Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose by canttakesky

Kaneman, you believe what you're told by the man.
All vaccines are necessary!
And there WERE WMD's!

Oh well.

World ain't that simple Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:26 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I suppose there are many layers to this discussion, but the extreme case would be some kind of plague (an epidemic and virulent disease) for which a benign vaccination existed.

Take Smallpox, for instance. There could be millions of people alive today and the risk of contraction is now almost nil, because of compulsory vaccination of smallpox.

So if you choose not to be vaccinated for a virulent and epidemic disease wouldn’t you be, to some degree, responsible if you contracted it? And if you did contract it and subsequently spread it to others who in turn died, wouldn’t you be, to some degree, responsible for their death? So couldn’t refusing compulsory vaccination of a deadly and contagious disease be viewed as reckless endangerment or negligent homicide?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:46 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

If I stepped on a rusty nail or was bitten by a wild animal, I would get a shot. Likewise, if there were an epidemic, I would likely get a shot. But when was the last time that happened, really? I think the last one was polio, a little before the baby boom generation. Feel free to correct me if you know of another.
I think being sensible about it is fine of course, but getting a ton of shots all at once can compromise your body, that's all. In the young, especially, it can do some weird things. And flu shots, from what I've seen, can make you much more sick than just getting a flu. I really don't get that one at all. And giving babies a shot for hepatitis C when that's basically an STD? Pretty ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

[]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
If I stepped on a rusty nail or was bitten by a wild animal, I would get a shot. Likewise, if there were an epidemic, I would likely get a shot.
And giving babies a shot for hepatitis C when that's basically an STD? Pretty ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

[]

My view, in a nutshell.

Not that I'm a nut

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I come from a different generation. My mother had a mild case of polio. A coworker got chicken pox while in grad school. He spent weeks in ICU and decades later is still paying off his medical bills and dealing with the lasting brain, eye and lung scarring. Working in a hospital I volunteered as a guinea pig for an experimental Hep B vaccine b/c (at the time), ultimately, 30% of medical workers contracted Hep B.

My sense is that vaccinating young children is safer and more efficient than older children. Their immune systems are coming up to speed and are primed for learning. And the more you are exposed to, the better trained your immune system becomes in giving your own tissues a pass - ie, you become less likely to develop autoimmune diseases.

But you young'uns here seem to think differently. So, if you all don't mind, could you post information and / or links explaining your areas of concern ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And if you did contract it and subsequently spread it to others who in turn died, wouldn’t you be, to some degree, responsible for their death? So couldn’t refusing compulsory vaccination of a deadly and contagious disease be viewed as reckless endangerment or negligent homicide?

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.

The dilemma is, do they have the right to question authority and have those doubts? Do they have a right to disagree with authority that said vaccine is both effective and safe? Do they have the right to informed consent?

In any epidemic or pandemic, people are going to contract diseases and spread them. Vaccinated or not, a responsible citizen takes sanitary and quarantine precautions to the best of his ability. Having done that, I don't think he should be blamed for spreading the disease anymore than someone else can be blamed for giving it to him. Plenty of vaccinated people spread diseases for which they received vaccines--they aren't blamed when they are involved in an outbreak even when death occurs.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.
--Will Rogers

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:03 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Do you think Small Pox wanted our generation to be vaccinated?

Yes. I mentioned as much in the previous thread where this was discussed. Every one of my grandparents lost siblings to that dreaded disease. My parents and my generation were all vaccinated -- and the disease was eradicated.

If anyone has any doubts about the smallpox vaccine, just look at the photos (as I did) of children who contracted it. Then do a search for the number of people who died from it before the vaccine eradicated it.

BTW, my parents (as well as all of their siblings and most of their classmates) had virtually every common childhood disease one could contract at the time, because vaccines hadn't been developed for them: measles, chicken pox, scarlet fever, mumps, etc. My sister and I were vaccinated for everything available (there were no chicken pox vaccines then, so couldn't get that one -- see below), and we contracted nothing for which we'd been vaccinated. Going to school in the 1960's, I didn't know one kid in my class who got measles, rubela, scarlet fever, etc. They'd all been vaccinated.

In my parent's generation, everyone came down with those diseases -- some suffered severely and others died. In my generation, those diseases were signficantly rarer.

I'm not saying the government should mandate vaccinations. As I said in the previous thread, I haven't researched either the medical or legal aspects of this, so I can't offer an informed opinion. I'm only stating how I know the vaccines helped my generation from suffering the fate of my parent's generation, and both of our generations from suffering (or even surviving the fate of my grandparent's generation from smallpox.

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
as for Chicken Pox, if you didn't have it as a child, wait 'till you get that as an adult....lovely stuff.

I had chicken pox as a child (this was prior to the discovery of the vaccine for it). My sister had a mild case. I was bedridden with extremely high fever for nearly a week.

As Kaneman has pointed out, chicken pox is even worse the older you are when you contract it.

And even worse, once you get chicken pox, you're susceptible to shingles (which is a re-emergence of the chicken pox virus). I had shingles at the age of 39, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I know people who've had it much later in life, who nearly died.

Believe me, if you can avoid chicken pox, do whatever you can to avoid it. The actual, initial emergence of the disease is nothing compared to what it can do to you later in life as the shingles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The dilemma is, do they have the right to question authority and have those doubts?"

Then there are two questions - one is, are those doubts reasonable? And that's a question that can't be avoided. because if simply claiming doubt is enough to confer rights, I could claim all sorts of doubts and put others at risk. For example, I doubt it makes sense for everyone to drive the same way on the road. I doubt that shooting someone will cause harm.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:24 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The dilemma is, do they have the right to question authority and have those doubts? Do they have a right to disagree with authority that said vaccine is both effective and safe? Do they have the right to informed consent?

Certainly, I think that people should have those rights. But when society is dealing with plague clear minds should prevail. If the prevailing medical understanding and scientific knowledge demonstrates that the vaccine is preferable to the plague, as in the case of smallpox, then one must wonder about the wisdom of allowing a minority of ill-informed individuals to decide the fate of the majority. Certainly society has a right to informed consent and a right to question the authority of the medical community and the government on the issue of compulsory vaccination, but I think that society will ultimately regret allowing the issue of personal freedom and privacy to become so fanatic that it results in widespread plague and the death of millions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, I'm looking for the anti- side to provide some perspective. You are obviously tapping into assumptions and information the pro- side doesn't share. I'd really like to find out what you all are thinking.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If the prevailing medical understanding and scientific knowledge demonstrates that the vaccine is preferable to the plague, as in the case of smallpox, then one must wonder about the wisdom of allowing a minority of ill-informed individuals to decide the fate of the majority.

Who decides what prevailing scientific knowledge "demonstrates" and who decides that dissidents are "ill-informed"? By those standards, people like Rue say that prevailing scientific knowledge demonstrates manmade global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions, and that it is entirely unwise to let ill-informed persons such as yourself to decide the fate of the majoritiy.

And how exactly does a few individuals decide the fate of the majority simply by not being vaccinated? If vaccines work, and the majority is immunized, they should have nothing to fear. Isn't that the point of vaccines, to protect in event of exposure? Why should protected people be afraid of exposure then?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.
--P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you young'uns here seem to think differently. So, if you all don't mind, could you post information and / or links explaining your areas of concern ?

God bless you for calling me a young'un!

Ethical Reasons:

1. Principle of informed consent. Informed consent is a cardinal tenet of medical ethics (or at least they say it is). No medical intervention, including vaccination, is effective for everyone. No medical intervention, including vaccination, is safe for everyone. You pay trusted health consultants the big bucks to see if X medicine "is right for you." You then evaluated the potential benefits and risks, and give your informed consent or not for the treatment. Vaccines should be no different.

2. Right to one's body trumps public interest. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan argues, "The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them."

3. Vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution is flawed. The US government is in effect practicing medicine without a license, preempting the tailoring of treatment to each individual. As a result the one-size-fits-all policies, people are unnecessarily injured and killed every year. The US government implicitly condones these injuries and deaths as necessary sacrifices for the public good, and compensates them from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. If these people are to make such a sacrifice for the public good, they should be volunteers, not draftees, in the war against disease.

More to come when I have time. I will discuss doubts about vaccine effectiveness, vaccine safety, integrity of public policy, and public health threat of the unvaccinated.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.
--Larry Hardiman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Who decides what prevailing scientific knowledge "demonstrates" and who decides that dissidents are "ill-informed"?

It's got something to do with gold, I think...

And a rule of some kind Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey ChrisIsAll,

I was wondering what you know about this. :big shit eating grin:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:21 AM

SIGMANUNKI

This whole, vaccinations are harmful to kids, argument IMO is complete BS. If this were so, given the torrent of kids that get said vaccinations, there'd be a hell of a lot of damaged kids to get taken care of. This obviously isn't the case.

For those that have not gotten vaccinated and cite that they haven't gotten seriously ill, try going a place where you'd actually be exposed to the illness!.

That being said, how about immigration? There are people that come over from 3rd world nations that might have been just exposed to an illness, but b/c of this, pass the medical, and then said illness would enter the general population. No vaccination means MUCH higher contraction rate (please note that this wouldn't exactly help people's health nor the economy) and have a possible high mortality rate as well (depending on the illness).

There's also going on vacation. Anyone here want to go to Mexico, NOT get vaccinated and drink there water?

For those "not so lethal" illnesses, there is still many many good reasons for having vaccinations. For instance, Rubella. This may not really hurt the person that gets it, but what about if the person that got it was a pregnant woman? Then you got problems for the unborn child. This is the reason why everyone should get a Rubella vaccination and the reason why women get a booster later on in life. Similarly for other illnesses.

In fact, there are several vaccinations that require a booster. Tetanus being one more of them.

Also, to say that the vaccination should be 100% effective for 100% of the persons life after said vaccination with 0 potential side-effects ignores the reality of biology.

Basically, IMO for people to be able to say no to vaccinations, I believe that they would have to show that there is a significant chance of serious negative side effect with a disproportionally small positive value. But, this just isn't the case. In fact, our largely good health and our increasing life expectancy is a testament to the value of vaccinations.

IMO matters of public health should not and cannot be made irrationally. Whether by religion, philosophy or otherwise. It must be based on fact, NOT opinion. This is NOT about you not getting sick, it's about avoiding an epidemic.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:21 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

http://www.wnho.net/vaccinationnews.htm
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/index.htm
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/VaccineResearcher.html

If you want still more, you can google 'vaccine dangers'

[]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
BTW, my parents ... had virtually every common childhood disease ...: measles, chicken pox, scarlet fever, mumps, etc.... Going to school in the 1960's, I didn't know one kid in my class who got measles, rubela, scarlet fever, etc. They'd all been vaccinated.

There was never a vaccine for scarlet fever. Scarlet fever disappeared on its own, without the help of vaccinations--at the same time all the other childhood diseases disappear. Could some other factor have played a role in the disappearance of these diseases, either instead of or in addition to vaccinations? Maybe the credit claimed by vaccines in eradicating diseases is exaggerated?

Quote:
As Kaneman has pointed out, chicken pox is even worse the older you are when you contract it. ... I had shingles at the age of 39, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I know people who've had it much later in life, who nearly died.

Interestingly, the chickenpox vaccine has been linked to shingles later on in life. Now the link is not conclusive, but it does cast reasonable doubt on chickenpox vaxes preventing shingles as a benefit.

Quote:
CHILDHOOD CHICKENPOX vaccinations could be encouraging the spread of shingles, scientists said yesterday. Shingles, a painful rash that afflicts older people, and can cause fatal complications, marks the re-emergence of the dormant chickenpox virus in later life, when immunity falls. It strikes a quarter of people who have had chickenpox. The Public Health Laboratory Service in London has shown that adults living with children were less likely to develop shingles. But if all children were vaccinated against chickenpox, adults with a history of the disease would not be exposed to enough of the virus to prevent full-blown shingles later.

[From: Chickenpox vaccine `encourages shingles'
The Independent - United Kingdom; May 2, 2002] (Sorry no link.)

Quote:
On the other hand, recent evidence suggests that an increase in zoster incidence appears likely, and the more effective vaccination is at preventing varicella, the larger the increase in zoster incidence.

J Infect. 2002 May;44(4):211-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d
opt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12099726&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum

There are more studies where that came from, but you get the idea. There is enough reasonable doubt about benefits and risks that people deserve the right to informed consent.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.
--Shepherd Book, from TV show Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This whole, vaccinations are harmful to kids, argument IMO is complete BS. If this were so, given the torrent of kids that get said vaccinations, there'd be a hell of a lot of damaged kids to get taken care of. This obviously isn't the case.

The damage is not always obvious.

Sigma, I thought you were less black and white about things...

Most vaccines are fine if given at the right time, and avoided when contra-indicated.
Some are useless.
And some can be dangerous when given to sensitive, allergic or sick peeps.

It's not rocket science Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:42 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

1. Principle of informed consent. Informed consent is a cardinal tenet of medical ethics (or at least they say it is). No medical intervention, including vaccination, is effective for everyone. No medical intervention, including vaccination, is safe for everyone. You pay trusted health consultants the big bucks to see if X medicine "is right for you." You then evaluated the potential benefits and risks, and give your informed consent or not for the treatment. Vaccines should be no different.

One can only make an informed decision IF they are able to understand the CURRENT medical literature. Otherwise one must trust the professional that they have there best interests at heart.

This also isn't some procedure that has known significant, very probable, dangerous side-effects. The vast vast vast majority of people get a shot and that's it.

I also LOL'd when you called doctors "trusted health consultants".

I mean, you say you trust them. And then you say, don't trust them, make your own decision.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

2. Right to one's body trumps public interest. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan argues, "The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them."

You are taking this quote wildly out of context. This quote is refering to experimentation and the right of a person not to participate in an experiment.

The fact of the matter is that the experiment is over. Thus this quote has no place in this discussion.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

3. Vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution is flawed. The US government is in effect practicing medicine without a license, preempting the tailoring of treatment to each individual. As a result the one-size-fits-all policies, people are unnecessarily injured and killed every year. The US government implicitly condones these injuries and deaths as necessary sacrifices for the public good, and compensates them from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. If these people are to make such a sacrifice for the public good, they should be volunteers, not draftees, in the war against disease.

Sorry to say, but this tailoring of treatment argument is complete BS. As far as I know, the medical establishment doesn't create medication for each individual. Or do every time you buy a bottle of Tylenol or Advil they do tests so that they can tailor your meds?

This also is NOT a treatment; it is prevention. Treatment would be contracting something and then be treated for it.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:53 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Who decides what prevailing scientific knowledge "demonstrates" and who decides that dissidents are "ill-informed"? By those standards, people like Rue say that prevailing scientific knowledge demonstrates manmade global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions, and that it is entirely unwise to let ill-informed persons such as yourself to decide the fate of the majoritiy.

Well, if that’s all rue said, he would probably be right, there is scientific knowledge that demonstrates manmade global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions. But that’s not what people like me would argue. The pertinent text with regard to global warming is the precautionary principle, or what I call the Doomsday Scenario, but there is no conclusive evidence for it, and even most of those who advocate it will tell you that. It’s just a worst case assumption; it’s a precaution, which is made even less conclusive by the assumption that there is anything that can be done about it. The politics blurs that point and seeks to turn the doomsday scenario into inevitability by tying it to evidence of global warming and insists that a knowable solution exists, but in reality it is just as likely to simply be alarmism that is solved with a dose of world-wide socialism. It’s a political entity not a scientific one. On the other hand, there is little inconclusive about what happens when plagues get out of hand, and there is little inconclusive about the deadliness of virulent contagious diseases and there is little inconclusive about the effectiveness of eradicating some of these diseases with vaccines. And while people may disagree on whether the doomsday scenario and its solutions are realistic, not many will disagree about whether smallpox is deadly or that vaccines eradicated it.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And how exactly does a few individuals decide the fate of the majority simply by not being vaccinated? If vaccines work, and the majority is immunized, they should have nothing to fear. Isn't that the point of vaccines, to protect in event of exposure? Why should protected people be afraid of exposure then?

On its face that’s a good point. Although, a long term solution must rely in eradicating the disease from circulation, because if left in circulation in a large enough volume it could mutate to become immune to the immunization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:54 AM

SIGMANUNKI

@chrisisall:

"""
The damage is not always obvious.
"""

Then how do you know that it has happened?

"""
Most vaccines are fine if given at the right time, and avoided when contra-indicated.
Some are useless.
And some can be dangerous when given to sensitive, allergic or sick peeps.
"""

Where I am (Canada) we get our vaccinations over time in several shots. Then later, boosters. Do you guys get them ALL at once? B/c that'd be retarded.

Also, to give a shot to a kid that is already sick is irresponsible.

"""
Sigma, I thought you were less black and white about things...
"""

Let's put it this way, I'm in Canada. Ever wonder why it takes years longer to get drugs cleared for use here then in the US? It's b/c our authorities don't trust the trials of the drug companies and do there own. Things are basically safe by the time it gets into the doctors hands. Though I understand your reluctance being in the US (you're in the US, right?).

Also, you're using the exception to the rule to prove a case, and I don't exactly find that sound.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
On the other hand, there is little inconclusive about what happens when plagues get out of hand, and there is little inconclusive about the deadliness of virulent contagious diseases ...

And these points might be the vaccine debate equivalent of the Precautionary Principle and Doomsday scenario. How likely is it for plague to get out of hand with current sanitation and food preservation practices? How likely is it for contagious diseases to become deadly with current nutritional and treatment options? Some might say these scenarios are equally political, rather than scientific.

Quote:
and there is little inconclusive about the effectiveness of eradicating some of these diseases with vaccines.

Actually, those who choose not to vaccinate often debate what they perceive to be the "myth" of eradication. I'll have to address that in another post.

Quote:
Although, a long term solution must rely in eradicating the disease from circulation, because if left in circulation in a large enough volume it could mutate to become immune to the immunization.

Now we get to the bottom of the issue. Mandatory vaccination is not to protect public health (because an immunized public is already protected). It is to wage a war against the Bug. We have the weapon, and we want to equip every single man, woman, and child to win the war for good. Unfortunately, we've decided to draft mostly babies and preschool children who bear the brunt of the side effects. Needless to say, some of us have ethical concerns with this goal, which could be somewhat relieved if only parents were allowed to say no.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:59 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There was never a vaccine for scarlet fever. Scarlet fever disappeared on its own, without the help of vaccinations...

That's true. However, of all the childhood diseases for which there were immunizations (such as whooping cough, polio, smallpox, measles, diphtheria, rubella, etc.), the generation which didn't have the immunizations contracted those illnesses in large numbers, while the generation which got the vaccinations did not.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Could some other factor have played a role in the disappearance of these diseases, either instead of or in addition to vaccinations? Maybe the credit claimed by vaccines in eradicating diseases is exaggerated

I think it's a bit much of a coincidence, for these diseases which had been rampant prior to mass immunization, to suddenly become extremely rare after mass immunization. And smallpox wasn't just made "extremely rare", it was eradicated by the vaccine.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Interestingly, the chickenpox vaccine has been linked to shingles later on in life. Now the link is not conclusive, but it does cast reasonable doubt on chickenpox vaxes preventing shingles as a benefit.

Shingles can only appear in someone who had previously contracted chicken pox -- as it is a re-emergence of the same virus.

I'm sure any parent who's had the shingles would never want their children to experience it, and would (if they could) make sure their children never contracted the chicken pox virus in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 2:22 PM

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.

How about if you don't get vaccinated if you contract that disease your Health insurer (or in a place with a sane public health service that body) is under no obligation to cover you for that disease. Seems fair. You want to play russian roullet, you have to pay for the consequences.

Perhaps if its a particularly infectious agent you have to pay for the government tracking of whom you may of infected as well, also fair. You make the choice, you pay for 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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Fine, long as YOU pay for the lifelong care of kids who "suddenly" develop autism right after recieving the MMR vaccine.

Have the decency to do your own homework for once, and while yer at it, make real sure to compare autism occurance in vaccinated population versus non-vaccinated (the Amish, for example) and then come back and tell me there's no link.

Nobody is saying it's unwise to vaccinate, what people are saying is whether the risks outweigh the benefits of any specific vaccine in question, case in point - do I really wanna risk hallucinations and suicidal thoughts from a flu shot ? (look it up, several countries have already posted medical advisories)

There's also the slippery slope that is mandatory, or even implied mandatory (get to that in a sec) treatment sponsored by the people who profit off the mandatory product.

This recent attempt to force, for example, more or less rigged psychological evaluations on schoolkids sponsored by the same shitheads who sell psychoactive drugs for use in children - even as it stands, in some school districts, the use of Ritalin is damned near an implied mandatory, all three of my sisters perfectly normal, healthy kids wound up on the ritalin-or-else freight train, said decision forced upon them BY the school administration without one whit of medical examination or evidence, and my sister caved to this demand, and now has three somewhat "disturbed" problem children with a host of health issues....

Again, if you make something mandatory, those who produce the product are going to exploit that, and if you look behind any one of these pushes for mandatory medication, you find big pharma's money behind it.

And we're supposed to trust them ? look at all the horrors they pronounced were so damned safe ?
Thaliomide (sp?) comes to mind, as do some others.

Like hell, I trust my own *informed* judgement, over someone on the big pharma gravy train, every single time.

Side note: These are also the jerks who are pushing meds for "syndromes" they cook up out of sheer imagination - just look at the advertisements... "restless leg syndrome", "overactive bladder syndrome" ?

You want me to trust THESE frankensteins ?
I'd rather have PN do my taxes!

-Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:27 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Vaccines for things like Small Pox and similar things I am supportive of, though I feel you should still be given the right to choose. And I find myself again (against the norm) agreeing with Kaneman on this, it is a fools' choice to not get innoculated against these aggressive diseases.

Vaccines for things like the Flu and other 'light' maladies I feel are just adding to this bull scheise perpetual sense of fear we find ourselves in. I hadn't gotten any sort of vaccines for seven years and I didn't get as much as a cold in that time. I join the Army and was forced in Basic Training to get 15 shots. The standard set (Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Tetnus, etc.) and several 'catch-up' shots for all the vaccines I had foregone the previous seven years. In the ten weeks that followed I came down with the flu, a bronchial infection and pnemonia. Frivilous vaccinations destroy your immune system for a short time making you suseptible to alot of other viruses/bacteria you'd normally have no problem fending off.

If you're going to the a region that is a high risk for diseases like Yellow Fever, Amall Pox, Polio, Malaria, etc., get your ass vaccinated, otherwise, use your own judgement to decide what you feel is necessary. Don't let a doctor or a principal force a needle into your arm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:34 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'd like to weigh in here.

First, I understand mistrusting the government/ industry consortium. Rather than having the best of both worlds, somehow the worst got stitched together, like Frankenstein. I suspect private profit was the reason to keep thimersol in - it was a known technology and hey, it costs money to research new ones. I KNOW profit was the reason for the scarcity of the far superior acellular pertussis vaccine - noted for its high level of safety even in seriously compromised individuals. And, on the other hand, there is the government demanding vaccination and then insulating mfgs from lawsuit. (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program 1986) (The usual conundrum of government in support of private 'free market' profit.)

OTOH I went to some of the sites linked by PhoenixRose. And I saw unconscionable statements like these:
- injection causes asthma
- vaccines are not safe at all
- childhood illnesses have a priming and maturing role in immune system
- vaccines have never prevented any diseases

If you are confused about what's wrong with these statements, email me and I'll be glad to supply lengthy treatises with references.

And then the opponents of vaccination play fast and loose with historical facts and references (there are none). For example, I was curious about England's smallpox epidemic in 1871-2, claimed to be at the height of smallpox vaccinations. If true, this would certainly not only kill public vaccination as a policy but put the last nail in the coffin as well. Since I couldn't find any references in any of the linked sites, I went a-lookin'.

Here is what I found:

------------------------------------------------------
Purchased article - not available for free on the internet
By the 1850s, when compulsory vaccination was first introduced in England, smallpox was already in retreat, though it still killed more than 5000 people every year and left many more disfigured with pock-marks. After the Europe-wide epidemic of 1871–2, when the death rate in England rose to more than 10 000, smallpox went into rapid decline ...

Anti-vaccination sites give the figure as an highly inflated 45,000, unsupported by any references.

http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/49
Vaccination Policy Against Smallpox, 1835–1914: A Comparison of England with Prussia and Imperial Germany
E. P HENNOCK*
*Professor E. P. Hennock, Department of History, University of Liverpool P. O. Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

SUMMARY There are three identifiable phases in comparing vaccination policy in England, Prussia, and Imperial Germany. (1) Prior to the 1870s the tradition of medical police in Prussia resulted in the vaccination of the population being treated as a State responsibility earlier than in England and provided an appropriate administrative framework. The administrative pressure that could be exerted persuaded the Prussian authorities that legislation to make vaccination compulsory was unnecessary. In contrast, England and Wales lacked both the tradition and administrative structures of a medical police. Legislation (1840, 1853) for free and universal infant vaccination was followed by radical ideological and administrative innovation (II) From 1875 to 1889 both countries provided free and compulsory vaccination for all. In England this was limited to infants; in Germany including Prussia, it included the re-vaccination of children. (III) After 1889 England and Germany began to diverge more sharply. In England vaccination rates fell and after 1898 conscientious objectors were excused from having to have their children vaccinated Germany retained compulsory vaccination and rates in the two countries increasingly diverged. England came to rely on the local public health administration for the surveillance and containment of smallpox, including selective vaccination of contacts.

Prussia did experience an earlier decline in smallpox mortality, probably due to vaccination policy.
Vaccination was STILL a part of England's strategy to control smallpox.

http://www.semel.ucla.edu/biomedicalmodeling/pdf/Bernoulli&Blower.pdf
An attempt at a new analysis of the mortality caused by smallpox ...
Where smallpox was endemic it was almost wholly a disease of childhood, with a case-fatality rate of 20%– 30%; the mean age of death due to smallpox has been estimated as 2.6 years [10] or 4.5 years [11].
In England, variolation against smallpox began to be widely administered after about 1750; vaccination was introduced in 1796 and was made compulsory for infants in 1853. During the 19th century as the pool of susceptibles was drastically reduced: (i) the endemic level of smallpox fell steadily, (ii) the amplitude of smallpox epidemics decreased, and (iii) the interepidemic interval increased. Thus public health measures led to the disappearance of smallpox in England by the end of the 19th century.

Smallpox had a significant mortality rate among children, it was not the innocuous 'practice infection' portrayed by the website.
Vaccination was statistically shown to work to eliminate smallpox.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The argument of 'informed consent' is a good one. And that's why there are such things as medical exemptions. My niece, who is seriously neurologically compromised, benefited from medical exemptions at every grade level. NO level of neurological side effect was or is acceptable in a child with auto-immunity to her own brain.

But there is the other side - and that is refusing vaccination AMA. If the doctor finds no medical exception, perhaps some sort of penalty could be imposed. (* see below)

The Nuremburg Code is really a bogus argument. (* see below)

* However, perhaps the two concepts could be combined into a legal practice of medically isolating people acutely ill with contagious diseases for which there are vaccines. There is legal precedent as these people are an immediate danger to others.

As to 'one size fits all', of course there should be exceptions. One thing (among several) that has been lax is the statistical study of who benefits individually and who does not.
------------------------------------------------------

I did want to mention autism. It's on the rise in every sub-population. In Southern California, the Indian woman from Guatemala is as likely to have an autistic child as the African American born and raised in Compton or the Anglo from rural Minnesota. To me that pretty much eliminates vaccination history of either mother or child; maternal exposure to persistent pollutants like dioxin or PCBs; or lineage of breast-feeding. I suspect it's something contemporary in the environment, and perhaps it might be perchlorate. But as no one knows the answers yet, that's a story to be told.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:00 PM

Quote:
Fine, long as YOU pay for the lifelong care of kids who "suddenly" develop autism right after recieving the MMR vaccine.

Have the decency to do your own homework for once, and while yer at it, make real sure to compare autism occurance in vaccinated population versus non-vaccinated (the Amish, for example) and then come back and tell me there's no link.

Fine, YOU pay for every single person who falls ill because they weren't vaccinated. I bet you run out of money first.

Have the decency to do YOUR own homework and get YOUR facts straight for once and realise that vaccination has done a lot more good than harm, and then tell me you have the right to expose other people to disease and expect other people to clean up YOUR mess.

Oh and really, you think that bit of 'logic' is indicative of anything? Greater occurrence of Autism in the general population as compared to the Amish is just as likely to be genetic as vaccine related, probably more so. Maybe it's because they eat less processed foods, an assertion that holds as much validity as yours. Get an argument and some actual data, why should I have the 'decency' to do YOUR homework for YOU when you don't have the decency to do it yourself.

Quote:
You want me to trust THESE frankensteins ?

Quote the place in my post where I said "trust big pharma, they're great" (The previous excluded, obviously). Can ya? Can ya quote me? No that's right you can't quote me. I never said trust anyone, I said take responsibility for your own choices, and if your choices directly lead to an out brake, you can take responsibility for that. Obviously you find taking responsibility for the negative effects of your choices as insultingly abhorrent, judging by your reaction, maybe you'd like to make the choice, garner the positive, then have me clean up any mess for you. Sounds like the perfect situation, for you.

Maybe you can explain why if you're unvaccinated and fall ill other people should pay for the consequences of your decision? Why should other people pay for the negative impacts of YOUR choice?

EDITED: To get my point across a little better.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

For people interested in exactly what's wrong with the FDA, click on the free articles below from the NEJM.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/21/2169?query=TOC#R1

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/21/2171?query=TOC

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/21/2261?query=TOC

Those who come from countries with decent health-care systems, please don't laugh too loudly at the US mess. It's not polite.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:14 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Side note: These are also the jerks who are pushing meds for "syndromes" they cook up out of sheer imagination - just look at the advertisements... "restless leg syndrome", "overactive bladder syndrome" ?
-Frem

I find it amusing that you have stated that jerks cooked up "syndromes" out of their imagination.

For your information RLS or restless leg does, in fact, exist. And I didn't just dream it up. Please do some research before you make statements you can't back up.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS -

I'm curious about your basic response to regulation. You have the approach "just give me the facts and let me decide." In your world without government, who do you think will provide you with unbiased facts? The pharmaceutical companies?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:52 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

The Anarchist Periodical?

Chaos Times NonUnion?

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:07 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
CTS -

I'm curious about your basic response to regulation. You have the approach "just give me the facts and let me decide." In your world without government, who do you think will provide you with unbiased facts? The pharmaceutical companies?

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
The Anarchist Periodical?

Chaos Times NonUnion?

[rant] You guys are missing the point here entirely. Even with all the 'facts', doctor testimonials. et all, out there that everyone gobbles up like the God's honest truth don't matter. I don't care if you give me a flu vaccine that is 100% effective and garuntees I won't get sick after I get the shot, I still won't get it. And that is my choice. It's not up to the government, the hospital, the FDA, or a school to decide what is in OUR best interests. If a parent doesn't want their child, or an adult doesn't want themselves, to get a shot, that is their decision, and forcing it upon them isn't going to help anyone. Those of us that have been vaccinated will be safe from those that haven't IF they do somehow manage to get infected.

You degrading to immature shots on those that have the nerve to actually stand up and question the 'norm' that has become the American people eating the shit fed us by the Government and Big Pharm like it was candy is childish. They are as entitled to their opinion as you constantly make us aware you are. And going against the norm does not make one an Anarchist, FutureMrsFIllion, grow up.

That's the beauty of the human condition, we don't always agree, nor do we have to. This thread was created to post your opinion on the subject, not insult those that don't share yours. [/rant]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, I'm looking for the anti- side to provide some perspective. You are obviously tapping into assumptions and information the pro- side doesn't share. I'd really like to find out what you all are thinking.

I need to make an important clarification here.

Vaccine choice activists come in two general categories: anti-vaccination and pro-choice. Pro-choice activism (to which I subscribe) is not anti-vaccination. It simply says that vaccination is not a black-and-white issue and therefore should be subject to individual choice.

So if you are looking for anti-vaccination arguments, you're not going to get any from me. I will not tell someone not to vaccinate. I will only post information to show that vaccination is a complex, multifactorial issue that does not merit a one-size-fits-all policy.

Now you can go to anti-vaccination sites and pull up all sorts of unsubstantiated claims and use them to discredit all prochoice arguments. But I think that would be somewhat disingenuous. One group wants to convince you that vaccines are not worth risking, and the other group wants to demonstrate only enough reasonable doubt that will allow parents to make their own choices. Any failure to prove vaccines are the root of all evil doesn't mean the reasonable doubt doesn't exist.

Here are some prochoice websites:
http://www.nvic.org/
http://www.know-vaccines.org/
http://www.vaccinechoice.org/index.php/site/C4/

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm curious about your basic response to regulation. You have the approach "just give me the facts and let me decide." In your world without government, who do you think will provide you with unbiased facts? The pharmaceutical companies?

I wasn't aware that professional journals where scientists publish their research findings were part of the government.

Do you think the government gives the public unbiased facts? (Edited to add: Just checked out your FDA links. Yeah, they are full of unbiased facts.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.
--H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:35 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

"[rant] You guys are missing the point here entirely. Even with all the 'facts', doctor testimonials. et all, out there that everyone gobbles up like the God's honest truth don't matter. I don't care if you give me a flu vaccine that is 100% effective and garuntees I won't get sick after I get the shot, I still won't get it. And that is my choice. It's not up to the government, the hospital, the FDA, or a school to decide what is in OUR best interests. If a parent doesn't want their child, or an adult doesn't want themselves, to get a shot, that is their decision, and forcing it upon them isn't going to help anyone. Those of us that have been vaccinated will be safe from those that haven't IF they do somehow manage to get infected.

You degrading to immature shots on those that have the nerve to actually stand up and question the 'norm' that has become the American people eating the shit fed us by the Government and Big Pharm like it was candy is childish. They are as entitled to their opinion as you constantly make us aware you are. And going against the norm does not make one an Anarchist, FutureMrsFIllion, grow up.

That's the beauty of the human condition, we don't always agree, nor do we have to. This thread was created to post your opinion on the subject, not insult those that don't share yours."

Dude take a chill pill. It IS the business of everyone else if you choose NOT to vaccinate your children or yourself, get sick and then cost ME money by making MY health co-pays increase, or worse if a whole bunch or you get together and start an epidemic because you were too "educated" to get the vaccination.

As for growing up - you seriously need to take a deep breath and count to 10. You are allowed your opinion and I am allowed mine. I am also allowed to respond should I choose to do so. If you can't take a joke, stay off the boards. I was responding directly to the post above me and no one else.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And that's why there are such things as medical exemptions....If the doctor finds no medical exception, perhaps some sort of penalty could be imposed.

Doctors tow the party line. Their primary interest is not necessarily the health of your child, but their own financial and professional advancements. Exemptions approved by doctors is not giving parents choice--it is giving doctors power to decide the fate of children they are not raising.

For example, one woman with two children who became autistic shortly after vaccination did not want to risk her 3rd child and wanted a medical exemption. But since medical authorities deny any possible link between vaccines and autism, they would not give her a medical exemption. Prochoice activists believe she should have that choice.

Quote:
The Nuremburg Code is really a bogus argument.

Researchers do the best correlational and controlled trial studies they can on vaccines, and then release the vaccine to the public. Then they follow up over the years and find out all sorts of surprising new things they hadn't known before. Like vaccines don't confer lifelong immunity as previously thought--people need booster shots. Or mothers who had been vaccinated for measles do not pass measles antibodies to their babies, like mothers who had contracted measles naturally. Or outbreaks can happen in a fully vaccinated population because all the vaccinated people were contracting the disease subclinically and spreading it about unknowingly. Or a perfectly healthy child with not even a cold can die 4 hours after her vaccination.

When they release a product to the public without knowing the full consequences, the public is very much used as a guinea pig. This is not only true for vaccines, but most medical interventions.

Although it is an undisputed fact that a segment of the population WILL react badly to a vaccine, authorities still don't know WHO is likely to react poorly and who isn't (besides the very narrow, obvious category of the immunocompromised). And they are not researching these subsets of the population to find the answers. When they inject a vaccine into YOUR child, there is a chance that it is YOUR child who will suffer injury or death. Speaking of Russian Roulette, it is exactly like pointing a gun at your kid, albeit with a tremendously huge barrel. Most kids are safe, but every once in a while, some kid gets it.

Vaccination is very much human experimentation. When you don't know what is going to happen before you try an intervention, you are experimenting. The Nuremberg Code is entirely appropriate for application in this issue.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.
-- Source unknown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
get sick and then cost ME money by making MY health co-pays increase,

Most people who choose not to vaccinate do not regularly patronize the conventional health care system. They go to alternative practitioners and pay out of pocket. Moreover, most vaccine-prescribed childhood diseases have no treatment or have inexpensive treatments. It is probably equally rare to get a serious disease complication (with high costs) as getting a serious vaccine complication (with high costs).

Quote:
or worse if a whole bunch or you get together and start an epidemic because you were too "educated" to get the vaccination.

How can "we" start an epidemic if most of "you" are immunized and protected? At worst, all unimmunized people will get sick, but that would hardly constitute an epidemic, since there are so few of "us."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
--Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:03 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Dude take a chill pill. It IS the business of everyone else if you choose NOT to vaccinate your children or yourself, get sick and then cost ME money by making MY health co-pays increase...

Actually, you can thank frivilous malpractice lawsuits and rampant illegal immigration into this country for your copays going up. It has little or nothing to do with people not getting vaccintated. Thanks for trying though.

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
...or worse if a whole bunch or you get together and start an epidemic because you were too "educated" to get the vaccination.

As I, and several others have said, you, me and the next guy that have gotten vaccines (I have for everything, as I said, because of my military service) will be protectid by any 'epidemic' that may happen because of those that chose not to get innoculated. And if we aren't protected and get sick anyway, well then it seems the vaccines that were forced upon us weren't as good as the so called 'experts' purported them to be.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 9:00 PM

To continue explaining my position, I will write in pieces as I have time. The next segment will focus on vaccine effectiveness.

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 were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

Bernard Greenberg, MD, biostatistics expert, chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s
Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on HR 10541. May 1962, pp. 94-112.
As quoted by Neil Z. Miller, http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf (pg 243)

Definition change in Canada:

Quote:
Paralytic cases were not distinguished from non-paralytic cases until a recommendation was made by the Dominion Council of Health in 1949- The LCDC figures provided from 1952 and onward represent this administrative change: recording only those cases adhering to the requirements for a diagnosis of paralytic poliomyelitis. In a report released in June of 1959, another administrative change was recommended by the Dominion Council of Health, further altering the way in which apparent cases of poliomyelitis would be reported. All non-paralytic cases of poliomyelitis were to be henceforth recorded as "meningitis, viral or aseptic," a disease which itself only became reportable in 1952." These two administrative changes effectively reduced the apparent incidence of poliomyelitis. In particular, since the latter change is temporally correlative to the introduction of the polio vaccines, the vaccines appear to have been responsible for a reduction in poliomyelitis cases when it is entirely possible that the administrative changes are primarily responsible.

Catherine Diodati MA, Immunization History, Ethics, Law and Health, p116

Definition Change in Germany:

Quote:
L.: If I understand you correctly, before, everyone was counted, those with polio in their feces as well as those sick with polio, and that totaled 4,000. When they started the polio vaccination, they only counted those people who had been paralyzed for at least six weeks, is this right?
B.: Yes.

L.: So, this is how statistics improved from 4,000 to 400?

B.: Yes, exactly...

L.: Okay, that’s what I understood. When you say they changed the way the calculations were done, who were "they"? Was this a medical or a political decision?

B.: It is always the same group that decides... the World Health Organization (WHO).

Gerhard Buchwald, MD, German physician, about diagnosing polio in Germany when polio vaccines were introduced
Testimony before the Quebec College of Physicians Medical Board
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/buchwald9.html

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
--Douglas Adams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:47 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Why is it that I suddenly feel trapped between a Klan lynch mob and a Panthers meeting ?

What I see here, is two sides of an issue, both with less than complete facts, with serious philosophical axes to grind, not willing to listen to a damned bit of evidence that contradicts their entrenched viewpoint.

I tell folks to do their own homework because the information is easy enough to obtain if you're interested, and mainly because I don't see the need to waste hours of time digging up stuff that's mostly dismissed out of hand by folks unwilling to re-examine positions they've held for a long time.

So, I ask you, what logical reason do you give me to bother to spend hours digging this stuff up, to show a point any rational being would instantly see, when it's simply dismissed out of hand anyway ? and for what ? a disagreement with folks who's opinions I have little interest in to begin with ?

The fact is, that there is simply NOT enough proper research on the topic, both sides have shovelled slapdash, unscientific studies to "prove their point" and loaded misinformation on top of that - and that alone tells me that maybe I should take a look and use my own damned judgement.

And that's the salient point of the matter, it's not whether you agree, or disagree, it's in the RIGHT to use ones own damned judgement.

I see this issue very much like mandatory helment laws.
Is it a good idea to wear a helmet ? sure.
Do I choose to wear one ? yep.
Should there be a LAW forcing people to ? no.

Look at the abuse of mandatory seat belt laws, as an example of a "safety" measure exploited for profit, or even in many cases, used for downright harrassment of the populace by the blue suited gang - or when redlight cameras become an avenue of income rather than a safety measure ?
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/maryland-countys-red-light-cameras-
net-2-85-million-increase/

And you would ask me to put my trust in people (collectively, as Govt) who have time and time again proven to be untrustworthy ?

Now, is there iron-clad, totally conclusive evidence linking MMR to Autism ?
Being that any real investigation has been "strongly discouraged", I could not say.
Is there SOME evidence that such a link exists ? Yes.
Is that evidence enough to warrant investigation ? HELL Yes.
Should that investigation be run by vaccine companies, or trial lawyers looking to class action those companies ? Hell no.

So, where's the independant, peer reviewed, proper scientific method study ?
Would that there was one, and in light of that lack, and the actions of both sides towards the matter, one would think there's a right to use one's own judgement.

Doctor Dave Weldon, M.D. made an excellent statement on why more research is needed, and how evidence leans toward the MMR being dangerous to susceptible people, and he quotes quite a few related studies that you'll just have to look up for yourself, because there is only so much time I will waste on this soon-to-devolve imminent flamefest.
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/pdf/Weldon.pdf

Merck (big pharma) says thier mercury is less toxic than other forms.
http://nomercury.org/science/documents/LATimes-Merck_Memo_2-8-05.pdf

But proper, scientific studies blow that utterly out of the water.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7712/7712.html
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

There also exists some evidence, referenced through the State of California DDS, of a rather sharp drop in Autism cases *after* Thimerosal was removed from common vaccines - no scientific study exists, but the numbers are there.
http://www.dds.ca.gov/autism/autism_main.cfm

I would also be skeptical of any claims of safety when the first thought isn't how to make it safer, but ass-covering and damage control.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index_np
.html
(4 pages, written from an initally skeptical viewpoint, and rather enlightening, also full of it's own sourced references.)

Here's a hint, I don't have an axe to grind, nor am I guessing, when I make blunt statements, I just expect people to actually do their own investigation and make their own judgement calls - if you come to a different conclusion, that's you.

Watching you people try to ram your beliefs down each others throats completely validates (to me) that in such a case, I must trust to my own judgement and investigation rather than simply accept the word of folks with an obvious axe to grind.

As for me calling many of these new so-called "syndromes" BS, in essence, yes.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.
1371/journal.pmed.0030191

And that ever so "safe" flu vaccine, which everyone assured you was so safe.. ain't.
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/129/117515.htm

But it all boils down to the same thing, the RIGHT to use your own damned judgement - life is a dangerous place, are we to retire to padded rooms with soft crayons so we're never in any danger ?

While you're busy asking for mandated vaccines, why not throw rabies in there, hmm ?
Outlaw skateboards and motorcycles.. bungie jumping, hey, maybe outlaw dangerous things by taxing them out of existance, it worked with tobacco didn't it ?
And sure enough, they're already aiming at junk food (not that 'health food' ain't twice as dangerous, but saccharin/aspartame/sucralose is so SAFE, right ?)

In short, and especially since y'all decided to be so damned nasty about it.

Up yours.

MY life, MY decisions, and piss off wankers, especially the bloody pillock who decided to get nasty cause I upset the teakettle of his little fallacy.

And, FYI - I AM a freakin Anarchist, so 'accusing' me of being one is kind of like cheating at solitare.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fremdfirma:
I tell folks to do their own homework because the information is easy enough to obtain if you're interested, and mainly because I don't see the need to waste hours of time digging up stuff that's mostly dismissed out of hand by folks unwilling to re-examine positions they've held for a long time.

What you mean folks like you? You told me I didn't have the decency to back up your argument. You attacked my very character for no reason other than I called for people to take responsibility for their own choices.

Quote:
So, I ask you, what logical reason do you give me to bother to spend hours digging this stuff up, to show a point any rational being would instantly see, when it's simply dismissed out of hand anyway ? and for what ? a disagreement with folks who's opinions I have little interest in to begin with ?

If that's the way you feel why should I read your post, in fact what pray tell are you doing here? No one's holding a gun to your head making you read the FireFlyFans.net RWED.

How about you tell me, logically, how you came to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about because I disagree with you.

Quote:
And that's the salient point of the matter, it's not whether you agree, or disagree, it's in the RIGHT to use ones own damned judgement.

Maybe you need to read my post again. To sum up what I said:

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. If a vaccination is provided I see no reason why other people should foot the bill for your decision. Maybe you can provide me with a reason why they should?

Quote:
Now, is there iron-clad, totally conclusive evidence linking MMR to Autism ?
Being that any real investigation has been "strongly discouraged", I could not say.
Is there SOME evidence that such a link exists ? Yes.
Is that evidence enough to warrant investigation ? HELL Yes.
Should that investigation be run by vaccine companies, or trial lawyers looking to class action those companies ? Hell no.

There's no evidence that MMR causes Autism. All there is are parents of Autistic Children looking for someone to blame and finding MMR. I'm not saying there isn't a link, I think there should be research into it, but anyone saying there is SOME evidence is merely following a post hoc analysis.

Quote:
So, where's the independant, peer reviewed, proper scientific method study ?

http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/mmr.pdf
http://www.immunize.org/mmrautism/

Just to clarify my position some, although I realise you don't care (something I suspected when you couldn't even be bothered to read properly through my somewhat short initial post) I thought parents should have the right to choose to have single vaccinations rather than MMR if they wished, but that since MMR was offered by the NHS they should pay for the single injections themselves. If they make the choice, they pay for it.

Quote:
he quotes quite a few related studies that you'll just have to look up for yourself, because there is only so much time I will waste on this soon-to-devolve imminent flamefest.

You turn up and immediately question my decency because you've decided what you want my position to be and you've decided that I don't know what I'm talking about and you think you have a right to talk about “wasting your time on this imminent flamefest”? You're playing more than your part in creating it.

Quote:
Here's a hint, I don't have an axe to grind,

No, of course not, where would anyone get that idea?

Quote:
nor am I guessing,

But of course I must be.

Quote:
when I make blunt statements, I just expect people to actually do their own investigation and make their own judgement calls - if you come to a different conclusion, that's you.

Though of course if I do, for once, bother to think for myself and come to a different conclusion its because I have no Human decency, right?

Quote:
And sure enough, they're already aiming at junk food (not that 'health food' ain't twice as dangerous, but saccharin/aspartame/sucralose is so SAFE, right ?)

So what, you're questioning the link between obesity, heart disease and so on and Junk food? And since when did artificial sweeteners fall under the category of health food?

Quote:
In short, and especially since y'all decided to be so damned nasty about it.

Up yours.

MY life, MY decisions, and piss off wankers, especially the bloody pillock who decided to get nasty cause I upset the teakettle of his little fallacy.

I responded to you in exactly the same way you spoke to me. If you don't like being spoken to in the same way you speak to other people then maybe you should grow up.

YOUR life, YOUR decisions, so YOU take the responsibility for them.

And the only person here getting nasty and personal, calling people wankers and bloody pillocks is you. Maybe they upset the teakettle of your little fallacy.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:58 AM

I don't have the common Human Decency not to double post, evidently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Watching you people try to ram your beliefs down each others throats completely validates (to me) that in such a case, I must trust to my own judgement and investigation rather than simply accept the word of folks with an obvious axe to grind.

You think *I* am trying to ram my beliefs down the other side's throat? I have to admit I feel a bit hurt.

I must not be making myself clear.

I favor choice. Because you ARE absolutely right, Frem. There has been no good scientific research on vaccines. There is a lot of disinformation on both sides. (What would you get if all tobacco research were conducted or funded by tobacco companies? And all other literature were written by lung cancer patients' attorneys.) So we don't have the data to know what EXACTLY the benefits and risks are. Parents have to muddle through unknown benefits and unknown risks to arrive at a choice they can live with. No one else can or should do it for them.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Freedom defined is freedom denied.
-- Illuminatus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:11 AM

FREERADICAL42

Then let's look at the facts, since there has been a lot of disinformation, as you say:

FACT 1:

Vaccines produce immunity to the disease for which they are intended in the vast majority of those vaccinated.

There are no other facts, because the research is so poor, but we do know this:

Vaccines are given to the vast majority of American children.

In this case, we have to do some simple cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not vaccines are good. First, let's define some variables:

a = negative utility of a vaccine (this is what you might call "side effects")
b = negative utility of a disease
c = likelihood of contracting a disease when not vaccinated.

The utility of getting the vaccine, U, therefore, is described by:

U = cb - a

Now, here's the part where it gets more complicated. c is actually a function of another variable, x. So we say c(x)= what? Well, the likelihood of getting the disease is directly related to the number of people in the population who have the disease, or are susceptible to getting it.

So, for diseases that are very widespread or spread very quickly, it makes a lot of sense to get a vaccine.

However, this is what we might call a "self-interested" calculation. It doesn't consider the utility of getting the vaccine for others in the population. The more people who have the vaccine, the less likely others are to get the disease. C goes down. In the case of polio, this is illustrated quite clearly; the epidemic stopped when the vaccine was made, because c went down by an amazing degree. This is also the case with smallpox. Getting a vaccine, in either of these cases, is helpful to the entire population because it reduces the effectiveness of the disease. This remains true as long as the disease exists.

So, unless there is an epidemic currently active, a self-interested person (or "defector") will be willing to avoid taking the vaccine for philosophical reasons. A cooperator, who cares about the rest of the population, will get the vaccine despite their views. I prefer to be concerned about the greater good.

Now, you may not view yourself as being self-interested, but if you're taking your own philosophy as being better than the greater good, you're self-interested. It's how an economist would classify you. The aim of the law for mandatory vaccination is to prevent the population share of defectors from being so high that the value of C(x) becomes a problem again.

Of course, religious objections often force people to be defectors when they wouldn't otherwise be. Given that the USA guarantees religious freedom except in cases of "clear and present danger," I would argue that these people should be given a choice except when an epidemic is active (this being a rather clear and present danger).

From an economic perspective, the law, which is for the greater good, achieves its goal, so I think it's good how it is- unless philosophical objections are allowed.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:26 AM