Vaccinations

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

“We are operating with some pretty big unknowns here,” said Dr. Bill Foege, former chief of the CDC.

[/quote]

I feel like this is the major crux of the issue for both sides really.

Modern medicine isn’t perfect, and (at least at the individual doctor level) doesn’t seem to pretend it is.

Monday morning, the QB always knows the right throws to make. [/quote]

This is different from every other government program HOW EXACTLY.[/quote]

I’m not saying it is or it isn’t. I also not trying to project whether people should choose to get vaccinated into other topics, lol.

I certianly don’t think you should be forced to get the shots, but part of me is OK with the fact schools require it. (Yes I know I just made a statement that conflicted with itself…)

Is there any data that says:

XXX people suffer illness brought on by the shot

BUT

XXX people would have died from YYY (Projected obvi)

that both sides could agree is a legit stat?

62

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

“We are operating with some pretty big unknowns here,” said Dr. Bill Foege, former chief of the CDC.

[/quote]

I feel like this is the major crux of the issue for both sides really.

Modern medicine isn’t perfect, and (at least at the individual doctor level) doesn’t seem to pretend it is.

Monday morning, the QB always knows the right throws to make. [/quote]

This is different from every other government program HOW EXACTLY.[/quote]

I’m not saying it is or it isn’t. I also not trying to project whether people should choose to get vaccinated into other topics, lol.

[/quote]

Would you be willing to contemplate why this might be the problem?

Can you see why this is not even a utilitarian stance, because you only have your gut feeling?

Is this what sovereignty over at least your body has been reduced to?

You argue with liberals over whether it makes sense TO STICK A NEEDLE INTO YOUR OR YOUR CHILDRENS BUTTS THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY DEADLY CONSEQUENCES WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION on the grounds of a utilitarian calculus on shaky scientific grounds.

Maybe you should try to “project” the principle of a matter “into other topics”?

Because if you dont, you have no leg to stand on if they take your balls because they make you unruly.

63

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DD,

I am not the government, I do not care if you or your children are immunized, I wish everyone would, it is better to be safe than polio-ed, but feel free to not get it done. My question is why not? If you think they are bad that is one thing, if you don’t like being told what to do that’s another. I was under the impression your questions were answered via opinion rather than cold hard fact except the last one, I am pretty sure ( nearly 100%) I’m not your daddy and even if I was I would let you decide if you wanted to eat asparagus or not is that direct enough?
[/quote]

So you are against the government mandate of vaccines?

If you aren’t my daddy, who are the parents in your kids scenario?

And no, all of my questions were necessary information to fully flesh out your stance. If you are for government mandates for vaccines, who gets to decide which ones, when, what is safe, and what is in the best interest of the public?[/quote]

May I invite you to flesh out your stance?

If you are cared for by government, if everything you produce is basically theirs, if the can put fences wherever they please, why bitch and moan if they put a needle in your butt?

I mean, obviously, you have either accepted that they know better than you or that it is irrelevant what they know because they are your masters and you are livestock.

It seems to me that Brian is the only one who is consistent.

I might not like it, but if you are entertaining the government works for the people hypothesis (mwuahaha…, ahem), he is spot on.

Why the discombobulation?

Why here, why now?

What makes THIS magic?

If you want someone to explain to you how “society” and the “greater good” works, TB or Zeb will be happy to help you out.

[/quote]

What did I say about being cared for by the government? Where did I say what I produce is theirs? I can only guess that you have me confused with someone else.

64

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, fuck it, I am declaring this for Brian, he has won on the grounds of not only his basic beliefs but also those of his opponents.

Well done Brian, it is not often that someone stabs right into the heart of his opponents reasoning.

It is like Judo or Aikido, just with a touch of mental rape.

[/quote]

Other than him changing arguments, trying to take back what he’s said, refusing to to answer simple basic questions about his position, and refusing to acknowledge the logical conclusions of his reasoning while providing no counterargument, yeah, he wins.

65

[quote]Dr J wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anybody here arguing against vaccines have kids and NOT vaccinate them?

I’m guessing not. [/quote]

I didn’t vaccinate my kids as prescribed. I’m not dead-set against all vaccines, but I do fear that vaccine injuries and negative side effects are grossly underreported. The happy medium for us was to forego the vaccines when the children were very young and get the bare minimum to get them into school when they were older (more mature immune systems). Our state does not have a legal provision “conscientious objection”. We would have had to home school.[/quote]

Thanks for sharing. I definitely can see both sides of the story, and the horror stories I had read were what made me so reluctant to get some of our first son’s vaccinations in the first place. Here, there is no government mandate or enforcement of vaccinations, but EVERYONE does anyway, because they are Japanese.

66

[quote]orion wrote:

Maybe you should try to “project” the principle of a matter “into other topics”?

Because if you dont, you have no leg to stand on if they take your balls because they make you unruly.
[/quote]

I mean I get what you are saying, but I’m trying to focus on one topic, from one point of view.

I’m not even really concerned with the “should government force” portion at this point to be honest, and not even addressing those points much.

I’m really interested in the intelligent non-tinfoil hat reasons rational people have to not vaccinate. I don’t care to discuss this as a liberty issue, no matter how urgent that conversation may or may not be.

I’m interested in this topic as a parent, not as a citizen if that makes any sense.

67

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Good thing he isn’t a Dr, that means he has more time to actually research and look at proper statistical information! Im glad you deferred that but just know that an MD has almost no more advantage to gather research and analyze it in regards to this kind of historical epidemiology than someone who wasn’t other than familiarity with terminology and an obvious academic aptitude.

[/quote]

The other thing he is missing is the perspective provided by years of one-on-one real life experience dealing with the issue…

So here is a question:

If they came out tomorrow with a vaccine that was 100% safe, made from whey protein and snow peas, 0% chance of adverse effects; whould you (or anyone) change their minds and get the shots for you and your children?

68

[quote]storey420 wrote:
read this Brian (and anyone else that is 100% sure that the polio vaccine worked as advertised and everyone is safer with it). Interested in your thoughts, counter points, etc. The document is well researched and cited so just comments hating on the site or whatever will be dismissed as intellectual immaturity

http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

[/quote]
there are quite a bit of problems with this paper. it really stretches to show cause and effect. It even uses mass hysteria at times to prove its point. Its citations are bit flimsy in some areas. For example a 1976 congressional hearing was used as evidence to show that vaccines were occuring through 2000 - it’s true, but the citation gaff gives you pause in that there should have been two citations not just one. I only spot checked three citations, maybe i got lucky, maybe i did not. Out of the 100,000’s of polio vaccines given each year, 8 or so get polio per year. Thats not really a conspiracy and it is on the CDC website. Also, this only hold true for attenuated polio vaccines, which the paper only focuses on.

We no longer use attenuated polio vaccine’s in america so the only real threat comes when people are vaccinated in other countries using attenuated polio vaccines, then move here. if memory serves right, this happened in minnesota not to long ago. cant remember all of the details but I believe some unvaccinated kids did contract polio. Fortunately, there was no paralysis.

if you want to talk about other countries, you may have a point. if sanitary standards are not up to snuff, then they are at an increased risk from getting polio from the vaccine. this has happened in India and Pakistan for example. in these cases an attenuated polio vaccine is not advisable anyways, so I am not sure why they pursued it given that we now have better alternatives. Costs maybe? but really its an irrelevant discussion for vaccinations in america.

69

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Good thing he isn’t a Dr, that means he has more time to actually research and look at proper statistical information! Im glad you deferred that but just know that an MD has almost no more advantage to gather research and analyze it in regards to this kind of historical epidemiology than someone who wasn’t other than familiarity with terminology and an obvious academic aptitude.

[/quote]

The other thing he is missing is the perspective provided by years of one-on-one real life experience dealing with the issue…

So here is a question:

If they came out tomorrow with a vaccine that was 100% safe, made from whey protein and snow peas, 0% chance of adverse effects; whould you (or anyone) change their minds and get the shots for you and your children?

[/quote]

Of course, if they could show with actual solid science that it works and had no toxic-tag a longs like the current ones, why wouldn’t someone. The problem with them now is that although the CDC would have you believe that there is overwhelming evidence that they all work, the research is lacking in many areas. More importantly is that the current schedule is WAY too much too soon. Even MDs that believe in vaccines that I have spoken with concede that point in many cases.

70

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
read this Brian (and anyone else that is 100% sure that the polio vaccine worked as advertised and everyone is safer with it). Interested in your thoughts, counter points, etc. The document is well researched and cited so just comments hating on the site or whatever will be dismissed as intellectual immaturity

http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

[/quote]
there are quite a bit of problems with this paper. it really stretches to show cause and effect. It even uses mass hysteria at times to prove its point. Its citations are bit flimsy in some areas. For example a 1976 congressional hearing was used as evidence to show that vaccines were occuring through 2000 - it’s true, but the citation gaff gives you pause in that there should have been two citations not just one. I only spot checked three citations, maybe i got lucky, maybe i did not. Out of the 100,000’s of polio vaccines given each year, 8 or so get polio per year. Thats not really a conspiracy and it is on the CDC website. Also, this only hold true for attenuated polio vaccines, which the paper only focuses on.

We no longer use attenuated polio vaccine’s in america so the only real threat comes when people are vaccinated in other countries using attenuated polio vaccines, then move here. if memory serves right, this happened in minnesota not to long ago. cant remember all of the details but I believe some unvaccinated kids did contract polio. Fortunately, there was no paralysis.

if you want to talk about other countries, you may have a point. if sanitary standards are not up to snuff, then they are at an increased risk from getting polio from the vaccine. this has happened in India and Pakistan for example. in these cases an attenuated polio vaccine is not advisable anyways, so I am not sure why they pursued it given that we now have better alternatives. Costs maybe? but really its an irrelevant discussion for vaccinations in america.[/quote]

Fair enough on your points but my bigger purpose on posting that for Brian et al. was that when you look at the history of vaccine implementation there are a lot of holes, errors, deaths, etc. and this “obviously they are good” stance isn’t so obvious in all circumstances.

71

[quote]storey420 wrote:
The problem with them now is that although the CDC would have you believe that there is overwhelming evidence that they all work, the research is lacking in many areas. [/quote]

This is the risk v reward portion I was talking about before. The risk of putting yourself in harms way for no reason if they don’t work, and the risk of not if they do work.

I will never argue this. The 2012 list is mind-numbingly long…

Like they just said “OH SHIT!” and threw a nuke at a two man bunker.

72

Totally agree with you Beans on the risk v reward thing. Its like chemotherapy. That risk would never be worth it to me but to someone else they may see the chemo approach as worthwhile so they should have the freedom to pursue that. If everyone was mandated to do it, different subject.
To those that feed their kids white flour and sugar products daily then doing the vaccine is probably worth the risk cause you’re weakening their immune system every day. For me (and many others I have met that understand holistic approaches to ideal health) the risk doesn’t outweigh the reward. My main thing is maintaining that choice to not vaccinate and not get hassled about it but also like I said it annoys me the attitude (on both sides of this debate) but especially the arrogance that some display that choosing not to go that route equates idiocy or child abuse somehow.

73

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Storey,

I suppose their is a risk of that, and I would think that the doctors are prepared for the eventuality, however since the vaccine is made up of dead/inactive strains I would imagine you are more concerned about infection or something with dirty needles? I’m pretty sure the autism connection is tenuous at best and a scam perpetrated by a seedy british doctor at worst.[/quote]

That is the point, doctors arent prepared to even acknowledge that. Im not saying that there is a 100% of the time direct link to autism as it is a multi-factorial thing but there are plenty of folks besides Andrew Wakefield that have pointed out a demonstrable link with autism expression and vaccinations. Also your internet ad hominem of Dr Wakefield is unwarranted really and his partner on the study has been fully exonerated. It is a classic example of having a very small amount of info spoon fed to you by the media and then forming a position on someone Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Co-Author on Controversial Lancet “MMR Paper” Exonerated of All Charges of Professional Misconduct

Wakefield found what would be a VERY unpopular point if it were to be true (massive lawsuits, recalls, etc.) so no surprise he got his ass handed to him in the PR spin dept.[/quote]

I’m a 4th year medical school student and I have never come across a physician that has defended Wakefield or his study. I’ve been to several grand rounds at many large university hospitals where physicians (who are required to give disclosures) have presented the lack of evidence between the vaccine and the disease.

I find your statement of “having a very small amount of info spoon fed to you by the media and then forming a position” to be implying that only the media (and I guess the big pharma vaccine companies?) are the only ones who are against Wakefield, when in fact an overwhelming majority of the medical community is.

Anywho, it would be awesome if you could give me some links to these peer-reviewed articles besides Wakefield’s that pointed out a demonstrable link between autism expression and the MMR vaccine. I’ve been scouring uptodate for any such connection but it looks like I’m going to have to go fishing through some abstracts.

74

[quote]stradlin12 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Storey,

I suppose their is a risk of that, and I would think that the doctors are prepared for the eventuality, however since the vaccine is made up of dead/inactive strains I would imagine you are more concerned about infection or something with dirty needles? I’m pretty sure the autism connection is tenuous at best and a scam perpetrated by a seedy british doctor at worst.[/quote]

That is the point, doctors arent prepared to even acknowledge that. Im not saying that there is a 100% of the time direct link to autism as it is a multi-factorial thing but there are plenty of folks besides Andrew Wakefield that have pointed out a demonstrable link with autism expression and vaccinations. Also your internet ad hominem of Dr Wakefield is unwarranted really and his partner on the study has been fully exonerated. It is a classic example of having a very small amount of info spoon fed to you by the media and then forming a position on someone Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Co-Author on Controversial Lancet “MMR Paper” Exonerated of All Charges of Professional Misconduct

Wakefield found what would be a VERY unpopular point if it were to be true (massive lawsuits, recalls, etc.) so no surprise he got his ass handed to him in the PR spin dept.[/quote]

I’m a 4th year medical school student and I have never come across a physician that has defended Wakefield or his study. I’ve been to several grand rounds at many large university hospitals where physicians (who are required to give disclosures) have presented the lack of evidence between the vaccine and the disease.

I find your statement of “having a very small amount of info spoon fed to you by the media and then forming a position” to be implying that only the media (and I guess the big pharma vaccine companies?) are the only ones who are against Wakefield, when in fact an overwhelming majority of the medical community is.

Anywho, it would be awesome if you could give me some links to these peer-reviewed articles besides Wakefield’s that pointed out a demonstrable link between autism expression and the MMR vaccine. I’ve been scouring uptodate for any such connection but it looks like I’m going to have to go fishing through some abstracts.[/quote]

There isn’t a study showing that link. I’m not even in the camp that says that the vaccine alone causes autism directly. I’m in the camp that says it clearly creates damage and lets keep studying it. Wakefield’s study should only have been a call to research more, not whipped into the media frenzy it was. If the elements of the study (design, etc.) were not solid then fine do another study but do you remember such a massive media storm for other poorly designed studies published in JAMA or other journals like their was over this?
The only one in this realm that is semi-recent that I know off hand is Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002 - PubMed for the hepB vaccine.

To me its not the autism that is the biggest deal, it is the astounding lack of studies to truly prove the efficacy, plenty of outbreaks of disease in vaccinated populations, toxic tag a long ingredients (adjuvants like aluminum hydroxide --proven to increase liver damage), and other factors that play into the risk v reward issue. Again if someone believes fully in them, great, go for it. But this arrogant attitude that patients/parents that refuse them are ignorant and “screwing the immunity for the rest of us” is absurd.

On a common sense note, does the hounding and vilification of the docs involved (even though Smith recently was exonerated of all charges) make a soon to be doc like you want to study further or leave that alone?

75

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I will never understand how people think the government trying to stop a widespread transmission of disease is some egregious violation of our personal liberties. [/quote]

the point is that vaccination doesnt “stop a widespreadtansmission of disease”.
It only forces a biological specie to mute and evolve. But bacteria and viruses usually evolve faster than our knowledge and our technology.

So it’s a short-term solution that will inevitably cause long-term problems and a vicious circle.

Another thing our grand-children will have to solve.
[/quote]
rubella, measles, small pox, polio, pertussis, etc; we have not had any real major issues with these diseases since we started immunizations for each one. These were pretty bad diseases to get and today the only issues we have with them are with pockets of people that refuse to immunize their kids.

My major issue with parents not immunizing their kids is that their kids can end up giving these diseases to my un-immunized new born. other than that, I have no issue at all.
we had a pertussis out break at my daughters school (major hippy school - my immunized kid is a minority) when my newborn was about 2 weeks old. this could have killed him had my daughter or one of her friends brought it home. [/quote]

All of this is still “short-term”, in an evolutionary / demographical perspective.

In most of these cases, the biological species that cause the diseas are not extinct. They can still mute and evolve, and since we are applying a strong pressure on them, they will definetely do it.
But then we will have forgotten how to cure some of these diseases because we will be used to think that vaccination protect us.

Granted, “we” = our great grand children here. And we usually don’t care.

Human population is increasing in numbers, density and mobility. And decreasing in biological diversity.
More then ever before.
Quicker than ever before.
The fact is that no one knows how viral populations will react to this new situation.

But if i was a virus or a bacteria with a plan for world-conquest, i think i would love international airports and emerging countries.
Word-wide pandemics of vaccine- and antibiotic-resistant diseases would be fun.

76

Fuck me, are people still beating the Vaccine/Autism horse?

We get it, you hate your kids.

77

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Fuck me, are people still beating the Vaccine/Autism horse?

We get it, you hate your kids.[/quote]

Not really, if you applied some reading comprehension skills.

78

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Totally agree with you Beans on the risk v reward thing. Its like chemotherapy. That risk would never be worth it to me but to someone else they may see the chemo approach as worthwhile so they should have the freedom to pursue that. If everyone was mandated to do it, different subject.
To those that feed their kids white flour and sugar products daily then doing the vaccine is probably worth the risk cause you’re weakening their immune system every day. For me (and many others I have met that understand holistic approaches to ideal health) the risk doesn’t outweigh the reward. My main thing is maintaining that choice to not vaccinate and not get hassled about it but also like I said it annoys me the attitude (on both sides of this debate) but especially the arrogance that some display that choosing not to go that route equates idiocy or child abuse somehow.[/quote]

Very well stated.

79

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Fuck me, are people still beating the Vaccine/Autism horse?

We get it, you hate your kids.[/quote]

Aaaand, here we go. I question the science, so I hate my kids. Got it.

80

[quote]Dr J wrote:
I don’t vaccinate my children, so I hate my kids. Got it.[/quote]

Yep. Glad we’re on the same page.