Slashdot Mirror

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

I quit agree. vaccinations should be voluntary.
And those people who don't want to participate in a civilized modern society can move to Africa or someplace where you won't be imposed upon by these rules..
I know it sounds like the "love it or leave it" trope from the 60's, but I'm serious. If people want to have the benefits of a modern society, then they should participate in it or leave. We already have enough parasites of all kinds.

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

4) is a major kicker here - Permitting a patient who has refused vaccination to spend time in the waiting room endangers other patients who cannot be vaccinated for whatever reason (such as immunocompromised patients) - opening up the doors for malpractice suits from those patients.

You had me right up till the flawed logic.
Wouldn't the patients that couldn't be immunized also put each other at risk? Not to mention those immunized may still be carriers while their immune system fights the virus, they may still pass it to others.

Immunization means your immune system has a better way of fighting that type of infection, it doesn't mean you will never contract it, you will just you won't know it cause your body can easily handle it.

Citation: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize/how-vaccines-work
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/herd-immunity-0

It is shocking how stupid some people can be.

The vaccine isn't 100% effective, there are very few things which are. According to the National Network for Immunization Information one vaccination is 95% and two is 99.7% effective. The U.S. started giving 2 shots in 1989. That probably means there are between 10 and 15 million people in the U.S. who received the vaccine who are still vulnerable to Measles.

Now, I do have a degree in Mathematics so you can take my word on the fact that a 0.3% is much less than 100%. There is a 0.01% of a child having a reaction, and a 0.00001% of a child having a severe reaction, and 0.000001% of a child having an anaphylactic reaction.

The only problem I see in your odds is the number who MAY die or suffer something life changing are they are the ones who get the attention of the spotlight and finding the sleaziest lawyer they can find for a payoff. In terms of the circumstantial "evidence" she claims to have...we have a former playmate who CLAIMS to be an authority on vaccinations. Didn't know she had medical degree or other professional training...other than being able to look good for the camera and possibly give a decent BJ and a romp-in-the-hay. In that case...she's the one I want to contact and get her help. Even that UK doctor has who started this BS has had his medical license revoked.

I'm wondering if I will hear about the real effects of these vaccinations 10 years down the road

The first measles vaccine was licensed for use in the U.S. in 1963

source

[MMR] was licensed in 1971 and the second dose was introduced in 1989.

wiki

Well, I suppose at least we'll find out about the "real effects" of these vaccinations before we get cheap fusion power in 20 years down the road. I'm looking towards getting my flying car in 5 years though.

It is shocking how stupid some people can be.

The vaccine isn't 100% effective, there are very few things which are. According to the National Network for Immunization Information one vaccination is 95% and two is 99.7% effective. The U.S. started giving 2 shots in 1989. That probably means there are between 10 and 15 million people in the U.S. who received the vaccine who are still vulnerable to Measles.

Now, I do have a degree in Mathematics so you can take my word on the fact that a 0.3% is much less than 100%. There is a 0.01% of a child having a reaction, and a 0.00001% of a child having a severe reaction, and 0.000001% of a child having an anaphylactic reaction. No children have died as a result of the vaccine in the United States since 1990. Before vaccination started (in the 1960s), 450 people died annually from measles and another 4000 got encephaltis. Again, I give you my assurance that 0 is much less than 9000.

The risks of just one disease the MMR vaccine protects against far greater and more severe than the risks of the vaccine.

(vaguely remembered numbers: 5-10% in most cases)

More like 1% - that's what is for MMR - or in this case one-quarter of one student in that classroom of 25. Not anything remotely like all of them.

people who vaccinated their children run a much huger risk of having their children still come down with the disease thanks to the retards.

"Much huger" ?? No matter how much you try to scare-monger the numbers, it ain't going to be higher than the percentage of failed immunizations.

Yes, we should get terminology correct. I will not point out why the "ebola virus" would not be affected by antibiotics.