now dat was funny

I meant the US, but sure. Give those limeys' hell, ford!

And actually, uh, yeah there were some pretty serious public health concerns in the 60's in terms of communicable diseases that we don't really see today...

And you tote around your information as if you did the lab tests and published the papers yourself (...did you?)? Misinformation is a two way street. I honestly could care less. I had my vacs as a kid and got a few (dozen) more from the military.

I'm saying be more logical realize there's a reasonable reason for the other side of this debate.

im sorry if i dont find the logic in helping a preventable disease stick around. it is selfish and endangers the lives of 2 of my kids currently. not to mention the thousands of others.

Fair enough. But neither side of this debate wants to see terrible diseases tearing through communities.

The other side feels the vaccines are a greater short term risk to long term health and well being of their own family units (and possibly a bigger effect on the whole of society, those 'thousands of others'). The information each side is basing their decisions/debate on is widely open to interpretation at the moment. I'm guessing it will go on for a few decades if not longer.

the difference is the other side has used papers and fear mongering that has widely been discredited by reputable scientific sources. in this very thread someone tried to use a geologist to discredit vaccines.

they can feel that the sky is purple all they want, but it is blue.

your blue, not my blue

http://commons.wikimedia.org/...es_US_1944-2007_inset.png

52 minutes of your time:
http://youtu.be/wqbH40Y9XJw
and/or
http://www.pbs.org/specials/depth-vaccines/

Only one thing to say vac those kids!

Vaccinations lead to superbugs, its proven. Those superbugs kill more than sharks do in any given year.

What a stupid statment. How many people are killed by sharks every year?

The common cold kills more than sharks do in a year... What's your point? Sharks don't kill many people in the grand scheme of things.

According to wiki:

Confirmed Unprovoked Shark Attacks, 1580–2013
United States Attacks Fatal LastFatality
(Excluding Hawaii) 1055 36 2013

And leto if your point is the risk out weights the benefit of vaccines you are greatly mistaken in that belief.

I think you missed that leto was making a joke. I laughed at it earlier this morning.

The sad thing here is that I don't believe anyone here is actually anti-vax.

I believe everyone has actually posted support for vax.

Mainly, it's just a debate about:

Government forced injections vs. individual choice

With all the fluff the gov does and how screwed up they are, I cannot understand how anyone would be willing to allow the gov to decide what goes into your body.

I always thought mrford was for "less gov", but I guess I was incorrect on that.

you assumption that someone has to either be 100% less gov or 100% more gov is as comical as your disregard for life is depressing.

this isnt political for me, it is the protection of those who have no choice. if you really think that drug companies willingly put fluff into vaccines that they know harms people and doctors ignore it for money than i feel sorry for you and your outlook on life, and your ability to choose a good doctor. i suppose you do get to wear that cool tinfoil hat though.

i read good

juice:
I've seen what you posted about having a friend repeated verbatim from other people. My wife has worked extensively with kids with "autism". I quote the term because the definition of what that is is not fixed and it is a label for a wide variety of developmental problems which can range from lack of being able to recognize social queues all the way to completely unable to function in society. It is not something I would wish on anyone's kids. The causes are unknown although there is proof that there are genetic triggers.
The incidence of autism is rising although part of this is due to better diagnosis and a broader definition of the term.
There is no cure just like there is no cure for downs syndrome. However early identification and a lot of educational support at a very young age can reduce it's impact to the individual.

The autism discovery rate in kids who haven't been vaccinated (yet/at all) is roughly the same as those who have.
The problem is that autism develops and shows symptoms around the same time it is optimal to give vaccines but mounting evidence (not from pharma) suggests that vaccines are not the cause. This doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of environmental cause (either through food additive, the air, or something not caused by humans) which may contribute but there is a lot we don't know yet partly due to are lack of understanding of genetics (what triggers genes on and off and why) and early child hood development (tough to do a controlled study on this).

Big Pharma is certainly not doing us any kind of favors here and has a poor track record for drug safety (Thalidomide for example) and their reputation for cutting trials/safety and dishonesty (deserved or not) doesn't help.

This is why I am not a huge fan of tamiflu (long term effects unknown) or the flu vaccine (taking a risk with low guarantee that it will do anything).
However for things like measles/smallpox.. by not vaccinating your kid you are causing a public health risk and a very serious one.
The more people get infected, the higher the chance that eventually the virus will mutate into something for which we don't currently have a vaccine. Plus you can cause outbreaks affecting kids as others have described above. I am all for non-government intervention to the extent that you are not causing harm to others (other than self-defense).
Ironically the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing was started by an unscrupulous doctor (now disbarred) who was trying to discredit a vaccine in order to sell his own. He later admitted the findings were fake.
Do vaccines carry a risk? yes. But that risk is infinitely smaller than the risk of getting measles or smallpox and what those could do to you. Do you put your kids into a car and drive them? You've exposed your kids to at least 10X the risk by doing this yet no one advocates not driving your kids anywhere.. just saying.

Natural Selection.

Do we really want 7 billion people on earth? Is it sustainable?

That was very well said, martian.

http://ow.ly/IkQX2

also 76% give or take a few points are against requiring parents to vaccinate their children. That is one poll Ive seen with a large vote count.

Have a beautiful and lovely day!

we already have 7 billion and can sustain 9-10 billion. Not that i want that many more

http://personalliberty.com/

lol, nice survey.



it literally says that in your link. please try again. your reward will be a new tinfoil hat

This thread has become more than idiotic. Time to leave you guys to it.

You cannot count all vaccines as the same. They are different, with different risks and considerations.

First - full disclosure. My wife is a pharmacist. We know the value of medicine and the safety / efficacy of modern 1st-world pharmaceutical products. Our kids were 110% vaccinated at early ages (+100% because there was some concern for lots / effectiveness of some so we had them re-done). But they are **NOT** considered fully vaccinated at young adult stage because we are have delayed the meningitis vaccine and will not get the gardasil at all.

So that brings my first point -- stats on who is 'protected' or not report only those complying with the full range of recommended vaccines. And that can vary with country and local laws. So parents can do all save one and get junked in as an 'anti-vaxxer'. As always you gotta know that stats do not paint the whole picture.

Next point is the risks and benefits of different vaccines, esp when applied to individuals. Our son had a very serious reaction (swelling, pain at injection site) to some early vaccines. Not caused by the killed virus, but the carrier medium. But a reaction all the same. This kind of reaction can grow and eventually could result in difficulty breathing and other life-threatening condition (note that doctors routinely want anyone vaccinated to remain for some period of time to be monitored for adverse reaction - there is real reason for this). These reactions tend to grow with repeated exposure, so we delayed a few vaccinations to allow his body to grow some and then he tolerated the others well. Of course for about a year there we were **not** in compliance with the government guidelines and therefore some people here want to poke my eyes out.

Point being that there really are some concerns for vaccines, even with the strictest and highest quality production facilities. God help those getting 3d world production standard medications of all sorts, not just vaccines. NOTE: Even with the best to offer, the US Center for Disease Control reports that MMR/MMRV vaccine has a 4 to 8 in 10k chance of causing febrile seizures (http://www.cdc.gov/...y/Vaccines/MMR/index.html) That is a small risk but it still sucks pretty hard if your kid is one of the 4, and with millions of doses given a year there are a lot of those unlucky families out there.

Now we get to the newer and more politically motivated vaccine movements, most notable of gardasil. Here we have a vaccine that has recorded a much higher risk for a wide variety of reactions and is associated with at least 32 deaths. (http://www.cdc.gov/...ty/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html) The CDC downplays these reactions as mostly minor and says that the most serious the individuals also had other risk factors for that conditions. However the presence of another risk factor does not eliminate the gardasil from being the cause, or from having an adverse interaction with the other condition to increase the risk of the reaction. The CDC says this is being studied.

So gardasil has at least reasonable cause for concern (large numbers of adverse reactions and the need to for the CDC and other organizations to study the problem), but what of the benefit? Gardasil is designed for sexually active females with multiple partners in order to protect against the some of the HPV strains that have a small chance of leading to cancer. Most HPV is benign and resolves itself. It is only spread thru unprotected sexual contact. So telling me to have my 9 year old daughter injected with a (relatively) high-risk vaccine to protect against a disease that a) she is at EXTREME low chance of being in contact with and that b) is mostly harmless even if contracted and c) has a risk -- if you get past a) & b) -- of causing cancer approaching the risk associated with just receiving the vaccine is wrong.

Then you add in the political maneuvering involved to get this drug put on the recommended list, the payouts to politicians and the ideological fervor that some of the organizations pushing the requirements and the whole thing stinks. Money and politics trump science all the time, and this is one case. A serious case that stands to hurt a whole of people (because even a 0.00005% risk turns into real numbers of people as tens of millions are forced to roll that dice).

0.00005% of say, 50,000,000, is 2,500. ok, that might sound like a lot. i doubt there would be 50mill vaccinated a year. for the US it probably would be 4 mill a year or so, assuming a 100% rate. 0.00005% of that is something like 200. so in reality 200 or so kids a year MIGHT die from this vaccination

but ONE of the things this vaccine, gardasil, protects against is cervical cancer. In 2014, an estimated 12,360 new cases were expected to be diagnosed, and about 4,020 were expected to die of cervical cancer. it also helps protect against anal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancer cases. you can add another 2000 preventable deaths from these each year as well. at least 70% of these can be prevented with gardasil.

it is important to put the risks into perspective. many of the anti-vaxers get their power from one sided risk arguments like you just presented.

Thank you Garry.

My point is that not 100% of every vaccine issued is appropriate for 100% of the people. People need to be allowed to choose what is right for them.

If my son has an allergy to peanuts, one that could kill him...I'm not going to try to make a law banning peanuts from the United States. I'm not going to try to force everyone to quit eating peanuts. I'm simply going to keep my son away from peanuts.

mrford, I'm sorry that your daughter has medical issues. But forcing the entire world to adjust their lives for her is not a reasonable argument for anything, no matter how easy it would be for everyone to comply. Everyone in this world has their own personal issues to deal with. We must find ways to adjust our own life to get along in the world. Trying to force others to accommodate us simply will not work, and is the very definition of selfish.

selfish
/ˈsɛlfɪʃ/
adjective
1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc, esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others
2. relating to or characterized by self-interest

When I say people should have the choice to vax, I'm saying they should make a smart, well-informed choice. This means, for most, they should get vaxxed. But, no one should be forced to do it.

The fact that you look at it as me looking out for only my daughter, and not the hundreds of thousands out there that also don't have a choice, is rather comical.

I'm not being selfish at all, the fact that you see it that way says more than I ever could. I would have the same view even if all my kids were perfectly healthy.

Disregarding the fact that the more unvaccinatted people there are out there the bigger chance of a mutated virus since the virus has more avaliable hosts, and the possibility for the hundreds of million vaccinated people getting infected. Lol yeah. Selfish. Me. Not the people that think their kid is a special snowflake and are willing to endanger millions based on some false information.

This disease we are focusing on, measles, was all but a non factor, and the selfishness of others, not me, is bringing it back. How are you seeing it like you are? It is baffeling me.

I'm proud of you for knowing how to copy and paste a definition though. Good job!

That's either incredibly stupid or incredibly sarcastic.

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea."

http://www.fda.gov/...vedProducts/UCM101580.pdf

Shall we quote the rest of that paragraph?

"Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are
reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to
establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.2 "

First of all...when there were no vaccines, measles only killed about 400 to 500 people in the US each year. Not hundreds of thousands.

Secondly, since the vaccine has been introduced AND not forced by law upon everyone, it has worked rather well.

You are advocating a change that is not necessary. Just because a few people have died recently does not mean we need to start forcing this on every single person in existence.

You have hopped onto a bandwagon just because a few people got sick. Around 2001, a shark attack made major news across the country and everyone was suddenly up in arms and debating why sharks are biting more people now then ever before. The problem was that sharks were not biting any more than normal. About 200 shark attacks were reported, on average, each year, and that year was no different. Just that there was no other news to report at that time (I believe this was the summer before 9/11).

You weren't up in arms about forcing everyone to get vaxxed 6 months ago. And I'm pretty sure measles was just as dangerous then as it is now.

Lol, you assume death is the only negative outcome that can come from measles, then you trivialize 500 preventable deaths a year and then you propose to know my stance about vaccinations before 6 months ago. Classic.

Mandatory guards against misplaced complacency. We are entering an era of said misplaced complacency and I hope it doesn't cost us before we figure it out.

hardly we are in a era of folks starting to realize that perhaps we don't want big brother telling us what to do. Especially since we live in a country founded, on personal liberty and choices. That also means the majority of people with that belief don't want big brother giving us everything either. Not all of us get pregnant every year and run a welfare home. And don't get me started on that soapbox, damn lazy people.

I will speak of my own experiences in the medical field. Not all is what it seems. Big money is pumped into these drugs, and big money does not give a chit about morals, or lives. Mistakes and bad drugs abound!

With that being said. I still feel the USA has the best medical system in existence. That includes quality of medical care.

It just seems to me that everyone for mandatory this or that, seems to forget one thing. This is the land of the free and brave! Not the land of hey I think this should b this way, so its law by gosh. Yes everything needs guidelines and accepted rules. It doesn't need tyranny or dictatorship.

You have your right to freedom as long as it doesn't impose upon the rights of others. Freedom has limitations. It is why it is mandatory to wash your hands in the food service industry and why there are various other mandatory health regulations.

The greater good of the community. Needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few and all that.

Also, I have seen you mention this "mandatory to wash your hands in the food service industry" a couple times. I know it's good hygiene and I expect it, but I cannot find any federal law. I found a couple state laws requiring it, but I'm not sure every state has it mandated. Do you have a link to the law requiring this?

Also, even if it is a law for workers in food service, there is no law requiring that every single individual who enters a restaurant has to wash their hands.

There is also no law, or requirements, to have everyone wash their hands prior to opening the door at the restaurant. Think about it. You don't know who touched that doorhandle before you.

Also, even more importantly, most restroom door open inward. This means, after washing your hands, you have to pull the door open to get out. I highly doubt the law requires the workers to use a paper towel to open the door. Which means, after washing their hands, they then touch the door, which can easily have been touched by many customers who did not wash their hands.

More importantly, if it is actually a law, it's not a law that forces everyone to do something that could potentially be harmful to themself. I am unaware of any downside to washing your hands, except possibly dry skin, which you can probably bring your own soap, or lotion. Not like I can provide my own vaccine if I am forced to get the injection.

oh...Please tell this to all the christians out there who keep pushing their beliefs onto me. I believe one of my rights is freedom of religion, which means they are imposing upon the rights of others when those others, like me, don't want to hear it.

Kept a running tab to see how this debate would turn out, but all it has turned into is the same people repeating earlier assertions in different words. I have yet to read even a slightly different viewpoint over the last days, outside of martian's well thought out post a few days ago.

https://delapruch.files.wordpress.com/...01/grasping-at-straws.jpg

But it was funny LOL still is!

If your kid has been vaccinated, and vaccines do what they are supposed to, then if my kid isn't vaccinated it shouldn't affect your kid in the slightest. Your kid should not be susceptible to that disease. If your kid isn't vaccinated, for whatever reason, then don't tell me I need to vaccinate mine. Your child is just as capable of transmitting the disease as mine.

BTW, All of my kids received all of their vaccinations. I'm not against vaccinations. I am however, against government coercion!

this augment ignores all the kids too young to get vaccinations or with medical conditions preventing vaccinations

also, that isnt how vaccinations work and is shortsighted as fluff. i believe the bulletproof vest analogy has been used in this thread. it wont prevent you from getting shot, but it will help with the chance of a bullet killing you when you do get shot. same with vaccines.

"Vaccinations lead to superbugs, its proven."
No. Antibiotics and the overuse thereof has lead to an *increase* superbugs. That has been proven. Bacteria work differently than viruses. The use of antibiotics is a completely different debate though. Hell I'm going to start a thread on that and see how that goes:P


There will always be "superbugs" or something nasty out there from nature that will every once and a while pop out and kill a large percentage of us. Nature > humans. That is besides the point.

This argument implies that certain reasons are acceptable and other reasons are not. What gives YOU the right to make that decision for others?

I joined the US Army many years ago to protect my, and your FREEDOM! I did not join so freedoms would be taken from citizens at a later date. I think a great man once said something to the effect of .... Anyone willing to give up a little freedom for the sake of safety deserves neither freedom nor safety.

Is this how silly gun nuts sound? Damn. Sorry bout that.

The fact that you see this as a removal of freedom and not an enactment if a public health initiative is really sad. It is even sadder how you don't see that allowing people a choice lessens the effect of the heard immunity lessening the effectiveness of the vaccine itself.

What about my right to have easily avaliable leaded gasoline? What about my right to snort meth and drink red#6 and drive as fast as I want? It is how a community works. Needs of the many.

That was not my intent nor my point for posting that. It still amazes me how you try to jump from point A to M all the time.

The point of the quote was that we do not know everything nor the full impacts of the long term effects. NOT to discredit vaccines. They work. For a lot of major lethal disease they are our best and quite often only tool. No amount of research will ever change the fact that they work. However, what research or knowledge may change one day is that after several generations, may we find out that they cause more harm than good in the long term? We simply do not know at this stage. THAT was the point I was trying to make and that IF true, that would be a con to consider.

Have a source there?

http://www.pewresearch.org/...uld-be-a-parental-choice/

http://www.people-press.org/...afe-for-healthy-children/

To me, yes :P



Vaccines are about 95% effective, so about 5% of vaccinated people will still contract the illness if exposed to it. That is one of the many reasons why herd immunity is the goal, to reduce the odds of people being exposed to the virus, thus reducing its prevalence and spread in general.

To argue this is about personal freedom is silly. There is such a thing as a reasonable limit on rights (for example, freedom is removed for incarceration, children are required by law to receive an education - either publicly or home schooling or whatever, you need a licence to drive a motor vehicle, etc.).

Once again this all comes back to people not recognizing what mass vaccination has done for our society. It has saved countless suffering.

Also juice: it is rather asinine to argue that reducing 500 deaths a year is all to be gained from vaccination. a) 500 people a year is worth saving. b) there are tons of other complications that are more prevalent with contraction of illnesses like measles and whooping cough. For example the odds of going blind, suffering significant brain damage or other permanent physical impairment is higher than the odds of death (thus 1000's of kids would be doing blind or suffering from brain damage yearly as a result of measles, for example).

Plus there is always the worst case scenario, that a virus will mutate and become far more lethal. If you look at human history, disease has killed a ridiculous number of people (the most recent major outbreak we had was about 100 years ago with the Spanish flu, which killed more people than world war 1, which was occurring around the same time).

Vaccinating as many people as possible has strong positive societal outcomes in both the short term and the long term. Evidence that these vaccinations cause autism is non-existent and is being propagated by fear mongering interest groups that are crafting messages based on intentional false interpretation of data. There is really no justification for the stance.

This is one of my biggest gripes and concerns about vaccinations. I seen on the news shown nationally just tonight a prime example, which makes me appalled.

A story about Hay Fever and allergies, since it is summer here and lot of grass pollens, etc bother so many. They were talking about how of medicines available, only about 33% of people (cant recall whether it worked for or that many still suffered from Hay Fever). Anyway, there were so many people that still suffered. They than went on to say that vaccinations work and why should so many people suffer. So they should come up with vaccination for allergies.

Are you freaking kidding me!!! When will humans learn that mother nature is normally always smarter than us, so lets dumb down our own natural defense system because we as humans think we know better and are smarter (even though we have just begun to only scratch the surface with our knowledge) all because some people are "suffering" not because of them dieing but suffering. COME ON.

What makes you believe that our natural immune system is smarter than modern medicine?

I think medicine has proven that isn't the case time and time again. In the state of nature most of us would have died from an infection before we reached adulthood...

lol