Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2) by canttakesky

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7892
PAGE 4 of 4

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think vaccination has the weight of evidence in terms of being effective. I also think it is safER than catching the disease itself. But it is not 100% effective, nor 100% safe.

And I respect that you think that. The question is, does the "weight of evidence" meet enough scientific standards that you should force ME to act on what YOU think?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:19 AM

RUE

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

CTS,

The scientists I know - at least the ones with any integrity - follow where the data leads. They don't determine their conclusions ahead of time then trim their data to fit. You OTOH selectively edit what data you admit exists. And of that data you refuse to admit that ANY is good.

You are not at all interested in data.

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

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:25 AM

RUE

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

PS You yourself mentioned the definition of polio was changed to conform to 'the study' definition. Which study was that? It was the one you pointedly omitted - the placebo and 'observed control' polio vaccine study financed by the March of Dimes.

http://www.med.umich.edu/medschool/chm/polioexhibit/press_release.htm
It was big deal at the time and just the kind of study you say doesn't exist. Am I to believe your research was so sloppy (or biased) that you never found this information? Or do I alternately believe you saw this but hid it as non-conforming to your pre-determined 'conclusion'?

"For one thing what was feared turned out to be unfounded -- the vaccine proved incredibly safe. Reactions were nearly negligible. Only 0.4 percent of the vaccinated children suffered minor reactions.

An even smaller percent (0.004-0.006) suffered so-called "major reactions."

Out of a total population of 1,829,916 children a total of 1013 cases of polio developed during the study period and were reported to the Center.

In placebo control areas, where vaccine was interchanged with an inert substance, 428 out of 749,236 children contracted the disease.

In the observed control areas where only second graders were inoculated, 585 cases out of 1,080,680 children developed.

Specifically, 33 inoculated children receiving the complete vaccination series became paralyzed in the placebo areas. This is opposed to 115 uninoculated children. Similarly, in the observed areas there were 38 such children who became paralyzed, as opposed to 330 uninoculated children.

The Report also stated that in no area did Type II virus prevail. There was, however, prevalence in certain areas of Types I and III."

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

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:57 AM

RUE

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

6-String,

Then we will have to disagree.

I do believe though that if you were to see your neighbors, friends, family or worse, children, suffer and die a horrible death from epidemic disease, or to be at credible risk, you might change your position about mandatory vaccinations.

That is the perspective I come from. So while I don't necessarily believe in blanket mandatory vaccinations, I would never rule them out completely either. I don't hold dogma either way.

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

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 9:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And I respect that you think that. The question is, does the "weight of evidence" meet enough scientific standards that you should force ME to act on what YOU think?

That's what we've been discussing. But we can't seem to get past the first two sticking points, which are:

Is vaccination safe?
Is vaccination effective?

Let's tackle vaccination safety. If you were sure that vaccines were 100% safe, or if there were reliable ways of screening out those for whom vaccination is not safe, would you vaccinate? Or would other issues of pharma profit, lack of demonstrated effectiveness, governmental intrusion, or just plain "it's a pain-in-the-assed to trot down to the Dr's office" keep you from vaccinating? In other words, is your main problem with safety and are these other issue peripheral?

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

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

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:34 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you were sure that vaccines were 100% safe, or if there were reliable ways of screening out those for whom vaccination is not safe, would you vaccinate?

If vaccines were 100% safe, there is still the question of whether the effectiveness of the vaccine is worth its cost. Would I be willing to gamble a few hundred dollars for an unknown chance of preventing diseases that are now relatively rare, and may or may not cause serious harm to my children? It would depend on the disease and the child.

Imagine that a company named Vital Health Systems (VHS) has put out a product called Whoopsadoozy, designed to prevent infection of pertussis. They did a double-blind randomized controlled trial where half the kids got Whoopsadoozy, and the other half got FlowerHepA (another product of VHS, designed to prevent Hep A infection). They found only 2% of Whoopsadoozy recipients contracted pertussis, whereas 20% of FlowerHepA recipients contracted pertussis. They concluded that Whoopsadoozy was 90% effective in preventing pertussis. There were no reported side effects at all. Whoopsadoozy retails for $100.

Would I get Whoopsadoozy for my kids? Now pertussis is actually the most common of vaccine-prescribed diseases, and it carries a significant risk for infants. Assuming it is 100% safe, I would be very tempted to get Whoopsadoozy for any children of mine under age 2. But this study is flawed, and I seriously doubt that it's efficacy is 90%. I would have to consider the big picture for more information. Why haven't other studies using inert placebos been done? Has this study been replicated? What is the track record for VHS and its other products? Is the company trustworthy? Do they have a so-so product and are exaggerating its effects for marketing and pricing purposes? Are there competitive alternatives that are cheaper?

Even if it is 100% safe, I don't want to be conned out of my money for a questionable product, by a company that exploits normal parental fears.

Based on this information alone, would you get Whoopsadoozy for your kids?

Quote:
In other words, is your main problem with safety and are these other issue peripheral?

Other issues form the big picture. It is not that big pharma makes hefty profits. It is that they have a documented history of lying, cheating, distorting, and bribing. I don't trust them. I have often said, for me, it is like buying blood from a blood bank run by the Mafia. Ewww. I may need that blood, but I don't want to get it from them.

Ok, gotta run. Kids are calling.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 6:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

When making medical decisions, the first thing I look at is the risks and benefits of doing something versus the risks and benefits of doing nothing. (Most people don't realize that there are risks to doing nothing.) I look for ways to understand when risks are imminent (such as blood tests) and for ways to minimize them. If I initiate a treatment, I try to do so gradually. I keep a journal to help track long-term changes.

But if there is no question whatsoever on the safety of a treatment- in this case, a vaccine- then my decision to vaccinate (or not) would be a pocketbook decision because there's no downside healthwise. At $10, it would be a no-brainer. At $1000 it would require some thought.

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

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

Friday, December 29, 2006 5:30 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
At $10, it would be a no-brainer. At $1000 it would require some thought.

Right, exactly.

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

So to answer your question directly, if vaccines were 100% safe, I would probably vaccinate if the cost per dose were about the same as dinner for two at a moderate restaurant (about $30 or less). But that would have to be the cost of the product, not my co-pay or the part not subsidized by government, or any partial price like that.

Given what I have seen in the studies I've read, I personally and tentatively conclude (and I could very well be wrong because the data is so scanty and distorted) that vaccines are effective for some people, but for much fewer people than claimed--more like 20-45% rather than 80-95%. So for me, given my interpretation of the data, the questionable benefits are not worth a high price. I'll pay something for it, but not too much. I feel a price that is too high is a con exploiting parental fears, and is objectionable on principle.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
--Bertrand Russell

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

Sunday, December 31, 2006 5:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Yes Rue, you can smile and rest peacefully at night with the knowledge that there won't be any free thinkers like me left in 60 or so years

I wouldn't advise resting so very peacefully quite yet - spent the weekend with my sisters kids, all three of whom are about as free thinking as one can get, and i've no intention of discouraging it, no matter how badly it pisses off the school district.

While it ain't much in the grand scheme of things, given the plethora of subservient idiots bred and born every day, as long as my ancestral line endures, so also will free thought endure.

-Frem

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

Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:57 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

How Tennis and Djokovic Are Pushing Against the U.S. Covid Vaccine Rule

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/sports/tennis/djokovic-biden-miami-
open-covid-vaccine.html

Biden's Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate Faces a New Religious Discrimination Challenge
Enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine requirement is paused, but a group of 10,000 feds is hedging its bets

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/03/bidens-federal-employee-vacc
ine-mandate-faces-new-religious-discrimination-challenge/383662/

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE