Government and Vaccines

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Actually, it's over $700/year, and I don't care if "it's significant to a working family" in your opinion, the government should not be able to take money from someone based on immunization status.

And if you don't call that taking money, then no one can call tax breaks a cost to the government.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's not a tax break it's a tax benefit paid to parents for having kids.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: SlapMonkey

At least give a grace period after a new vaccination is developed where it cannot be required by law for at least two years after it passed clinical trials? For example, if a Zika vaccination was released inmass tomorrow.

Vaccines usually take 10 to 15 years of research before they are sold to the public. Look at Ebola, for example: one vaccine, VSV-EBOV, was created in 2003. Phase 1 clinical trials did not start until 2014 and today, four years later, the vaccine is still experimental and 300 K doses have been sent to West Africa for a final trial.

It takes a lot longer than the two years you are asking for. The Meningitis B vaccine took almost 20 years from discovery to being licensed for use.

That's how regulated vaccines are, they are the most tested and monitored medication.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You do understand the theory behind vaccinations? Over simplified... Use something less threatening that forces the creation of the antibodies instead of actually getting sick. Basically the same result with less risk and illness. Please cite where it has been shown the mumps vaccination causes more adverse effects than actually getting mumps.

Hold on...one point at a time, please.

First off, immunizations absolutely do not provide "basically the same result" as a naturally formed immunity. There are reasons why booster shots exist and are necessary in many vaccines, whereas (with things like measles and chicken pox, for example) contracting the illness truly does, for the most part, create a permanent immunity to future issues with the disease.

So you are wrong on that--there is no "basically the same result" when there is a massively dramatic difference in how some of the immunizations work for the most common illnesses.

As for a citation concerning there being more "permanent consequences" (my words...I didn't say "more adverse effects," as you note) from vaccinations versus contraction of mumps, I'll just list most of them (from the CDC and WHO):

MUMPS COMPLICATIONS

• ORCHITIS


◦ 12%-66% in postpubertal males (prevaccine)

◦ 3%-10% (postvaccine)


• PANCREATITIS


◦ 3.5% (prevaccine)


• UNILATERAL DEAFNESS


◦ 1/20,000 (prevaccine)


• DEATH


◦ 2/10,000 from 1966-1971

◦ No deaths in recent U.S. outbreaks



CDC

MMR VACCINATION (a combo of all of the reactions from the individual virus vaccines)

• MILD REACTIONS


◦ Pain and Tenderness at injection site

◦ Fever less-than 103º (5%-15%)

◦ Rash (2%-5%)

◦ Parotitis (1%-2%)

◦ Purpura, Arthritis, Sensorineural Deafness, and Acute Myositis ("rare")


• SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS


◦ Aseptic Meningitis (rate depends on strain of mumps virus, anywhere from 100/100,000 doses to as few as 1/1,000,000 doses)

◦ Transient Arthralgia in Children (no rates given, just a note of accepted causal relationship with the MMR vaccine and this issue)

◦ Anaphylaxis (3.5-10 per million doses [thought to be caused by the gelatin stabilizer in the vaccine])

◦ Febrile Seizures (1/1,150 doses in the most recent study)

◦ Thrombocytopenia (1/30,000-40,000 [the cause is not related to the measles viral components of the vaccine, but to either the mumps or rubella])



WHO (pdf)

Also understand that from 2003 through present, there has been one death from naturally contracted measles. This woman died of pneumonia--she was properly vaccinated against measles. There have been no deaths due to mumps in the U.S. in any recent outbreaks.

I'll leave that there and let you determine if my comment was correct or not. Please understand that I focus generally on data concerning the US, since that's where I live and that determines my subjective need for vaccinations.

Also, while there are studies (easily found via an internet search) that show a correlation between MMR vaccinations and deaths that follow soon after as a result of some of the known severe side effects, a correlation of any certainty, either verifying or dismissing the vaccine as the cause, has yet to be determined.

And a couple of other things of note that sway my decision on vaccines:

- It used to be understood that there was no direct link between the brain and the immune system, but within the last few years a direct link has been found, so I don't think that decades-old studies and "understandings" of the effects of vaccines are very thorough anymore, as they are based on a more limited understanding of the interaction between the immune system and the brain.

- My belief in personal liberty outweighing most other things is a very decisive factor, and I'm a huge advocate of the individual's right to make up their own mind on vaccinations, and to do so on a vaccine-by-vaccine basis (not all are created equally nor are they equally necessary). When the government and school systems and public shaming and peer pressure get involved, that throws up MASSIVE red flags for me. Couple that with the amount of money spent on marketing these things, and you start to question why they can't just stand on their own merit.

Even our own family doctor is suspect on many vaccinations, both their efficacy and their claimed "need" for any real practical purpose. He is an advocate of the delayed vaccination schedule, and that's what we're on with our kids. There are just too many too quickly in a child's life for my comfort level.

I'm with you on the flu shot--and to add some anecdotal info, the only two time in my 39 years of life that I've had the full-blown flu were years that I got the flu shot. As for its effects on mortality rate from the flu, I have not idea, but I do know that it's marketed as reducing the symptoms if you contract the flu after getting the shot, so maybe? Who knows...vaccine marketing is as trustworthy as a politician in a lying contest, IMO.

originally posted by: Agartha
Phase 1 clinical trials did not start until 2014 and today, four years later, the vaccine is still experimental and 300 K doses have been sent to West Africa for a final trial.

I expect the African people are told that they can have a malaria shot as long as they have this experimental shot as well.
So.....are African people being used as guinea pigs?

Have you ever seen the movie 'The Constant Gardener'?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You do understand the theory behind vaccinations? Over simplified... Use something less threatening that forces the creation of the antibodies instead of actually getting sick. Basically the same result with less risk and illness. Please cite where it has been shown the mumps vaccination causes more adverse effects than actually getting mumps.

Hold on...one point at a time, please.

First off, immunizations absolutely do not provide "basically the same result" as a naturally formed immunity. There are reasons why booster shots exist and are necessary in many vaccines, whereas (with things like measles and chicken pox, for example) contracting the illness truly does, for the most part, create a permanent immunity to future issues with the disease.

So you are wrong on that--there is no "basically the same result" when there is a massively dramatic difference in how some of the immunizations work for the most common illnesses.

As for a citation concerning there being more "permanent consequences" (my words...I didn't say "more adverse effects," as you note) from vaccinations versus contraction of mumps, I'll just list most of them (from the CDC and WHO):

MUMPS COMPLICATIONS

• ORCHITIS


◦ 12%-66% in postpubertal males (prevaccine)

◦ 3%-10% (postvaccine)


• PANCREATITIS


◦ 3.5% (prevaccine)


• UNILATERAL DEAFNESS


◦ 1/20,000 (prevaccine)


• DEATH


◦ 2/10,000 from 1966-1971

◦ No deaths in recent U.S. outbreaks



CDC

MMR VACCINATION (a combo of all of the reactions from the individual virus vaccines)

• MILD REACTIONS


◦ Pain and Tenderness at injection site

◦ Fever less-than 103º (5%-15%)

◦ Rash (2%-5%)

◦ Parotitis (1%-2%)

◦ Purpura, Arthritis, Sensorineural Deafness, and Acute Myositis ("rare")


• SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS


◦ Aseptic Meningitis (rate depends on strain of mumps virus, anywhere from 100/100,000 doses to as few as 1/1,000,000 doses)

◦ Transient Arthralgia in Children (no rates given, just a note of accepted causal relationship with the MMR vaccine and this issue)

◦ Anaphylaxis (3.5-10 per million doses [thought to be caused by the gelatin stabilizer in the vaccine])

◦ Febrile Seizures (1/1,150 doses in the most recent study)

◦ Thrombocytopenia (1/30,000-40,000 [the cause is not related to the measles viral components of the vaccine, but to either the mumps or rubella])



WHO (pdf)

Also understand that from 2003 through present, there has been one death from naturally contracted measles. This woman died of pneumonia--she was properly vaccinated against measles. There have been no deaths due to mumps in the U.S. in any recent outbreaks.

I'll leave that there and let you determine if my comment was correct or not. Please understand that I focus generally on data concerning the US, since that's where I live and that determines my subjective need for vaccinations.

Also, while there are studies (easily found via an internet search) that show a correlation between MMR vaccinations and deaths that follow soon after as a result of some of the known severe side effects, a correlation of any certainty, either verifying or dismissing the vaccine as the cause, has yet to be determined.

And a couple of other things of note that sway my decision on vaccines:

- It used to be understood that there was no direct link between the brain and the immune system, but within the last few years a direct link has been found, so I don't think that decades-old studies and "understandings" of the effects of vaccines are very thorough anymore, as they are based on a more limited understanding of the interaction between the immune system and the brain.

- My belief in personal liberty outweighing most other things is a very decisive factor, and I'm a huge advocate of the individual's right to make up their own mind on vaccinations, and to do so on a vaccine-by-vaccine basis (not all are created equally nor are they equally necessary). When the government and school systems and public shaming and peer pressure get involved, that throws up MASSIVE red flags for me. Couple that with the amount of money spent on marketing these things, and you start to question why they can't just stand on their own merit.

Even our own family doctor is suspect on many vaccinations, both their efficacy and their claimed "need" for any real practical purpose. He is an advocate of the delayed vaccination schedule, and that's what we're on with our kids. There are just too many too quickly in a child's life for my comfort level.

I'm with you on the flu shot--and to add some anecdotal info, the only two time in my 39 years of life that I've had the full-blown flu were years that I got the flu shot. As for its effects on mortality rate from the flu, I have not idea, but I do know that it's marketed as reducing the symptoms if you contract the flu after getting the shot, so maybe? Who knows...vaccine marketing is as trustworthy as a politician in a lying contest, IMO.

Lots of nonsense in your post.
The first being that to have "natural immunity" you have to have contracted the disease thus exposing you to the many dangers posed by that disease. Very bizarre "logic".

The list of complications you show from vaccines is far less than from those of the diseases they prevent.
Did you see that in any of your "research"?

The woman who died in 2015 was on immunosuppressants so it's irrelevant whether on not she was vaccinated as she would have relied upon herd immunity to protect her.
Obviously death is the only marker you accept as you've neglected to mention that in the Minnesota outbreak last year, 20 out of the 65 who caught measles were hospitalized (all but 2 were unvaccinated). Medicine is quite good at keeping people alive these days so a less disingenuous way of reporting disease rates is to use morbidity NOT mortality rates.

As for your doctor, can you let me know who he is so I can read his publications on his spaced out schedule as the vast majority of published literature suggests that the standard schedule as recommended by the CDC is the safest and most effective method. Obviously if this doctor thinks otherwise then he should have the evidence to back it up otherwise in my book that's medical malpractice.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
I expect the African people are told that they can have a malaria shot as long as they have this experimental shot as well.
So.....are African people being used as guinea pigs?

You can expect what your imagination tells you, I rather post statements based on facts.

The West African people trying the vaccine are all volunteers. And the vaccine has already passed 3 phases of clinical trials, has been shown to be effective and safe, this is just the last step.

Have you ever seen the movie 'The Constant Gardener'?

Yes, but most importantly I followed Nigeria's lawsuit against Pfizer. Have you?

originally posted by: Agartha

Yes, but most importantly I followed Nigeria's lawsuit against Pfizer. Have you?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I was not aware of Nigeria's lawsuit against Pfizer but I am now.............have looked it up.
I found this rather interesting:

In an author's note at the end of the book he makes a grudging disclaimer to the effect that no person or organization in the book is based on an actual person or organization. He also makes it clear, however, that he is obliged to say this "in these dog days when lawyers rule the universe." He adds, "But I can tell you this. As my journey through the pharmaceutical jungle progressed, I came to realize that, by comparison with reality, my story was as tame as a holiday postcard."

www.cbsnews.com...
I am now going to watch the documentary mentioned on the web page............'Dying for Drugs'.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

contracting the illness truly does, for the most part, create a permanent immunity to future issues with the disease.

quote edited to highlight illogical stance

so " natural immunity " last a life time - apart from when it doesnt

anti vaxxer " logic " at its finest

originally posted by: Pardon?

Lots of nonsense in your post.
The first being that to have "natural immunity" you have to have contracted the disease thus exposing you to the many dangers posed by that disease. Very bizarre "logic".

The list of complications you show from vaccines is far less than from those of the diseases they prevent.
Did you see that in any of your "research"?

I see, you have no ability to critically think about anything. Okay--I already knew that, but was hoping against hope.

You need to re-read the stats on the "many dangers posed by that disease" and realize that when occurrences of substantial side effects are in the one-percent-of-one-percent range, and that sever reactions from the vaccines have a more common occurrence in some instances, your claim of 'far less complications from vaccines" is what is actually bizarre.

But like I said, to each their own--either agree, or don't, but the numbers are there and in many other places on the internet for you to see. Take a breath and actually consider the numbers for a moment before berating others with obnoxious claims.

The woman who died in 2015 was on immunosuppressants so it's irrelevant whether on not she was vaccinated as she would have relied upon herd immunity to protect her.

You do understand that many, many people who are vaccinated still carry a communicable virus, even if not showing symptoms, right? You do get that vaccinated people still get sick at rates much higher than should be accepted for a treatment with such advertised rates of efficacy, correct?

Or did you not encounter that in your obvious vast amount of research.


The only reason that I included that woman's death is because I wanted to be intellectually honest--I know that it was most likely the immunosuppressant that allowed the disease to kill her, but if I hadn't included her death, I'm sure that you would have called me out on not including it. Sometimes, you just can't win...

Obviously death is the only marker you accept as you've neglected to mention that in the Minnesota outbreak last year, 20 out of the 65 who caught measles were hospitalized (all but 2 were unvaccinated). Medicine is quite good at keeping people alive these days so a less disingenuous way of reporting disease rates is to use morbidity NOT mortality rates.

Really, so in your understanding of my comments thus far, "death is the only marker [that I] accept," huh? So, basically, you're just admitting to your lack of critical thinking or reading comprehension with such a claim.

Noted.

As for your doctor, can you let me know who he is so I can read his publications on his spaced out schedule as the vast majority of published literature suggests that the standard schedule as recommended by the CDC is the safest and most effective method. Obviously if this doctor thinks otherwise then he should have the evidence to back it up otherwise in my book that's medical malpractice.

Right, because all doctors are just robots who can't think for themselves. All studies on topics always support the CDC. Someone in the throes of the profession who uses his intelligence and understanding of medicine to make determinations on a patient-by-patient basis must be guilty of malpractice when it produces zero negative results.

Your book doesn't matter because you're not an expert on the topic, and this isn't your day job--I could care less about your interpretation of what our family physician does. Maybe you should be concerned that this may be the first time that you're hearing about a delayed schedule instead of making ignorant accusations against a doctor supporting a vaccination schedule that is perfectly acceptable. It may come as a surprise to you, but a doctor who doesn't treat every single patient exactly the same because the CDC says so is not some quack worthy of malpractice just because you seem to worship at the feet of the CDC over the intelligence of your personal doctor.

You can look up the concept of delayed vaccination schedules on your own if you want to--I'm not going to spoon feed it to you--and you can subscribe to the scare tactics surrounding it if you want to, but I know many families utilizing it, as well as more than one doctor or nurse, and everyone is doing fine, much to your assumed chagrin and disbelief.

Thank you for your profound participation--best regards. I'm done exerting effort on this topic with you.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Calm down, Ignorant.

Do you mind if I call you Ignorant? Meh, doesn't matter.

Let's examine your "logic:"

A. Natural immunities don't always work the same in every person, just like not every single individual in the world is always born with the "correct" number of chromosomes--some get an extra one due to a process called nondisjunction. The same goes for natural immunities--some people, albeit a very small deviation from the norm, don't acquire a full, lifelong immunity to certain illnesses that a normal person does, like when someone gets chicken pox twice in their lifetime.

It happens, and that's why I tend not to speak in absolutes, because there's always that person who will respond with, "Nuh-uh, there are a few people who..." I try to avoid silly replies by using words that actually mean things, yet here I am, relegated to responding to yours. Nice try at the 'gotcha moment,' though...for the most part.

B. If you are paying attention, I specifically said that both of my children are on a delayed vaccination schedule--it simply puts more time in between each vaccination so that it doesn't overwhelm their young bodies.

If that's me being an anti-vaxxer, I suppose your comment is you being super intelligent.

Any other amazing nuggets of critique that you want to throw my way? You've doing amazingly well so far.

On second thought, it's not worth my time to respond any further to such nonsensical ramblings. Best regards.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Pardon?

Lots of nonsense in your post.
The first being that to have "natural immunity" you have to have contracted the disease thus exposing you to the many dangers posed by that disease. Very bizarre "logic".

The list of complications you show from vaccines is far less than from those of the diseases they prevent.
Did you see that in any of your "research"?

I see, you have no ability to critically think about anything. Okay--I already knew that, but was hoping against hope.

You need to re-read the stats on the "many dangers posed by that disease" and realize that when occurrences of substantial side effects are in the one-percent-of-one-percent range, and that sever reactions from the vaccines have a more common occurrence in some instances, your claim of 'far less complications from vaccines" is what is actually bizarre.

But like I said, to each their own--either agree, or don't, but the numbers are there and in many other places on the internet for you to see. Take a breath and actually consider the numbers for a moment before berating others with obnoxious claims.

The woman who died in 2015 was on immunosuppressants so it's irrelevant whether on not she was vaccinated as she would have relied upon herd immunity to protect her.

You do understand that many, many people who are vaccinated still carry a communicable virus, even if not showing symptoms, right? You do get that vaccinated people still get sick at rates much higher than should be accepted for a treatment with such advertised rates of efficacy, correct?

Or did you not encounter that in your obvious vast amount of research.


The only reason that I included that woman's death is because I wanted to be intellectually honest--I know that it was most likely the immunosuppressant that allowed the disease to kill her, but if I hadn't included her death, I'm sure that you would have called me out on not including it. Sometimes, you just can't win...

Obviously death is the only marker you accept as you've neglected to mention that in the Minnesota outbreak last year, 20 out of the 65 who caught measles were hospitalized (all but 2 were unvaccinated). Medicine is quite good at keeping people alive these days so a less disingenuous way of reporting disease rates is to use morbidity NOT mortality rates.

Really, so in your understanding of my comments thus far, "death is the only marker [that I] accept," huh? So, basically, you're just admitting to your lack of critical thinking or reading comprehension with such a claim.

Noted.

As for your doctor, can you let me know who he is so I can read his publications on his spaced out schedule as the vast majority of published literature suggests that the standard schedule as recommended by the CDC is the safest and most effective method. Obviously if this doctor thinks otherwise then he should have the evidence to back it up otherwise in my book that's medical malpractice.

Right, because all doctors are just robots who can't think for themselves. All studies on topics always support the CDC. Someone in the throes of the profession who uses his intelligence and understanding of medicine to make determinations on a patient-by-patient basis must be guilty of malpractice when it produces zero negative results.

Your book doesn't matter because you're not an expert on the topic, and this isn't your day job--I could care less about your interpretation of what our family physician does. Maybe you should be concerned that this may be the first time that you're hearing about a delayed schedule instead of making ignorant accusations against a doctor supporting a vaccination schedule that is perfectly acceptable. It may come as a surprise to you, but a doctor who doesn't treat every single patient exactly the same because the CDC says so is not some quack worthy of malpractice just because you seem to worship at the feet of the CDC over the intelligence of your personal doctor.

You can look up the concept of delayed vaccination schedules on your own if you want to--I'm not going to spoon feed it to you--and you can subscribe to the scare tactics surrounding it if you want to, but I know many families utilizing it, as well as more than one doctor or nurse, and everyone is doing fine, much to your assumed chagrin and disbelief.

Thank you for your profound participation--best regards. I'm done exerting effort on this topic with you.

Firstly show me data that shows the rate of morbidity (and mortality) after contracting a disease and those showing morbidity after vaccinations (I won't ask for mortality post vax as there hasn't been any).
Let's see which one is higher (hint: it is the disease one, by a very long way).

People who are fully vaccinated don't carry any communicable disease for which they are vaccinated against. Read up on how diseases spread, pay close attention to the host in this situation. Those who have been vaccinated but for some reason the vaccination hasn't worked rely upon herd immunity. Which bit don't you get?
And yes, the rates of efficacy vary, which means that if less people get them, the disease will be more prevalent and vice versa. It's a simple concept.

"The only reason that I included that woman's death is because I wanted to be intellectually honest--I know that it was most likely the immunosuppressant that allowed the disease to kill her..."
So why didn't you mention it if you wanted to be "intellectually honest"? To me that's being intellectually dishonest.

As for the spaced schedule, yes I'm fully aware of it and it holds no scientific basis whatsoever, in fact it leaves kids wide open to catch preventable diseases when they needn't. No, the schedule doesn't "overwhelm" them either unless you have some proof of this?
It seems to be only offered by doctors pandering to the whims of their over-privileged patients. Those doctors do not have their patients' health as a priority, only their parents' bank accounts.

"I'm done exerting effort on this topic with you. "
Typical.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Did you catch wind that Australia is also mandating vaccinations and fining people if they don't keep vaccinations up to date?

IMO, a government should never have the authority to tell you what you can and cannot put into your own body as an adult or as a child.

[

I could not agree more. The established case law around consent in Australia includes cases where the risk of a serious adverse outcome has been as little as 1/14,000 and the surgeon was still found negligent for not warning on it when his patient developed the adverse event (Rogers V Whitaker).

A situation where treatments are forced upon us (except n the rare case of acute psychosis) is not compatible with either freedom nor accepted professional ethics.

Plus there is plenty of reason to believe that the overall advantage of vaccines is a lot less than it is purported to be (most of the reduction in vaccine preventable deaths occurred before the vaccines were introduced), and the purported safety of vaccines is less than we have been led to believe.
In particular the presence of aluminium adjuvant and the steadily increasing number of vaccines are an issue.
vaccinepapers.org...

originally posted by: Barliman

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Did you catch wind that Australia is also mandating vaccinations and fining people if they don't keep vaccinations up to date?

IMO, a government should never have the authority to tell you what you can and cannot put into your own body as an adult or as a child.

[

I could not agree more. The established case law around consent in Australia includes cases where the risk of a serious adverse outcome has been as little as 1/14,000 and the surgeon was still found negligent for not warning on it when his patient developed the adverse event (Rogers V Whitaker).

A situation where treatments are forced upon us (except n the rare case of acute psychosis) is not compatible with either freedom nor accepted professional ethics.

Plus there is plenty of reason to believe that the overall advantage of vaccines is a lot less than it is purported to be (most of the reduction in vaccine preventable deaths occurred before the vaccines were introduced), and the purported safety of vaccines is less than we have been led to believe.
In particular the presence of aluminium adjuvant and the steadily increasing number of vaccines are an issue.
vaccinepapers.org...

Vaccines aren't forced upon you, they're mandated which means you have a choice.

Have a look at the introduction of vaccines and the diseases incidence (deaths aren't a very good marker) and you'll see that you are incorrect. Incidence reduced at the same time the vaccine was introduced. Every time.

The presence of Al adjuvants are only an issue with those who don't understand why they are not an issue and get their information from "experts" like Suzanne Humphries who put 2 and 2 together and come up with potato.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Pardon?

Lots of nonsense in your post.
The first being that to have "natural immunity" you have to have contracted the disease thus exposing you to the many dangers posed by that disease. Very bizarre "logic".

The list of complications you show from vaccines is far less than from those of the diseases they prevent.
Did you see that in any of your "research"?

I see, you have no ability to critically think about anything. Okay--I already knew that, but was hoping against hope.

You need to re-read the stats on the "many dangers posed by that disease" and realize that when occurrences of substantial side effects are in the one-percent-of-one-percent range, and that sever reactions from the vaccines have a more common occurrence in some instances, your claim of 'far less complications from vaccines" is what is actually bizarre.

But like I said, to each their own--either agree, or don't, but the numbers are there and in many other places on the internet for you to see. Take a breath and actually consider the numbers for a moment before berating others with obnoxious claims.

The woman who died in 2015 was on immunosuppressants so it's irrelevant whether on not she was vaccinated as she would have relied upon herd immunity to protect her.

You do understand that many, many people who are vaccinated still carry a communicable virus, even if not showing symptoms, right? You do get that vaccinated people still get sick at rates much higher than should be accepted for a treatment with such advertised rates of efficacy, correct?

Or did you not encounter that in your obvious vast amount of research.


The only reason that I included that woman's death is because I wanted to be intellectually honest--I know that it was most likely the immunosuppressant that allowed the disease to kill her, but if I hadn't included her death, I'm sure that you would have called me out on not including it. Sometimes, you just can't win...

Obviously death is the only marker you accept as you've neglected to mention that in the Minnesota outbreak last year, 20 out of the 65 who caught measles were hospitalized (all but 2 were unvaccinated). Medicine is quite good at keeping people alive these days so a less disingenuous way of reporting disease rates is to use morbidity NOT mortality rates.

Really, so in your understanding of my comments thus far, "death is the only marker [that I] accept," huh? So, basically, you're just admitting to your lack of critical thinking or reading comprehension with such a claim.

Noted.

As for your doctor, can you let me know who he is so I can read his publications on his spaced out schedule as the vast majority of published literature suggests that the standard schedule as recommended by the CDC is the safest and most effective method. Obviously if this doctor thinks otherwise then he should have the evidence to back it up otherwise in my book that's medical malpractice.

Right, because all doctors are just robots who can't think for themselves. All studies on topics always support the CDC. Someone in the throes of the profession who uses his intelligence and understanding of medicine to make determinations on a patient-by-patient basis must be guilty of malpractice when it produces zero negative results.

Your book doesn't matter because you're not an expert on the topic, and this isn't your day job--I could care less about your interpretation of what our family physician does. Maybe you should be concerned that this may be the first time that you're hearing about a delayed schedule instead of making ignorant accusations against a doctor supporting a vaccination schedule that is perfectly acceptable. It may come as a surprise to you, but a doctor who doesn't treat every single patient exactly the same because the CDC says so is not some quack worthy of malpractice just because you seem to worship at the feet of the CDC over the intelligence of your personal doctor.

You can look up the concept of delayed vaccination schedules on your own if you want to--I'm not going to spoon feed it to you--and you can subscribe to the scare tactics surrounding it if you want to, but I know many families utilizing it, as well as more than one doctor or nurse, and everyone is doing fine, much to your assumed chagrin and disbelief.

Thank you for your profound participation--best regards. I'm done exerting effort on this topic with you.

Firstly show me data that shows the rate of morbidity (and mortality) after contracting a disease and those showing morbidity after vaccinations (I won't ask for mortality post vax as there hasn't been any).
Let's see which one is higher (hint: it is the disease one, by a very long way).

People who are fully vaccinated don't carry any communicable disease for which they are vaccinated against. Read up on how diseases spread, pay close attention to the host in this situation. Those who have been vaccinated but for some reason the vaccination hasn't worked rely upon herd immunity. Which bit don't you get?
And yes, the rates of efficacy vary, which means that if less people get them, the disease will be more prevalent and vice versa. It's a simple concept.


.

There are a couple of points that need to be clarified here-- firstly the idea that people who have been vaccinated cant carry any communicable disease is incorrect: whooping cough vaccine does not prevent asymptomatic carriage of the bacteria, and the same can be said for Meningococcus vaccine.
Same also for diphtheria and tetanus- they are toxoid vaccines.
With issues like haemophilus there are signs emerging of antigenic shift with that bacteria too, and invasive disease is now being caused by strains of the bacteria not sensitive to the vaccine.
I have not reviewed the other vaccines but that is enough to go on with.
We also have to factor in the temporary immunity afforded by vaccines.
So herd immunity is not all it is cracked up to be.

The dangers have also been underestimated and it seems that many deaths have been systematically underreported.
SIDS for instance really only became an issue in the late 60, and there is also shaken baby syndrome- which is very likely to be due to something else other than shakng the baby.

The case of Infanri Hexa was particularly interesting:
Infanrix hexa and sudden death: a review of the periodic safety update reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency

In short, data submitted by GSK as a follow up on vaccination with Infanrix Hexa actually showed a clustering of cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome such that all of them occurred within 10 days of the vaccine. However this was concealed by artificially inflating the number of expected SIDS cases.

Then we also need to be frank that the autism connection is far from resolved, as is the safety of aluminium adjuvants.

Now as a parent I was very glad to have my children immunised against meningitis, and haemophilus. However what we are being told about herd immunity is frankly wrong, and no attempt has been made to do a proper study of the immunised vs unimmunised.

Around 5% are serious non immunisers- so it would not be at all hard to get a group together to do a restospective study if the will to do such a study existed.

originally posted by: Pardon?
If it wasn't for the lunacy of the anti-vaccine mentality and because of it, the increase in previously eradicated diseases, there would be no need for mandates.

You've brought it on yourselves.

How can a "previously eradicated disease" increase?

originally posted by: Barliman


There are a couple of points that need to be clarified here-- firstly the idea that people who have been vaccinated cant carry any communicable disease is incorrect: whooping cough vaccine does not prevent asymptomatic carriage of the bacteria, and the same can be said for Meningococcus vaccine.
Same also for diphtheria and tetanus- they are toxoid vaccines.
With issues like haemophilus there are signs emerging of antigenic shift with that bacteria too, and invasive disease is now being caused by strains of the bacteria not sensitive to the vaccine.
I have not reviewed the other vaccines but that is enough to go on with.
We also have to factor in the temporary immunity afforded by vaccines.
So herd immunity is not all it is cracked up to be.

The dangers have also been underestimated and it seems that many deaths have been systematically underreported.
SIDS for instance really only became an issue in the late 60, and there is also shaken baby syndrome- which is very likely to be due to something else other than shakng the baby.

The case of Infanri Hexa was particularly interesting:
Infanrix hexa and sudden death: a review of the periodic safety update reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency

In short, data submitted by GSK as a follow up on vaccination with Infanrix Hexa actually showed a clustering of cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome such that all of them occurred within 10 days of the vaccine. However this was concealed by artificially inflating the number of expected SIDS cases.

Then we also need to be frank that the autism connection is far from resolved, as is the safety of aluminium adjuvants.

Now as a parent I was very glad to have my children immunised against meningitis, and haemophilus. However what we are being told about herd immunity is frankly wrong, and no attempt has been made to do a proper study of the immunised vs unimmunised.

Around 5% are serious non immunisers- so it would not be at all hard to get a group together to do a restospective study if the will to do such a study existed.

I'll give you that on bacterial vaccines but bear in mind that their have been a couple of deaths from diphtheria lately in unvaccinated individuals and whilst the bacteria was found in a couple of people who'd been in close contact they hadn't developed it due to being vaccinated.
Viral vaccines arrest the viral reproduction within the host therefore reducing the transmission to an almost negligible level.

SIDS didn't become an issue in the 60's, it was given a name in 1969.
Prior to 1969 it was called overlying, smothering, infanticide, even suffocation by bedclothes. In the 1800's it was thought to have been cause by "thymic" influences, asthma etc. Autopsies carried out in the 1940's and 50's were strongly suggestive of death by natural causes.
In short, sudden death in infants has occurred throughout history well before vaccines were introduced.

As for SBS, the "evidence" connecting that to vaccines is spurious at best and utterly grotesque and contemptible at worst.

I can't say I know much about the Infanrix Hexa case you mention. Can you provide more information please?

The autism connection to vaccines has been extensively studied with every viable study showing no causal connection at all. If you don't accept that and want to keep searching down rabbit-holes then that's up to you.

I'm not sure what study you would want (or accept) regarding herd immunity as there have been several done already.
Here's one for starters.
Vaccine Herd Effect

originally posted by: Barliman

originally posted by: Pardon?
If it wasn't for the lunacy of the anti-vaccine mentality and because of it, the increase in previously eradicated diseases, there would be no need for mandates.

You've brought it on yourselves.

How can a "previously eradicated disease" increase?

Pardon my vocabulary and substitute "eliminated" for "eradicated".

originally posted by: Pardon?
Firstly show me data that shows the rate of morbidity (and mortality) after contracting a disease and those showing morbidity after vaccinations (I won't ask for mortality post vax as there hasn't been any).
Let's see which one is higher (hint: it is the disease one, by a very long way).

Well, now that you're the one making a positive claim ("hint: it is the disease one, by a very long way"), you now accepted the onus to prove your point.

Keep in mind, and I've stated this multiple timse--I'm focusing on American statistics when it comes to mortality and morbidity, as well as stats showing occurrences of long-term or permanent effects. But, as I've listed the death statistics numerous times before on ATS, I will invite you to show me your data first to back your claim, since you've introduced zero stats or empirical evidence in our dialogue thus far.

People who are fully vaccinated don't carry any communicable disease for which they are vaccinated against.

Yeah, okay--first, you added the "fully" part in there to bottleneck the discussion, but here's a simple truth for you to ponder: Even vaccinated people can still carry the disease against which they are vaccinated, and still be contagious and get other people sick. That's an irrefutable fact, but if you're going to try to argue against it again, please show proof.

In many/most cases with lab-created vaccinations, there never is a true "fully vaccinated," hence booster shots and the like. Hell, like I noted before (because of my intellectual honesty ), even natural immunities that are full, permanent immunities in the general sense still fall short in some people (but they have a much higher rate of permanent immunity).

It's a simple concept, indeed.

So why didn't you mention it if you wanted to be "intellectually honest"? To me that's being intellectually dishonest.

No, citing the woman so that no one said, "No, there was this one lady...," is the intellectual honesty. Linking to the site that went into further detail is intellectual honesty. Acknowledging what you pointed out is intellectual honesty. I could have chosen not to include her because it wasn't necessarily the measles that killed her, but the combo of the illness and the immunosuppressant, but I didn't, did I?

See, it's okay not to spoonfeed every single detail during a discussion--sometimes I rely on someone to actually read what I link to, and if they don't, so be it. But it's not intellectually dishonest to refrain from citing every single detail.

Also, your subjective opinions on my intellectual honesty is irrelevant to me, although I find it quaint and amusing.

As for the spaced schedule, yes I'm fully aware of it and it holds no scientific basis whatsoever, in fact it leaves kids wide open to catch preventable diseases when they needn't.

Actually, there is scientific basis to it, just none readily accepted by the CDC and other organizations who happily accept money from Big Pharma and pander to their lobbyists. And since you are apparently married to only accepting things based on official government agencies' opinions, it's no wonder that you say that there's no scientific basis for it--what you mean to say, seemingly, is that there's no scientific basis that you're willing to accept (and that's okay...I'm not trying to sell the delayed schedule to you...that's the beauty of being able to choose, which is related to the original topic of this thread).

No, the schedule doesn't "overwhelm" them either unless you have some proof of this?

Well, that's subjective, now, isn't it? That depends on the individual patient, now, doesn't it? With my children, it's better to be safe than sorry, in our opinion, and slow the amounts of vaccinations that they receive at one time. My son has made it to 14 years old in very good health--how, I don't know, with his delayed vaccinations. He probably should have succumbed to whooping cough years ago. And my 4-year-old daughter is doing just fine on her schedule, too--thanks for your concern.

It seems to be only offered by doctors pandering to the whims of their over-privileged patients. Those doctors do not have their patients' health as a priority, only their parents' bank accounts.

How's that? Like I noted, he follows a similar schedule as the one that we do. You can pretend it's just to get co-pays for doctor visits if you want to, but without proof--which you seem to keep demanding from me for my subjective choices--you are just a random typing person on the internet spouting off random silly comments to demean doctors who don't subscribe to the same opinions as you do.

I lied, I wasn't done exerting effort on you, because you keep dishing out the silliness, and it's hard not to respond to that.

This may save you a lot of trouble in responding: There isn't anything at this point in my "career" of researching vaccinations that you can say that will sway me. I have been researching vaccinations on and off since my wife was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and the Army gave her a ton of--questionable--vaccinations that have since come back to be shown as causing long-term adverse effects in many military members. The deeper that I research, and the more that I use critical thinking during my research, the more that I tend to pick and choose which vaccines that I deem necessary versus ones that are luxuries and just nice to have.

But unlike you've noted before, I'm no anti-vaxxer, but I am pro-critical thinking, and too many people who just embrace every single vaccination like it's manna from heaven don't employ critical thinking skills when it comes to this topic. It's much like global warming, or politics, or any topic where there are extremists on both sides. We much understand that, for the most part, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, between the extreme vaccine embracers and haters. And as research keeps happening and changing the results of previous research, for better or worse, it might do you well to realize that, just because something is deemed safe and effective and pushed by the government doesn't mean that it actually is those things.

Use caution, use knowledge through researching both sides, and make up your own mind. That's what I've done, whether you accept my conclusion or not.

Best regards. I'm not running away, as you imply with your "Typical." comment, I'm just tired of arguing this topic with yet another person on ATS. I have nothing to prove--take that as you will.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Funny you didn’t list any deaths from vaccinations?

Wonder why a vaccination was created in the first place?

If you are just going to hide facts and not give actual data....

And it’s sick you would gloss over the seriousness of why a mumps vaccination was created in the first place.

www.cdc.gov...

Background
Before there was a vaccine against mumps, the disease was common in the United States and caused complications, such as permanent deafness in children, and occasionally, encephalitis, which could result in death, although very rarely. Before the U.S. mumps vaccination program started in 1967, about 186,000 cases were reported each year, and many more unreported cases occurred. Since the pre-vaccine era, there has been a more than 99% decrease in mumps cases in the United States. From year to year, the number of mumps cases can range from roughly a couple hundred to a couple thousand. However, outbreaks still occasionally occur. In 2006, there was an outbreak affecting more than 6,584 people in the United States, with many cases occurring on college campuses. In 2009, an outbreak started in close-knit religious communities and schools in the Northeast, resulting in more than 3,000 cases. Since 2015, numerous outbreaks have been reported across the US, in college campuses, prisons, and close-kinit communities, including a large outbreak in northwest Arkansas where almost 3,000 cases were reported in 2016. These outbreaks have shown that when people who are sick with mumps have close contact with a lot of other people (such as among students living in dormitories and students and families in close-knit communities) mumps can spread even among vaccinated people. However, outbreaks are much larger in areas where vaccine coverage rates are lower.

:

Now show with actual numbers and statistics that the benefits of a mumps vaccination is outweighed by the dangers. It’s easy in a society that no longer fears going death from mumps?