Recently Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease

a reply to: eisegesis

Does that mean that those who weren't snakebite victims should be worried about those who were bit and got an anitvenene?

Vaccines and anti venom have one thing in common-they both use the ailment as part of the solution but the difference is that denying antivenom will kill you quicker.

A flu shot will make people feel ill because it's literally a flu shot.

a reply to: eisegesis

Great post. Thanks.

F&S&

a reply to: Grimpachi

...a particularly sneaky tactic of antivaccinationists, and that’s to get a press release or other bit of propaganda published in such a way that it looks as though it’s a legitimate news story.

??? Most so-called "news" is cribbed straight from corporate and political Press Releases. Maybe sending out Press Releases is a sneaky tactic designed to get coverage - but what's good for the goose... And. Usedtabe, newsrooms had budgets for investigation and original stories. Now, not so much.

I don't care what people do. If you want to inject something into you and your kids' blood stream and trust the for-profit corporations providing it, then power to you.

But I will never take an injection. To me that's equivalent to stabbing me with a knife. I reserve the personal right to not take a vaccine, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Otherwise we can fight it out. To the death of necessary. No vaccines. Ever. Period.

originally posted by: OceanPro
I don't care what people do. If you want to inject something into you and your kids' blood stream and trust the for-profit corporations providing it, then power to you.

But I will never take an injection. To me that's equivalent to stabbing me with a knife. I reserve the personal right to not take a vaccine, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Otherwise we can fight it out. To the death of necessary. No vaccines. Ever. Period.

Well said. Kudos for refocusing the argument back to personal choice (or forced removal of personal choice) and away from criticising sources/muddying waters.

originally posted by: and14263

originally posted by: OceanPro
I don't care what people do. If you want to inject something into you and your kids' blood stream and trust the for-profit corporations providing it, then power to you.

But I will never take an injection. To me that's equivalent to stabbing me with a knife. I reserve the personal right to not take a vaccine, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Otherwise we can fight it out. To the death of necessary. No vaccines. Ever. Period.

Well said. Kudos for refocusing the argument back to personal choice (or forced removal of personal choice) and away from criticising sources/muddying waters.

Informed choice is an important aspect of personal choice. Unreliable (or outright mendacious) sources do not aid in making informed choices.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
wow the anti vac paranoia has plunged to new lows today. I have never read so much nonsense in all my life. Complete utter ignorance. FYI it does not matter how many links to the intrent you post it does not make it "true" if all the links are to like minded sites all regurgitating and copying the same original nonsense.

I suggest you read this weeks New Scientist for a very nice explanation as to how people can have such unbelievable beliefs....a real eye opener.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't figure out why people believe some of these vaccines work like they say they do. Some are necessary, about six, but the rest are snakeoil. People will believe anything if you put evidence behind it, evidence that is not even always real. I have actually read both sides and have come to a conclusion that many vaccines are not worth taking and can cause problems that have been documented in certain groups of people. It is up to a person to make their own mind up as to weather or not they should take a vaccine. Now when you talk about stuff like diseases that kill a lot of people that get them, that is a different story. Many vaccines out there are not created to fight such critical diseases. But if a person wants to get vaccinated, they should have the right to do so as long as they do not force others who are intolerant to the adjuvant of the vaccination or get major reactions to the vaccine to take them.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Grimpachi

...a particularly sneaky tactic of antivaccinationists, and that’s to get a press release or other bit of propaganda published in such a way that it looks as though it’s a legitimate news story.

??? Most so-called "news" is cribbed straight from corporate and political Press Releases. Maybe sending out Press Releases is a sneaky tactic designed to get coverage - but what's good for the goose... And. Usedtabe, newsrooms had budgets for investigation and original stories. Now, not so much.

The problem is that the press release is written to look like a legitimate news story where it omits pertinent information in lieu of its narrative.

Like this from press release.

Adults have contracted polio from recently vaccinated infants. A father from Staten Island ended up in a wheel chair after contracting polio while changing his daughter's diaper. He received a 22.5 million dollar award in 2009. 20,21

The source.

March 21, 2009, 9:59 PM

A Staten Island man stricken with polio after changing his daughter's diaper 30 years ago won a multimillion dollar judgment from the maker of the oral vaccine that passed through her stool.

Tenuto and his lawyers successfully argued that the oral vaccine, which contained a live virus, passed through the baby's system and infected him.

No mention that Oral Polio Vaccine isn't given in the US or that OPV was a live virus.

How about another claim from the press release.

Furthermore, vaccine recipients can carry diseases in the back of their throat and infect others while displaying no symptoms of a disease.13,14,15

Here are those sources.

13. Animal Models for Influenza Virus Pathogenesis and Transmission www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"Paper has nothing to do with vaccines it is about the virus itself"

14. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate mode www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"Is about Baboons not humans"

15. Study Finds Parents Can Pass Whooping Cough to Babies www.nytimes.com...

Number 15 should be a no sh#t sherlock moment for those checking sources because it is about unvaccinated adults passing pertussis to children.

Published: April 3, 2007

Rates of pertussis, or whooping cough, have been steadily increasing since the 1980s, and a new study reports that infants most often catch the disease from older household members, especially infected parents. Adults can transmit the illness without having any symptoms themselves.


There were more than 25,000 cases reported in 2005, the latest year for which there are figures, up from an average of 2,900 a year in the 1990s. The panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends vaccination for all adolescents and adults up to 64, and for older people if they have close contact with babies. While the disease is usually mild in adults, it can be fatal in infants.

I just picked a few random things from the press release to check and so far I can say this is one of hell of a propaganda piece.

Technically they didn't lie because vaccine recipients can carry a disease in the back of their throat for days however not one of their sources says that they carry what they are vaccinated against in their throats just something other than that, but the way the press release is written it will lead people to believe otherwise. Especially those who do not read sources and will take it at face value due to their confirmation bias.

The press release is a Gish Gallop and everyone should know it takes multiples more energy to refute BS than it does to produce it.

At least the PR does say the possibility of transmission is with the Live Virus Vaccines most of which are oral or nasal and have counterparts that can be administered with injection are inactive viruses.

If given the choice between a vaccine administered with a needle or by mist/oral the safest route is with the needle.

Vaccinations are not instant cures, they take weeks to become effective. So if your nurse got the flu shot and then shortly came down with the flu, its unlikely it was the vaccine at all, and more likely rotten luck.

What disturbs me most is how politicized science has become. It seems whatever agenda has the most money to spend gets the scientific "results" to back their side of an argument. I suppose it's in the nature of hyper-capitalism that everything is subsumed by the system but we were always taught that science is pure and has no motivation other than finding facts. Our blind trust in our institutions has done tremendous damage to our country already. So when it comes to something like vaccines I'm of the opinion that nothing is better than something when there is even a tiny chance it may permanently ruin your health. I don't know if it's related in my case but I became disabled after getting the flu shot due to swelling in my spinal cord. Even the doctors have no explanation for me so the better safe than sorry route will always be my choice.
When science becomes integral to profits one must wonder whether you are getting real facts or just more propaganda designed to make you a good consumer. You can always count on big business for one thing - putting profits before all else, including your health and safety.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

What should disturb you is the level of people's irrational fear and ignorance of science and the scientific method to the point where they create outrageous lies and tales.

The ignorance bandwagon is overflowing with special snowflakes.....

a reply to: Prezbo369

What disturbs me is that you trust in the "science" to not be swayed by hundreds of billions of dollars, and the facts that hospitals get more full percentage wise by the day.

That should be telling you something about todays health SYSTEM.

a reply to: AnuTyr Lots of good information and videos. And, I think only about 6 core vaccines are needed, which rickymouse stated.

I am not anti-vax. I have a big problem with the number of vaccines given at present and the amount given in one day- to babies whose immune systems aren't fully developed. When I received vaccines in the 70s as a child, there were a lot less on the menu. There are about 4x more now.
The3 chart for them on the CDC website is mind boggling.
CDC Vaccination Schedules 3 different schedules, even one for adults. One is 6 pages of PDF.

I can't possibly believe that parents who are 'anti vax' are just operating under some type of mass hysteria delusion. There has to be some truth in there as to the dangers. My daughter is 18 now and I remember calling her doctor's office, furious, that they gave her the brand new Gardisil vaccine without my permission (her babysitter had taken her in for a physical) when she was 13.

I fully support a parent's right to choose. If the doctor pushing that MMR is over 40, their immunity is probably gone and they could spread those diseases just as much as the unvaccinated.

Since I received the vaccinations that were available in the 70s and I am alive and have had no diseases and do not have autism, I would say those were safe. I am not sure about the huge number of vaccinations given now nor of what is exactly put into some of the common ones, like MMR. They may list the ingredients, but do I believe them? Oddly, I feel some mistrust. "Better assessment" cannot possibly explain the huge rise in autism cases, though it does not prove vaccines are the cause either.

In regard to the flu shot: NO. NEVER. The constant reminders to 'not forget your shot' creep me the F out. I would not trust what is contained in that as far as I could throw a vial of it.

There should be a middle ground here where people can meet. There is not enough evidence to prove either side is 100% correct.

a reply to: eisegesis

Did you skip the part where it said its dangerous for imuniocompromised. That's folks with an already compromised immune system. Not the general public. Mountain/ mole hill...again.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
And the OP claims to work in the health industry....

Well I know a lot of people in the health industry that have the same opinion on vaccines...

People that get vaccines can infect other people...especially people that didn't have the vaccines. So all this time, the pro-vaccination crowd was mad against people that didn't vaccinate because they claim that they are the ones spreading the diseases.

Seriously, I don't understand on a conspiracy forum how can so many people be pro-vaccine and intellectually insult those that are mearly pro-CHOICE. I mean, follow the money. The same corporations and banks that we loathe are behind the vaccination movements, shouldn't that ring a bell?

Infections from viruses never really go away and stay latent in many cells of our body. I've even heard that many viruses alter our DNA negatively. Depending on the disease, I think I would rather take the chance to get sick than to know for certain that the virus as modified my OWN system.

I'm quite sure that vaccines on the long run lower our overall immune system. With publicly extensive research and vaccines not made by the same companies that make money when we get sick maybe I would change my stance...

Till then, I will protect the people's CHOICE for or against vaccination.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: Prezbo369
And the OP claims to work in the health industry....

Well I know a lot of people in the health industry that have the same opinion on vaccines...

Then just like the OP, they should not be in the position to needlessly put other peoples lives at risk...

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Prezbo369

What disturbs me is that you trust in the "science" to not be swayed by hundreds of billions of dollars, and the facts that hospitals get more full percentage wise by the day.

Sure yeah, insert irrational conspiracy theory here.....right?

Science works, it's verifiable and demonstrable, the device you've used to demonstrate your ignorance is a veritable symphony of the scientific method in action.....but yeah just keep running your mouth claiming to have knowledge that everyone else is unaware of, because you're a special snowflake.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Are you saying other -most- Press Releases are not fairly pure unmitigated biased bs?

If so, you're wrong. The best I've seen as a 'qualifier' is the bit about "forward looking" projections that are not guaranteed to bring the promised return on investments. And that's only done for legal purposes.

a reply to: Prezbo369

I'm still on the vaccine fence myself. As I see it, one side repeatedly presents evidence to make its case, and the other side responds with the kind of overbearing dogmatic venom that would make ol' Adolf proud.

Generally speaking, I see it as a red flag when someone immediately resorts to threat of violence to force others into capitulation. I'd also expect the more scientifically aware side to have sense enough to make an attempt at persuasion, rather than sit there any cry 'heretic.'