were kids. [/quote]

More evidence from the Mayo Clinic that flu vaccines may not be good:

http://www.simplygreen.co.za/featured-articles/articles/the-flu-shot:-kids-who-get-it-are-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized.html

47

If I catch Autism I’m going to Vegas. And Spook ur kinda hot.

48

[quote]Soccerstr078 wrote:
because vaccines are about 95% effective.[/quote]

This is B.S. 95 percent is not even close. That is why multiple boosters are needed for many vaccines. Also - the flu vaccine is only good for “last years” strain…I think you should find a new major dumb ass.

49

I don’t watch t.v., thus I have no fear of the swine flu. I work with little nose picking, booger eating disease factories. My whiteblood cell count is unfathomably high.

50

Wow, yet another thread here where people talk past each other, call each other names, and assume that one must take one of two extreme positions on some issue.

So for this topic my choices seem to be either that (1) ALL vaccines must be taken or your stupid or that (2) ALL vaccines are worthless and can only cause harm.

hmmm… like spook I think I’ll pick something a bit more in the middle, but perhaps I lean a tiny bit more towards (1) then she does.

My mostly uneducated view on vaccines is that some, say like MMR, certainly should be gotten. Clearly the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. Others though seem to be a bit silly. For instance, I’m told they vaccinate babies for chickenpox now? Really? Perhaps I’m just ignorant on death statistics for chickenpox, but this seems like overkill. I had chickenpox as a child, and well, most people I know have had it too. We’re all still ok, I guess? As for things like the flu, it seems like unless you’re in a risk category they is a bit much as well. At 21 why would I get vaccinated for the flu? Now I could possibly see being vaccinated for some new, more deadly strain of the flue, but my general impression is that swine flue isn’t really a big threat. So I won’t be getting a swine flu vaccine, but that’s not because I all vaccine’s are bad, but just that in this case the benefits don’t outweigh the risks. As for boosters on some vaccines, I was vaccinated for whooping cough when I was a baby. I’m told that vaccine is only good for about 10 years or so, and wouldn’t you know it I got whooping cough when I was around 18. Now whooping cough sucked–water on the lungs, I coughed heavily for a month and then lightly off and on for another, but again in the end I was no worse for wear. Anti-biotics saved the day.

Another tid bit to consider is that from what I’ve read the US has the largest vaccination schedule of any developed country. Since the 1980’s the number of vaccine’s given to baby’s in tripled from around a dozen to around three dozen? Something like that. While at the same time most European counties still only vaccinate on the older and smaller schedule. I’m not sure what this means, but it also makes me doubt I need every single vaccine the can possibly shoot me up with.

So anyway, the point is that clearly there are some side effects to vaccines, and possibly even servre ones in a few individuals. I certainly don’t buy the line that all vaccines are harmless and that there is no need to fear any side effect. But on the other hand the large benefits of some vaccines seem to greatly outweigh the small risks. The general approach of taking what’s necessary and forgoing the not so critical stuff–chickenpox, whooping cough boosters, annual flu–seems reasonable to my medically ignorant mind.

51

[quote]Doc L wrote:
I am a fence sitter when it comes to vaccination. I believe that some are warranted (DPT) and others are either not (chickenpox), or at the very least, not well studied at this time in order to recommend to the masses (Gardasil). I have also suffered what myself and my GP believed to be a fairly severe neurological reaction to the Hep B vaccine so my opinion of vaccines in general may have been colored by my experience.

But I just wanted to share a report that I came across the other day, I hope you find it as disturbing as I did. It certainly speaks to the point that buckeyegirl made…

Novartis Says It Won’t Give Poor Free H1N1 Vaccines

LONDON (Reuters) Jun 15 - Swiss drugs company Novartis will not give free vaccines against H1N1 flu to poor countries, though it will consider discounts, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

“If you want to make production sustainable, you have to create financial incentives,” the FT quoted Novartis Chief Executive Daniel Vasella as saying in an early edition of Monday’s paper.

The director-general of the World Health Organisation, Margaret Chan, has called for drugs companies to show solidarity with poor countries as they develop vaccines against the pandemic H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu.

As well as Novartis, U.S. company Baxter International and Europe’s Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline and Solvay are working on vaccines.

H1N1 has infected around 30,000 people globally, mostly in North America, though there have been few deaths outside Mexico and the United States. Europe suffered its first death on Sunday after a patient with pre-existing health problems died in Scotland.

[/quote]

I missed this post the first time around. I concur.

A side note about the vaccine profit issue. I’ve said elsewhere that although I realize it’s completely unpractical, I think that on principle health care of all sorts should be completely nonprofit. I don’t mean medical professionals shouldn’t get paid–they certainly should. I only mean that companies that produce or give health care products and services should be nonprofit.

Not to say that lots of people are in developing counties are dying because of Novartis’ greed, but just in general it is very hard to think that it is right that someone should die for lack of medical care just because there wasn’t enough potential profit from that care for some giant company.

52

[quote]nik133 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
SpookMayest wrote:
Hi, being a biology major, I am aware of the complexities of the immune system.

I’m way to young to be calling anyone a dumb kid, but since Rainjack isn’t here anymore…

Are you a Doctor? Do you specialize in Immunology? Virology?

No, you’re a student majoring in biology. You maybe aware of the tip of the iceberg, but the rest is far beyond your comprehension.

Does it really matter whether or not she is a doctor? People call Moulden who is clearly quite accomplished a “quack”, like how much proof do you want? On one hand you have someone who is clearly very educated telling you one thing and on the other you have people no where near his level saying the same thing, exactly who do you want to hear this from?[/quote]

A doctor who continues to give advice that is entirely contrary to the entirety of the evidence in a situation, makes decisions regarding patient’s health based on hypotheses that have never been proven and have in fact, been repeatedly DISPROVEN, the result of which is outbreaks of disease and death? Sounds like a quack to me.

Maybe you should take your tinfoil hat off sometime and check this thing called “reality” out. It really is quite nice sometimes.

53

I’m sure if these companies were so inclined they could indicate how much free
services they provide around the world. I’m sure there are some tax inscentives
to do so. But as far as dying is concerned things are actually getting better in
places like Africa. I think the underlying problem is starvation which opens the
door for disease and the need for drugs and vaccine.

54

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

Not to say that lots of people are in developing counties are dying because of Novartis’ greed, but just in general it is very hard to think that it is right that someone should die for lack of medical care just because there wasn’t enough potential profit from that care for some giant company. [/quote]

Nononononono.

A lot of people who can afford the vaccine will live because of Novartis genius.

Those people that die, die because you, and I mean YOU PERSONALLY, are to fucking greedy to buy up their stock and ship it to Africa.

How do you like it if utilitarian reasoning is applied to you?

Btw, there are people who hunger because you do not feed them, they are cold because you provide no clothes and shelter and you are wasting time on the intrewebz?

What is wrong with you?

55

[quote]
Now I could possibly see being vaccinated for some new, more deadly strain of the flue, but my general impression is that swine flue isn’t really a big threat.[/quote]

Just thought I’d clear this up, because the media have not been clear enough at all on this issue. H1N1 is no more deadly than each year’s flu strain. No sensible person in the medical or science community is saying that. H1N1 has a greater infectivity than the normal flu strain, i.e. swine flu is more likely to infect you, but just as likely as normal flu to kill you (not very likely). The problem is not with its lethality. The first problem arises when my grandma or your grandma gets it, and their old, weak immune system can’t fight it properly - just like any flu - except this flu is everywhere, so grandma is way more likely to get it than normal flu. The next problem comes when grandma goes to the hospital, and a lot of the nurses and doctors are off sick with swine flu, and grandma can’t get treated. This is where the mortality rate rises.

56

[quote]orion wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

Not to say that lots of people are in developing counties are dying because of Novartis’ greed, but just in general it is very hard to think that it is right that someone should die for lack of medical care just because there wasn’t enough potential profit from that care for some giant company.

Nononononono.

A lot of people who can afford the vaccine will live because of Novartis genius.

Those people that die, die because you, and I mean YOU PERSONALLY, are to fucking greedy to buy up their stock and ship it to Africa.

How do you like it if utilitarian reasoning is applied to you?

Btw, there are people who hunger because you do not feed them, they are cold because you provide no clothes and shelter and you are wasting time on the intrewebz?

What is wrong with you?

[/quote]

This was merely meant to be a heuristic argument explaining my intuition, not some rigorous argument for my position. That is why I began the clause with “it is very hard to think that…”, which I meant literally. Normally when I talk I make conscious decisions about what words to use.

As I in general don’t think utilitarianism works well as a basis for ethics, I certainly wouldn’t try to justify this position using utilitarianism. But anyway, I don’t even see how this:

comes off as pragmatic anyway… Besides the fact that this statement merely expresses my intuition regarding the issue, I don’t see how anything about it is utilitarian or pragmatic. The underlying idea that this intuition is motivating is something like “The avialability and distribution of medical services ought not depend on their profitability”. Ultimately whether you would try and go on to justify this by utilitarianism or some other reasoning is another matter entirely.

Besides, what you’re doing in your counterargument isn’t “applying utilitarianism to me”, it’s just building a stawman argument. My position was never that companies like Novartis ought do everything they can to save every life they can–if that was the case then you turning the tables on me might work. What I explicitly said is that health care should not be a for-profit industry, and I explained that part of my intuition behind this was motivated by the fact that this leads to some people dying simply because their treatment wasn’t profitable. That health care should be a nonprofit industry certainly doesn’t imply that Novartis ought do everything it can to save every life they can. As you point out in your reply, this consequent is silly anyway, since if we apply it to all individuals it leads to absurd results. Thus we should hope that my claim doesn’t imply it, for then my claim would be silly too. But, that health care is a for-profit business does seem to imply–as the example of Novartis shows–that people will suffer or die simply because their treatment wasn’t profitable. Since intuitively this consequent is morally reprehensible, it seems that the antecedent is too.

Isn’t valid reasoning wonderful?

EDIT: I don’t mean to imply that the last paragraph here presents a good argument for my claims about profitability, since I still haven’t gotten past an intuition. What I meant about “valid reasoning” is realizing that my claims don’t imply other silly claims that are easily knocked down.

57

[quote]OrcusDM wrote:

Now I could possibly see being vaccinated for some new, more deadly strain of the flue, but my general impression is that swine flue isn’t really a big threat.

Just thought I’d clear this up, because the media have not been clear enough at all on this issue. H1N1 is no more deadly than each year’s flu strain. No sensible person in the medical or science community is saying that. H1N1 has a greater infectivity than the normal flu strain, i.e. swine flu is more likely to infect you, but just as likely as normal flu to kill you (not very likely). The problem is not with its lethality. The first problem arises when my grandma or your grandma gets it, and their old, weak immune system can’t fight it properly - just like any flu - except this flu is everywhere, so grandma is way more likely to get it than normal flu. The next problem comes when grandma goes to the hospital, and a lot of the nurses and doctors are off sick with swine flu, and grandma can’t get treated. This is where the mortality rate rises.[/quote]

That makes sense. So it seems it makes sense for grandma and my doctor to be vaccinated, but not me.

58

I have already told the mother of my 8 year old daughter that I am VERY against her getting vaccinated with Guardasil, and basically any other vaccinations she didn’t get in the first year of her life. You know smallpox and polio and such.

I’m not even sure what they gave her. Flu vaccines to me are a little overkill, if people would eat a healthy diet and stay active they would have no problem fighting off any flu on thier own. Also I don’t trust what is in thyem and some of the possible side effects are pretty bad.

I have had the flu a grand total of 1 times in my entire life, so I’m pretty sure risking a serious side effect so I can avoid getting the flue one or two more times for the rest of my life is pretty pointless. And since it was when I was 8 or 9 years old, I probably won’t ever get it again, at least not till I’m old or something.

I am actually in the habit of not taking any medicine unless I really really have to. Headache, I just deal with it, I don’t pop pain killers like they are candy like most people do. Cold? Chicken soup and sleep, I don’t go through 2 bottles of nyquil and 2 packs of sudafed for the week like most people do. Stomach ache accompanied by the shits? Well that ones easy, go to the bathroom, sit on the toilet and shit, wipe afterwards. I know people who at the first sign of a booger will start pumping themselves so full of chemicals it’s astounding.

V

59

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
nik133 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
SpookMayest wrote:
Hi, being a biology major, I am aware of the complexities of the immune system.

I’m way to young to be calling anyone a dumb kid, but since Rainjack isn’t here anymore…

Are you a Doctor? Do you specialize in Immunology? Virology?

No, you’re a student majoring in biology. You maybe aware of the tip of the iceberg, but the rest is far beyond your comprehension.

Does it really matter whether or not she is a doctor? People call Moulden who is clearly quite accomplished a “quack”, like how much proof do you want? On one hand you have someone who is clearly very educated telling you one thing and on the other you have people no where near his level saying the same thing, exactly who do you want to hear this from?

A doctor who continues to give advice that is entirely contrary to the entirety of the evidence in a situation, makes decisions regarding patient’s health based on hypotheses that have never been proven and have in fact, been repeatedly DISPROVEN, the result of which is outbreaks of disease and death? Sounds like a quack to me.

Maybe you should take your tinfoil hat off sometime and check this thing called “reality” out. It really is quite nice sometimes.[/quote]

Well you can choose to ignore the fact that 25 people died from the vaccine and 500 people got Guillain-Barré syndrome (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/03/dayintech_0324). So 25 dead and 500 people affected by a disease they wouldn’t have otherwise contracted versus 1 dead, yeah I think I’ll take my chances without the vaccine.

60

And just so you know you can’t get swine flu from eating pork.