Vaccinations

“These were pretty bad diseases to get and today the only issues we have with them are with pockets of people that refuse to immunize their kids.” Absolutely not true, do your homework before you make up wild statements.

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I have to agree with this. All those poxes had to have gone somewhere.

At the same time, just trusting someone to inject your child with an unknown substance concocted by a multi-billion dollar industry that got that way from concocting just such substances is a pretty high stakes roll of the dice, too.

I honestly can’t make up my mind how I feel about the whole thing.

Anybody here arguing against vaccines have kids and NOT vaccinate them?

I’m guessing not.

A pox on all your houses!

Wait…

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

I’m guessing not. [/quote]

Of course not. It’s all fine and dandy to talk a big game, but the moment you have kids are you really willing to risk it?

The people that do risk it should be monitored carefully, because that’s just borderline child abuse (not vaccinating).

[quote]Cortes wrote:
At the same time, just trusting someone to inject your child with an unknown substance concocted by a multi-billion dollar industry that got that way from concocting just such substances is a pretty high stakes roll of the dice, too.

I honestly can’t make up my mind how I feel about the whole thing. [/quote]

Totally agree with you. It is a TOUGH choice.

I hear a lot of blustering about this and that from anti side, but the data, for the most part, seems to point to the fact it isn’t a conspiracy, but rather “best practices at the moment”. But then again, can you really trust either side? I tend to trust doctors. I have have issues with some of them being jackasses for sure, but I look to them and their field just the same.

One link in the other thread to try and prove these amazing profit margins linked to a company who saw a marked increase in total sales attributed to vacination sales increases, but if you read on, you notice they state the margin went down something like 10%. So, without actually looking at the financials, that leads you to believe the margin per shot, isn’t that great.

(With all the screaming about how much these PUBLIC companies make off the shots, I would figure it would take someone a couple hours to pour through the statements of these comapnies and prove how much they make off of these shots. Rather than just state it, you know, prove it.)

High sales are good for valuation, but sales do not mean a damn thing without profit…

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DoubleDuce,

?[/quote]

What? the government and even medical professionals at one time considered political persuasions to be a mental disorder.

I’m sure you believe that they then had the right to forcibly medicate to prevent that pandemic of people who have different political ideologies.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
all the screaming about how much these PUBLIC companies make off the shots… [/quote]

Now this is an excellent observation.^^^^^

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DoubleDuce,

?[/quote]

What? the government and even medical professionals at one time considered political persuasions to be a mental disorder.

I’m sure you believe that they then had the right to forcibly medicate to prevent that pandemic of people who have different political ideologies.[/quote]

DoubleDuce,

this may be the single worst analogy ever. if you are trying to compare polio or smallpox with someone espousing communism or conservatism or liberalism, then it would be pointless for me to even try to answer because you are obviously in a world all your own. i am going to assume it is a trap and proceed ahead regardless, smallpox and polio are always a disease, they will always be considered a disease no matter which way the political winds shift. i am aware that the DSM used to consider homosexuality a disease, but they no longer do, polio and smallpox are now, have been and always will be diseases (even when used as a vaccine against said illness) being inoculated against a deadly communicable disease has been a real game changer in the human species. for those of you against vaccination, i wonder how the rest of your beliefs line up.

as to the second part. no, i do not feel that they would have the right to medicate a person due to their political beliefs (though maybe their actions if they are blowing things up). i would be amazed at hearing how a mental illness pandemic would start in the first place, secondly since we live in a democracy (i know we don’t exactly but the term sort of fits) a spread of a different political view is not mental illness, it would be the “will of the people”.

have you heard if there is an antibody for conservatism?

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DoubleDuce,

?[/quote]

What? the government and even medical professionals at one time considered political persuasions to be a mental disorder.

I’m sure you believe that they then had the right to forcibly medicate to prevent that pandemic of people who have different political ideologies.[/quote]

DoubleDuce,

this may be the single worst analogy ever. if you are trying to compare polio or smallpox with someone espousing communism or conservatism or liberalism, then it would be pointless for me to even try to answer because you are obviously in a world all your own. i am going to assume it is a trap and proceed ahead regardless, smallpox and polio are always a disease, they will always be considered a disease no matter which way the political winds shift. i am aware that the DSM used to consider homosexuality a disease, but they no longer do, polio and smallpox are now, have been and always will be diseases (even when used as a vaccine against said illness) being inoculated against a deadly communicable disease has been a real game changer in the human species. for those of you against vaccination, i wonder how the rest of your beliefs line up.

as to the second part. no, i do not feel that they would have the right to medicate a person due to their political beliefs (though maybe their actions if they are blowing things up). i would be amazed at hearing how a mental illness pandemic would start in the first place, secondly since we live in a democracy (i know we don’t exactly but the term sort of fits) a spread of a different political view is not mental illness, it would be the “will of the people”.

have you heard if there is an antibody for conservatism?[/quote]

You seem to have missed my point and bolstered my case. My point was that the government and medical community are many times wildly inaccurate. The reason homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder is because of the cultural change that no longer sees it as a flaw.

It still maintains that it is a genetically linked trait, no? The only thing that makes it a disease or not is if it is perceived as a flaw.

We could get to a cultural point where being obese is no longer seen as bad, and poof, obesity is no longer a medical disorder.

So, who gets to draw that line?

If it’s general public consensus or the medical community, you were in favor of educational videos about the gay disease, you favored lobotomies, you were in favor of keeping blacks out of important positions, and on and on and on.

There are actually deaf people who now have the opportunity to have their hearing restored and refuse it, because they are happy with who they are. They don’t see who they are as diseased. It’s just a character trait.

But the better question is, why do you need to force a vaccine on anyone? Make it available. If it is safe and effective, people can choose to get it and those that do are protected from the problem. I see little reason for a vaccinated person to demand someone else do it.

DD,

Vaccines saved millions of lives, refusing a vaccine for your child is failed parenting and a public health risk, look at the Spanish Flu pandemic from 1918-1920, over those two years it is estimated that between 50,000,000 and 100,000,000 people worldwide died from the flu, the census showed 1.8 billion people in 1918, that is the equivalent of a flu outbreak killing 200,000,000 plus today.

This is just one illness, look at polio, smallpox, measles mumps, rubella etc. The reason to make people take the vaccines is because it keeps us all safe (safer anyway).

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DD,

Vaccines saved millions of lives, refusing a vaccine for your child is failed parenting and a public health risk, look at the Spanish Flu pandemic from 1918-1920, over those two years it is estimated that between 50,000,000 and 100,000,000 people worldwide died from the flu, the census showed 1.8 billion people in 1918, that is the equivalent of a flu outbreak killing 200,000,000 plus today.

This is just one illness, look at polio, smallpox, measles mumps, rubella etc. The reason to make people take the vaccines is because it keeps us all safe (safer anyway). [/quote]

Locking everyone in a padded room would be even safer.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

So, other people need to take the vaccine to keep you safe? You aren’t safe if you take the vaccine? Again, Tell me, who gets to draw the line. Why are you refusing to answer that question? Also, who gets to decide if it’s safe?

Who gets to decide what diseases are a danger to “public health” (which is itself an oxymoron)?

Answering those questions are necessary to your position.

Choosing not to vaccinate your kids is not child abuse or even borderline. If you believe in the religion of vaccines, go for it. There isn’t this overwhelming obviously no-brainer good science backing up its efficacy like the pro-vaccine camp would like to believe. In fact there is quite a bit of controversy over it and the attitude that not injecting your child with what is a questionable milieu of adjuvants and toxic ingredients is somehow instantly bad parenting is really annoying. What I think DD is getting at is that we damn sure don’t need the government mandating them.

By proxy from my work I have met literally hundreds (maybe thousands at this point) of parents that have not vaccinated from kids that are still young all the way to young adults that weren’t with no perceivable or documented issues.

The herd immunity theory is just that, a theory, and is again not this unshakeable rock of fact that makes you an idiot or deserving of isolation if you aren’t vaccinated. I also know enough parents that have vaccine injured children that it is not a quick no-brainer answer. Its a tough choice that parents struggle with and to those that think that its child abuse not to vaccinate, what do you say to the vaccine injured? Oh, well tough luck? Ahhh can’t be from the vaccine?

storey420,

but the fact is vaccines do work, and they work very well, polio, smallpox, MMR, etc vaccines have saved millions of lives, flu vaccines have saved thousands in the US every year.

The fascinating part about being anti-vaccine is the belief that the government is somehow trying to strong arm us into taking a vaccine for no good reason at all. if people refuse to take a vaccine, fine, but if that person of their child becomes ill with that disease what then?

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
storey420,

but the fact is vaccines do work, and they work very well, polio, smallpox, MMR, etc vaccines have saved millions of lives, flu vaccines have saved thousands in the US every year.

The fascinating part about being anti-vaccine is the belief that the government is somehow trying to strong arm us into taking a vaccine for no good reason at all. if people refuse to take a vaccine, fine, but if that person of their child becomes ill with that disease what then?[/quote]

Flu vaccines are highly ineffective and should be the first one to go if you didnt take a vaccine. Im simply not going to accept your “saves thousands” position on that one. You actually have no idea of the stats of people that took a flu vaccine and contracted the flu (and of course whether they specifically got it from the vaccine).
Read up some on the polio vaccine and the later years of Salk and Sabin’s second vaccine you may be surprised at what you read. Certainly more to the story than what we were told at school.
“In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio in the United States [36]. In fact, according to CDC figures, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio vaccine [36].”

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
storey420,
if people refuse to take a vaccine, fine, but if that person of their child becomes ill with that disease what then?[/quote]

There are methods to work with any disease, none are foolproof and all have risks associated. Point being that you should not be forced or even ostracized as a “bad parent” if that strategy does not include vaccines. Too often I see people on forums or in person act liek those that dont vaccinate are idiots or uneducated hippies when in reality they have been sold a great story as to the efficacy of the various vaccines but there is really not solid science behind them. LOTS of contradictory information.
Let me pose the follow up question to you. If the child becomes ill FROM the vaccine what then?

Storey,

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

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

The fascinating part about being anti-vaccine is the belief that the government is somehow trying to strong arm us into taking a vaccine for no good reason at all. if people refuse to take a vaccine, fine, but if that person of their child becomes ill with that disease what then?[/quote]

It’s funny when not wanting the government to coerce people into something equals being against that thing.

I’m assuming you are against government breeding programs, therefore, you are anti-sex.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Too often I see people on forums or in person act liek those that dont vaccinate are idiots or uneducated hippies when [/quote]

Yeah, I don’t judge anyone for not doing it. Although I am apprehenisve about having non immunized kids around my kids, I don’t instantly assume the worst of those that don’t. It is not an easy choice, for either side.

But, the vitrol goes both ways. Tried to have this conversation on facebook and was subject of every ad hominen known to man. (Just so happens dude was an uneducated hippie, LOL, so I had to bring it up haha.)