Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Unvaccinated Students Putting Other Students At Risk
New submitter haroldmandel writes in with a story about the increase of certain diseases in school-age children due to parents not having their kids vaccinated. "Parents nervous about the safety of vaccinations for their children may be causing a new problem: the comeback of their grandparents' childhood diseases, reports a new study from the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing. Despite the successes of childhood immunizations, wrote Penn Nursing researcher Alison M. Buttenheim, PhD, MBA, in the American Journal of Public Health, controversy over their safety has resulted in an increasing number of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated and obtaining legally binding personal belief exemptions against vaccinations for their children."
That is all i have say.
everyone's best friend should be Polio.
This is why vaccinations need to be mandatory. If you want to live in society, you have to follow society's rules and that includes rules that keep you from putting others at serious risk.
Vaccines are not that profitable. Please adjust your tinfoil hat.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Every reputable medical doctor, along with every pundit even slightly knowledgable about medicine or even basic biology has been warning of this issue ever since the antivaxxer morons got their idiotic campaign going.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
I suspect that, rather than "Despite the successes of childhood immunizations", it would be because of those successes that the 'controversy' is presently raging...
Because of the effectiveness of widespread childhood vaccination, we've had at least a generation of people with minimal firsthand exposure to all the wacky pathogenic fun that used to be quite common. Plus, depending on the herd immunity requirements for a given pathogen and vaccine, being part of the first n% of opt-outs is basically cost-free. It isn't until you get closer to herd immunity breakdown that being unvaccinated starts to carry any serious additional risk of infection.
If you have a situation where people's knowledge of the risks is largely historical and the odds are pretty good that you can free-ride your way past them in any case, it (sadly) seems only to be expected that there would be room for assorted controversy to flourish.
Timing is everything.
Note the proliferation of graphic news reports appearing a few months before 15 April in the US of tax-evaders and just plain folks who failed to file a return. They are arrested and harassed, all to scare the population into compliance.
Note the story which sidesteps legitimate and ongoing questions of safety, efficacy, disease surveillance, and risk, while outrageously pairing "Informed choice" with false assertions of safety. Meanwhile the portfolio of Paul Offit expands.
What's needed is a vaccine to stop stupidity and lust for money and power. However, its application would bring the herd, who relies on these for its survival, to an end.
Continued tinkering with the human immune system is our next Fukushima. Convenience has its price.
This is why vaccinations need to be mandatory. If you want to live in society, you have to follow society's rules and that includes rules that keep you from putting others at serious risk.
And for those that refuse or still get sick, as a final solution they should be placed in camps where they can be concentrated for the health of the society. We should also place addicts too - they are a harm to society with the DUIs and whatnot.
There are some others with deviant behavior that places others, especially children, at risk - like kiddie porn consumers - and they should be put into those camps. Muslims too - they are a threat to our society.
We could put the Secret Service in charge - give them new snappy uniforms to make it look official.
We can make a better society! For America!
He didn't need to be paid, the mind control nanobots they put in the vaccines made him do it.
Alternate hypothesis ; anti-vaxxers are actually a shadowy conspiracy of the radical Green movement who want the human race thinning out a bit to lower our impact on Mother Earth.
These diseases cause not just death, but maiming and suffering on a grand scale when allowed to spread unchecked. Not being vaccinated is on a par with smoking - it's a stupid and bad for not just your health but for the health of those around you.
Vaccination must have been very successful for us to even HAVE an anti vaccination movement, because the memory of the horrors of childhood diseases makes anyone bearing it a lifeline proponent of getting your shots...
What I don't get is why some parents will listen to the theories of one discredited doctor, but will distrust the advice of every other doctor out there. Do they seriously believe all doctors are able to pull off some huge conspiracy and there is only one good doctor speaking the truth?
Its really sad, because those who suffer will be the children who don't get vaccinated, the elderly who will be exposed to those children who get the disease, and the babies who are too young to get vaccinated yet. Those who should suffer have already HAD their vaccinations when THEY were children!
When you live in a society, you DO have certain responsibilities to the society!
At its core, the anti-vax movement is bad risk assessment for a few reasons. First of all, the horrors of the diseases that most vaccinations prevent against haven't been seen in a few generations. People my age (30's) with kids have never lived in a world where you could get polio or mumps at any moment and wind up dead, on an iron lung, deaf, scarred for life, etc. They score the risk of these infections as low because they don't see them. (The fallacy here being that the *reason* they don't see them is because of vaccines.)
Then, they hear scare tactics from certain people (Wakefield, McCarthy, etc) who claim that vaccines contain mercury/fetal tissue/generic toxins/etc that will harm their child. One shot and suddenly your child will catch The Autism. (Picture that in a much scarier font and cue a woman screaming off camera.) This would be so horrible and so, they conclude, we must stop all vaccinations until they are proven 100% safe.
The fallacy with this last one is that 1) there has never been a proven link between vaccines and autism, 2) even if there was, the diseases vaccines prevent are far worse than autism, and 3) no medical procedure is 100% safe. In fact, nothing anyone does is 100% safe. Driving in to work? You could get in a car crash and die. Better not commute to work until they can design cars that are 100% safe. Walking down the street? You could trip, hit your head, and die. Better not walk until they design 100% safe sidewalks.
The fact is that risk that vaccines pose is minuscule (and mainly limited to allergic reactions or slight fevers) and the threat these diseases pose is huge should they make a comeback. It is only bad risk assessment that makes vaccines look like a bigger threat than the diseases.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Isn't the point of getting a vaccination to protect you from the disease? How does it matter if it's floating around in the air, on a dog, bird or mosquito, or another kid?
Considering that when the very first time a vaccine is used, almost nobody has had the shots, how does it work so well at the beginning, when 99% of the people around you don't have it yet? I find the arguments against abstainers don't hold up to logical scrutiny...
Jenny McCarthy body count
“I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.”
Jenny McCarthy in Time Magazine, April 2009
The only students at risk are those who do not get vaccinated, which means those children's parent chose to put them at risk.
Personally I think vaccines are a good thing and as soon as patches with micro-needles make them painless, there will be one less hurdle.
Mandatory vaccines are another step towards fascism, education and clear communication would get most people there (except Scientologists).
And I always thought society would get smarter and smarter.
This really is a question of rights. Personally I think the promotion of rights has gotten out of hand, and I think most should get vaccinated.
However, lets consider the pros and cons of vaccines.
pro
health benefits from negligible to lifesaving,
herd immunity
con
side effects from minor discomfort to lifelong illness or death.
Yes the chances of being sensitive and dying from a vaccine are too small, but shouldn't our own bodies be inviolable in all but the most extreme cases?
Isn't part of living in a "free society" the right to make choices, even the wrong ones?
The data suggests that in most cases the benefits are clearly in favour of getting vaccinated, and we should, but I think we should have the right to choose.
“Vaccines are one of the great public health achievements of the last couple of centuries,” Dr. Buttenheim said. “They protect us from diseases that used to routinely kill hundreds of thousands of children in the United States and still kill hundreds of thousands globally.
Sounds reasonable, until...
Nationally, because of generally widespread vaccination coverage among children, vaccine-preventable childhood diseases that once caused substantial disease burdens and death in the United States remain rare occurrences. Measles once infected four million people and killed 4,000 of them each year, mostly young children. With high measles vaccine coverage over several decades, endemic measles was eliminated in the United States as of 2000. The current routine childhood immunization schedule is estimated to prevent 42,000 deaths and 20 million cases of disease and to save $14 billion in direct medical costs per U.S. birth cohort.
I'm sorry but these numbers don't add up to the concern expressed in the article. This is one doctors opinion who's own statements don't match the articles own numbers. Seems like a bit of BS to scare people into thinking that their tax dollars are going to be paying for sick kids. Anyone have any numbers on the cost of these vaccinations in the US?
Tough on the kids, but if the flat earthers want to devolve back to their Garden of Eden fantasy, let's get the party started.
The only real question is which group is going to end up as the Eloi and which the Morlocks. Me, I'm not that keen on the sun.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
From the Samsung posting...
By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.
Thinks Evolution is just a theory
Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy
Thinks Obama is a socialist
Thinks Obama is a muslim
Thinks Obama was not born in the United States
*New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge)
*NEW* THINKS VACCINES CAUSES AUTISM (DONALD TRUMP)
*New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform)
Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do
Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions
Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives
Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple
So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.
First Question: If vaccines really work, then how are unvaccinated children putting vaccinated children at risk? Study data about recent outbreaks of the vaccine-available illnesses for a clue on this one... Is herd immunity a myth?
Next: Is this issue one of those "Things the government & 'science' tell us are true but are actually only to benefit large corporate interests"? Every child from the day they are born has a "vaccine schedule" -- starting with Hep B vaccine which is a disease they must have unprotected sex or use injected dirty needles to get? Is this a case of over-vaccinated to go along with over-medicated children?
Correlation or causation? Increases of childhood developmental disabilities vs. being vaccinated... are they related? It's so hard to tell, since they're constantly giving children vaccines when they're growing. But there's plenty of parents whose children have problems within 72 hours of vaccines being administered to make at least the anecdotal cases seem compelling -- at least THAT child should not have had those vaccines. Would you rather your child had the mumps, or encephalitis resulting in autism?
Always! ask who benefits. Because I'd love to see the data that says that children benefit.
---- I'm out of your mind!
How can the vaccinated students be at risk? They're supposed to be immune.
I'm looking at a quick list of vaccinations for from my local clinic that range between 20$ and 120$. 5 millions kids in California seems like a nice chunk of change.
revenue not profits
you have to spend money on R&D, FDA approval, complying with all kinds of regulations selling to the government, bulk discounts. very little profit on vaccines
Maybe some schools should have it as a matter of safety. If your child is not immunized, you cannot come to this school because you put other children at risk. That way they will end up taking their kids to "open minded" schools. At these schools you will very soon discover some pretty grim statistics. Within a few years all these alternative schools will cease to exist. It is terrible that we treat kids as ginneapigs.
So how does rapine of corporations change medical fact?
Vaccines work and not vaccinating your children cause infections in others.
GSK empploy people. Does that prove employing people is SCAREMONGERING???
Like Mercury...I don't know about you guys but the thought of injecting mercury into my bloodstream..not something I'm fond of..can't we make vaccine's without that..
These people drive me crazy. I've talked to some of them. They don't believe in risking their child with a vaccination. But when I ask about vaccinations as a whole, they also don't want an end to them. Basically what they want is everyone else to vaccinate and risk their children; so they don't have to vaccinate their own.
Having worked in the medical research field, I can tell you with certainty that vaccines are that profitable...
Finally when it's all said and done, the actual pharmaceutical company can bring in billions of dollars in revenue selling the vaccine, which is just about enough to fund the next few projects.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
How about letting choice run both ways? If you choose to refuse vaccination for your child, the school can choose to refuse to allow them in? Exemptions only allowed in the case of provable medical conditions such as allergies.
That way, if your community decides that it wants vaccinations, you can either go along with it, find an alternative school somewhere else or choose to home school.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
These all seem like wonderful things to be profitable for.
Study Finds Unvaccinated Students Putting Other Students At Risk
Uh, yeah, that's because that is exactly what vaccines are meant to avert. Did we need a study for that?
(no, I didn't read TFA; yes, I am being a bit facetious)
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Vaccines are not like other drugs. They expire... rather quickly. A large percentage of them are thrown out at the end of the year. Then the research for next years vaccine starts again. It's a never ending cycle and it costs them a fortune. Unlike a drug like Viagra where then can spent a bunch of money researching it, then make pills that have a nearly indefinite shelf life and they do not have to start over every year unless some terrible side effect is found.
... from his buddy Donald Trump who recently claimed:
“Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism spread shots over long period and watch positive result.”
That's almost as bad as Akins "legitimate rape" comment (note: Romney's running mate co-authored the anti-abortion bill by the Republicans.). If you think this thinking is restricted to "just" a potential senator and vice-president please note the Republican platform REMOVED the clause allowing for abortions in case of Rape or Incest.
Judge them not (just) by what they say but what they do.
And that all goes into the drug company's pocket, because, of course, vaccines cost nothing to make.
Vaccines make so little profit that there's difficulties in keeping the manufacturing of them going--and research into new ones has almost stopped.
Maybe Im missing something here but if the other kids are vaccinated how does that put other kids at risk? Wouldnt the only other kids being put at risk only be the ones who refused vaccinations? Otherwise the vaccines would not be effective right? If thats the case I do not want my children injected with an ineffective chemical cocktail that doesnt even protect my child...
Everyone who's not a paid shill for the government or the pharmaceutical industry, raise your hand! :p
You mean people who think they are special when they are not?
You will grow up, your ideas will change and you may even come to realize that having a functioning society is good for even you.
Being a human means being part of society, and to do that you have to expect some give and take. Vaccines or quarantine are one of those.
Interesting how "my body, my choice" has such limited applicability.
"And for those that refuse or still get sick, as a final solution they should be placed in camps"
Well, yes.
We currently call them hospitals and quarantines.
We have a similar thing for people who are a danger to those around them from physical violence: Prison and Psychiatric Hospitals. Or are you saying that it's really bad if people who have murdered (or think that a little green man is living inside every other human and must be brought into the light) or raped or cannot help but rape someone should be locked away for the safety of others?
Oh noes, the chemicals!
First, most vaccines don't contain mercury anymore. Second, vaccines only ever contained very small amounts, as a preservative. If you eat fish even a few times per year, that plus your exposure through drinking water probably adds up to more mercury than you'd get from a vaccine, even if you did get one of the vaccines that still has mercury in it.
The preservative is necessary to keep the vaccine from going bad long enough that it can be reasonably distributed.
I haven't decided if I think all of this stuff is sensationalism or not, but it doesn't really matter. If I ask my school for a count of the number of kids in the school that are unvaccinated, and a count for the number of kids in my kids actual classroom that are unvaccinated, first are they legally allowed to share that (anonymous) data with me, and second are they legally required to share that data with me? It seems that if there is a possibility that some moron is risking my own kids health, I should be able to find out about it.
In other words, stupid idiots are putting other people at risk because "that's how they control us" or "That's how you become autistic!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you read the actual study it makes the self-evident point that the more students there are with exemptions the more likely students will be exposed to people with exemptions. It does not measure disease prevalence or incidence. It would be nice if the poster or the editors actual read what they are posting about.
Don't eat tuna then.
Simple solution. If you don't want to vaccinate your kid, they don't get to mingle with healthy ones. Added bonus: the healthy ones probably believe in evolution and other ungodly things.
Why must humanity be so derpy-derp?
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
you really think a nation-wide health program would pay retail price for vaccines?
travel shots are one thing, herd immunity is another.
i know it sounds alien to say such a thing, but just because they're a pharmaceutical company, it doesn't mean that EVERY action of theirs is evil.
now, i personally question the ethics of manufacturers of homoeopathic remedies - selling bottles of water (AUD$ 0.4 per bottle btw) for upward of 20 bucks and it does nothing whatsoever.
just because homoeopathic companies aren't necessarily multinationals, doesn't mean they can't be callous and potentially evil as well.
this world is made up of shades of grey. but there's also colours if you look closely enough.
So it's your contention that vaccines are a conspiracy among the data centers, insurers, utility companies, data analysts, and researchers?
I'll grant you that the global market has made newer vaccines more profitable than they were in the past, but vaccines still have very low profit margins. In fact, I doubt there is any profit at all on the older vaccines that we are arguing over here.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In order to drive a car, you need a government-mandated license indicating a minimum competency level so you aren't a danger to others.
In order to fly a plane, you need a government-mandated license indicating a minimum competency level so you aren't a danger to others.
The right to practice law, become a doctor, and even have a job (by requiring social security number) is mandated by law.
Why are people allowed to create a public safety problem by opting out of "required" vaccines?
First of all, do you know how much it cost to make that vaccine and how much total revenue it brings in compared to other medication. Here's why pharmaceuticals don't like vaccines: Some vaccines are only needed once. Sometimes you need boosters but at most it is a few shots over the lifetime of a person. A pharmaceutical is far more interested in selling something you need on a regular basis. For example generic Lipitor may cost $80 per month after insurance. I would bet you a year supply of Lipitor costs more than all the vaccines a person needs over their lifetime.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, then you want to catch every single child you can, to maximize the profit, right? After all, you invested in R&D, FDA approval & compliance with regulations. But once you have it on the assembly line, each vial of vaccine can't really cost much on top of those up-front costs.... so we'd better start immunizing all those stragglers too!
Lawsuits, education (ie. defending against boneheaded accusations), distribution, storage... We're struggling in this country to keep vaccine makers interested in continuing to make a flu vaccine, and that's probably one of the best health-for-the-dollar investments one can possibly make. Death from flu is similar to death from drunk driving (~11K drunk driving deaths; 3K-40K flu deaths a year depending on the severity of the season), and yet not getting a flu vaccine is not ostracized like driving drunk is. And yes, getting more children decreases the risk you'll lose money, but it's also the best way for vaccines to work. An individual getting a vaccine is only 80-95% effective, but a community getting a vaccine breaks the entire disease cycle and the effect is multiplied dramatically.
E pluribus unum
Maybe unvaccinated children spread autism in vaccinated children.
"They're stupid"
"And that's why they need educated."
Oh, the irony.
I've worked at the CDC in Atlanta and spoken to some of the people in charge of vaccinations. On guy who was near the top (in my interview) asked very pointed questions about what I thought of vaccinating and made it very clear that he thought people who disapproved of vaccinations and their safety to be "crazy people". At the time, I was surprised there were such people who would disapprove. He said that, "They write letters to congress, they call us up, they even stage protests!."
It was around this time that 9/11 happened. The CDC was very concerned that terrorists might get hold of some smallpox virus from some hidden Russian stores or something. A first run of smallpox vaccine was put together to give to people who would be working in the field. It was quit, however, as some people had very strong reactions to it. I think one person even died of a heart problem.
I'm not really for or against vaccines. The human body is designed to take notice and react to what is put in them. The principle is good. Why not use that to our advantage. And in the above case, one can say that the company was in a rush and didn't get the mix right. But does that always excuse them? What about when they have a lot of time and money to get it right? Why do they always ask for (and get) a guarantee that there can be no litigation? If the vaccine is so safe and works so well and is so inexpensive (with our tax support), why should we have to force people to take them?
With what I have seen, I do have questions. And personally, the only time I have ever had the flu bad, was the ONE TIME in the last ten years I had a flu vaccination. And from a civil rights and property rights perspective, the person who had the final authority and responsibility to determine what goes into a body is not the government but the individual (or parent). Forcing people to have vaccinations is NAZI logic. The logic seems to be to tell parents who don't agree, "Your child can't go into the school system then." But since they pay taxes into it, that is a double edged sword. All you need is one vaccine to go really bad and word to get out on the internet. In Sum, I am not against vaccines, if they are good vaccines. I am against the Lord/Serf attitude that is taken by government officials in control of the vaccination programs. Like it or not, voluntary is the way to go in a country like ours. It keeps the government from breaking rights of the people it does NOT have. I also think there needs to be transparency regarding the results of vaccinations. And if a vaccine causes a problem, there is a right to redress of grievances and peaceful protest.
Even if we put aside the knowledge that homeopathy doesn't do anything, there's no chance of quality control. They themselves admit that the "water memory" is not measurable by any scientific instrument. So if I gave you one vial of homeopathic solution and one vial of distilled water that I bought in the grocery store, how would you tell the difference? How can you tell that the "homeopathic cure" you bought isn't really just tap water (or plain sugar pills in the case of the tablet variety)? How can you be sure that it was prepared as the homeopathy company claims it has been?
The answer is that you can't. By claiming that their "cure" can't be measured by any instrumentation, they've admitted that they could be selling anything to the gullible folks who are buying it up. Unlike traditional medicine manufacturers where pretty much any lab can measure what's in a given drug sample. (No chance to swap aspirin with sugar pills without being found out.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Funny thing... Just saw an ad in the local news paper (an ad for wegmans grocery stores) that generic Lipitor will now be free (90 pill prescriptions or something along those lines)
In fact, that's the main reason behind the special "vaccine court" that handles claims of problems with vaccines. Vaccines make so little profit that any legal risk they pose to the company could tip the scales into them being not worth the effort. The vaccine court is a way to weed out the frivolous claims (i.e. "this vaccine turned my son autistic and my evidence is Jenny McCarthy") and take action on the valid cases. If vaccines were dumped into the main court system, lawsuits would spread like wildfire over every imagined complaint. The companies would have to defend themselves against them and vaccines just not be worth the effort, money-wise. They would be losing money (via frivolous lawsuits) and their production would be stopped. Then we'd all suffer through those diseases again.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
On the plus side, technological advancement had replaced the iron lung with much smaller, sexier CPAP machines.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So it's your contention that vaccines are a conspiracy among the data centers, insurers, utility companies, data analysts, and researchers?
And the food producers who profit from the researchers buying food for their families, and the machinist who made the data center's racks, and the veterinarian who neutered the data analyst's dog, and even you! Yes, you! You're a part of it in some roundabout way that really makes sense only to economists and conspiracy theorists!
I'll grant you that the global market has made newer vaccines more profitable than they were in the past, but vaccines still have very low profit margins. In fact, I doubt there is any profit at all on the older vaccines that we are arguing over here.
A lot of the older vaccines' R&D is paid off now, so the only costs are production and distribution like any other product. Since the retail price for the vaccines has also dropped, my rough estimate pegs them at about the same profit margin as new vaccines: really really low.
Plainly and without sarcasm (for once), vaccines are a very large market, with very slim profits. The millions of dollars drug companies spend on the catered dinners, advertisements, and private-island vacations for executives is pocket change compared to the billions spent in R&D costs.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I have to politely disagree with your conclusion. If I may, I would like to expound upon my opinion.
Based on the information available and at least on an individual scale, the average human is roughly as smart or smarter than our ancient ancestors were. Of course, no reliable testing data exists further back than a generation or two, so any commentary on human intelligence positive or negative is somewhat subjective.
However, I think it is fair to say that the issues we are having today with the seeming increase in the number of "stupid" people is not so much an indicator of declining human intelligence, but an artifact of our modern society.
Simply put, the pace of technological and social changes in society is occurring at a faster rate than the average human can keep up with. While we can keep up with the changes in a specific discipline, (say, automobile tech or computers or the like) it is nearly impossible for our brains to process all the changes that are happening at once. We simply can't keep up.
Combine that with a massive increase in the available information (thanks to the Internet) and our ability to make rational risk-assessments becomes more and more compromised.
Now compound that with the fact that western culture, capitalism and medicine have greatly reduced the average western mortality rates, thus allowing our population to increase and the average number of less intelligent and otherwise mentally challenged people to survive and you will have a spike in "stupid behavior".
Really, there are only two ways to deal with this:
1. Government regulated breeding. Only works as well as the regulators running it, and based on the current crop of regulators, I'd not want to bet my society (or my kids) on it. Not to mention the hideous tragedies such tyrannical policies would create.
2. Increased educational focus on logic and reasoning and a "classical" education approach. IE: Logic & Reasoning, Math, Science, History and Arts & Technology as focuses in primary and secondary education.
I personally think that option 2 would be far more effective in the long run than option 1. Far better to equip all of our children of all intelligence levels to be able to handle modern society via clear reasoning and improved risk assessment skills than to attempt the impossible task of breeding perfect people.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Your first link has some odd statements. It's well known that the whooping cough vaccine wears off. That's why you get boosters. Second, the seasonal flu vaccine DID seem to increase contraction of H1N1 by a bit, but the number cited by the article seems to be the raw number. A lot of people who get the seasonal flu vaccine do so because they work or live in conditions that are high risk for contracting the flu, H1N1 included.
You could have just said "woosh"... :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You say "on par", but the reality is that until vaccines were discovered, smoking wasn't that big a deal due to the probability that one of the diseases we now vaccinate against would kill you. Smoking is among leading causes of death because we managed to clear out a whole host of really nasty bugs.
I personally believe in this day and age, anyone actively preventing vaccination of a child should be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity. Not even slightly hyperbolic.
I'm sorry, I fail to see the similarities between optional alternative "therapies" and a mandatory government-required system of vaccinations of which any and all profits roll into the same large companies. If the program was not profitable, the drug companies wouldn't produce the vaccines -- their boards of directors would shoot them (and they'd be legally fiscally accountable to their shareholders & boards for running a program at a deficit for decades...). So you have to assume that it brings in some type of profit -- or the companies wouldn't produce them.
Comparing this to homeopathic remedies, that are entirely voluntary, is ridiculous. Please stick to the problem at-hand. [Note: it's quite likely the same drug companies are making money on homeopathic remedies under subsidiary labels too -- because they'll sell whatever the public will buy to profit their board & shareholders -- just like they started taking an interest in herbal remedies during the big FDA-herb-banning fights in the early 1990s]
The vaccination program makes the drug companies money. Period. The more children are vaccinated, the more money. Period. This has nothing to do with what other companies are selling or with non-manditory medications/alternative therapies. This is an entirely different fact than whether we're benefitted by herd immunity, etc. If this program didn't make a profit, and the government thought it was of benefit to vaccinate regardless of whether a for-profit entity would supply the vaccines, the government would manufacture the vaccines or fund some small non-profit with grant money to do so. The fact is, there's profit being made here. The next question is what lobbying & what pressure is being put on legislators to insure these profits.
---- I'm out of your mind!
Yes you are taking crazy pills.
Because despite your whine being answered multiple times (e.g. you cannot vaccinate a child too young to be vaccinated, but schools take in kids of differing ages, some of whom CAN take the vaccine but don't), you're still bitching about it.
To be honest, this is a pretty clear indicator for any genuine fence-sitters that the anti-vaxxers are a load of mindless driven morons.
Forty "how does that put other kids at risk?" and four hundred answers of how later, STILL there's more "how does that put other kids at risk?". Eminent proof that the anti-vaxx crowd DO NOT WANT to know anything and are completely immune to learning anything other than how bad vaccines are.
Actually, the profits are close to zero even after the up front costs are taken care of. Vaccine production is not a very profitable business, with many producers taking losses some years. They mostly continue to exist because large institutional buyers promise to grab certain amounts in order to keep them in production. Most of the companies that make vaccines would be happy if the entire division got shut down so they could focus on more profitable things. Often governments have to pressure drug companies to keep the divisions open with threats (or promises) around other things.
Briefly considered, but I kinda wanted to make the point about old vaccines having about the same profit (which is why the pharma companies try so hard to keep control of their old patents), and the note about the millons vs. billions was something I wanted to put in the first comment, but it didn't fit the tone.
"Whoosh" responses also irritate me, but that's just a pet peeve.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Not to mention that mercury was blamed for "vaccines cause autism." They removed the mercury. Autism rates still rose. So they changed their claim of why "vaccines cause autism" to something else. Every time the link they claim is proven false, they move the goal posts somewhere else so they can claim that "vaccines cause autism" hasn't *really* been disproven and that the burden is on everyone else to disprove claim #1,263.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You misunderstood. I have no problem with society or the concept of human beings living together in harmony. My point was that coercion is not harmony. It is violence. It is immoral and unjust, the polar opposite of harmony. I will believe this until the day I die.
Since you asked, I am 37 years old, and my world view and political ideals are the product of over 20 years of thinking. So no, my "ideas" won't change. Sorry to disappoint you.
Right now I get my kids vaccinated. If it became mandatory I would immediately stop and reconsider.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
It may be the anti-vaccine crowd, or it may be you. There is evidence that catching things is good for you long term and that vaccines may not be as effective at building the immune system as natural disease. Notice that I'm sidestepping the issue of vaccine safety and still making an argument. Now I'm a fan of eradication programs - I've got a small-pox vaccination scar and think it's great that the disease has been eliminated. I think it's great that we may soon see an end to polio. I'm up for eradicating the really bad stuff. Chicken Pox vaccine? Fuck that, it used to be a right of passage. Sure, if you don't get it as a child you should be vaccinated because getting it as an adult can be terrible. Or perhaps it should be a choice, but to make people get vaccinated? And flu? God no, not for healthy people at low risk (my grandmother died of it at 92, she probably should have gotten the vaccine). Hey, if they really are stupid then not getting it will be evolution in action and humans will become smarter - you should be happy. And lastly, if you get your kid vaccinated and they catch the shit anyway please don't run around blaming those who didn't vaccinate. We have to many people blaming thier problems on others and trying to tell other people what to do.
Again, I'm all for eradication programs for the really bad stuff, but for the rest I think calling people who don't want vaccines "stupid" is just plain ignorant.
If some idiot parent doesn't want to vaccinate their child, make them fiscally liable if it's proven that their child was the source of an infection in a geographical area. Insurance companies could sell anti-vaccine insurance policies, which I would assume to extremely expensive. Can't afford the insurance? Can't pay out of pocket for the projected possible outbreak? Welcome to society, get in line and receive your vaccine.
The fact is, there's profit being made here. The next question is what lobbying & what pressure is being put on legislators to insure these profits.
If that is your sole argument, that someone is lobbying the government to force people to get vaccinated so these companies can make money, you've lost any semblance of logical argument.
The fact that you consider homeopathic to be medicine, which it isn't, and choose to focus on the money aspect, which is completely irrelevant to the medically sound reason to be vaccinated, shows your lack of common sense.
I can assure you when people were being vaccinated for smallpox or polio, no one gave a rats ass about who was making a profit, or if a profit was even being made. All they cared about was that the yearly sweeps of infections that plagued the country came to a stop.
Are you now going to complain about all the money those big bad corporations made eradicating smallpox and polio? How about rinderpest, an equally devastating disease which has afflicted animals since before the time of Greeks? Are you going to complain about the money corporations made selling this vaccine to the animal industry to innoculate animals to prevent them from getting infected and making it the second time in human history that a disease has been wiped from the face of the Earth?
It seems counter-intuitive to complain these companies are making money to produce a product which will, eventually, make the use of that product unnecessary (in the case of smallpox and rinderpest). After all, wouldn't it be easier to make something which only treats the symptoms rather than cures it? That way they could have a perpetual source of income.
You and Jenny McCarthy would make a great pair. You should go on tour.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
My local walk-in clinic has almost every vaccine for $3-$5. Mid-west USA.
If the program was not profitable, the drug companies wouldn't produce the vaccines
I wouldn't say that vaccines aren't profitable. What I will say is that they're closer to computer equipment profit margins(1%), not jewelry store ones(50+%) like designer drugs have.
My grandfather had polio. I'm all for vaccination. While we're at it, I support putting unvaccinated kids together in special schools. That way when a MMR type outbreak happens they all get it and the parents get to experience the consequences of their failure. Oh, and it makes the news in a splashy public way so more parents get their kids their shots.
I don't read AC A human right
Great, Another "get vaccinated or children will die" piece. I rate these things pretty close to rants by the national security community that we have to "sacrifice our rights or the terrorists win". Yes vaccines are a valuable PART of modern medicine, yes they are PART of the reason for our improved health and yes they have HELPED to eliminate some of the more deadly diseases in our history. But, they are not the entire reason for our improved resiliency to disease (and arguably not even the primary reason). Improved hygiene is probably one of the bigger ones along with better knowledge and mitigation factors (wash your hands, cover your mouth when sneezing, use of disposable tissue). Even the most effective vaccines do not make a majority of individuals immune. Effectiveness of course varies wildly between age groups, vaccines & seasons, but on average I would wager that only about 60% of vaccinated people see any quantifiable improvement in resiliency to the designed for diseases, and in those cases its probably only a change from staying home sick for a week to staying home sick for two or three days. 10% probably become nearly immune, the rest you might as well have injected saline for all the good it did. And despite the claims by the medical community vaccines DO HAVE SIDE EFFECTS. These days they are rare and are for the most part minor, but people DO die from and ARE injured by them on exceedingly rare occasions. Brushing off these downsides is no better than those who claim that vaccines are akin to the next lead paint scandal. A complete and honest assessment of a vaccines upsides and downsides is necessary, not the "its my way or the highway" approach that is coming out of both the medical community & the anti-vaccination crowd.
By getting vaccinated, I am dependent on everyone injecting poison into their blood just to stay alive.
By not getting vaccinated, I am dependent on evolution to cull the vulnerable so that future generations are immune to each disease naturally without having to inject countless cocktails of poison, genetically modified crap, adjuvents, and toxic preservatives into our bloodstream.
Either we can have the natural lottery of the odd individual be destine to die, or we can intervene and ensure that our gene pool continues to degenerate to the point that everyone is completely dependent on the medical industrial complex simply to survive.
It is obvious to me which path has more suffering and dependence. Vaccines, it does the medical industrial complex good!
They removed the mercury. Autism rates still rose.
This needs repeating, in a post all by itself. And in boldface.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
if your 'vaccinated' kid is susceptible to anything from anyone unvaccinated, then clearly the vaccine didn't work.
oops!
Makers of vaccines are legally protected from lawsuits.
See [new news]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206008.html
or [established decades ago]: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html
Drunk driving vs. flu deaths? Wow....
I wish people would stop comparing vaccines with things wildly unrelated.
---- I'm out of your mind!
That was the HEIGHT only because vaccinations started, which halted the spread.
It used to be that children without vaccinations would not be permitted in school. The only exceptions that existed were those children that were subject to egg allergy (as that was the incubator for the vaccine).
It should still be the rule.
How's evolution working out for you? As an individual, living here today, for let's say 80 years? Or maybe you really think on a thousand-year or 10 thousand-year timescale?
As a family person, do you play the lottery game with your children? Or as someone with friends, are you prepared to play that game with other people? When they've chosen not to play, but rather do the best they can for themselves and their families?
The polite description for you would be "eugenicist". Selfish, misguided, conspiracy theorist, anti-science would also fit.
Yes, any differences between a few lying slimeballs and actual scientists is now a controversy. Similarly controversial are the topics of whether the Earth is 6000 years old, whether it is a disc, and whether time is cubic. Another controversy erupted recently over the question whether rape can impregnate women.
I'm not sure where you think the government can simply make research come out of it's ass just because it feels like it. Just about everything we've done in this country that has a public component has also had a private one. Getting to the moon? Private companies probably profited handsomely. Developing public transportation? Defense contracts? Definitely private. The Internet? Public-private cooperation. Private entities were involved at the outset of many systems. Most science in every country has private grants or interest in it. Indeed, science itself was developed with a healthy dose of private interest and profit motive. After all, profits are one measure of how useful applied science can be.
Sure, profits are made, but are we really using aversion to "profit" to override scientifically proven benefits of vaccination? And trundling out the fact that some sinister lobbyists may be involved? Like, the American Medical Association or Save the Children? Nothing like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Vaccination programs are hardly breaking the bank and bankrupting people. This is something that *should* be making profits because it is a worthwhile program that deserves economic support.
I get that the homeopathy example might have been a bit of an unnecessary pile-on, but the people who are anti-vaccination do tend to spout off ridiculous notions that sound like the homeopathy crowd, so I personally find the faux-pas to be forgivable.
Because if YOU can carry the disease and pass it on to me, it goes from YOUR body to MY body. And YOU are refusing to let me choose.
Funny how you complain of the "limited" application whilst you yourself are applying it to ONLY YOUR BODY. I don't get a choice, apparently.
I'm okay with truly religious objections to immunizations. However, if you do it out of fear, stupidity or ignorance, and my child gets sick, I'm goign to sue you, whether or not your child is sick, because you made my child sick. Stupidity should be painful, expensive,, or both.
To the innumerate, perhaps. Let's do some simple arithmetic:
Autism is typically diagnosed around the same time that children receive their childhood vaccinations, even in children who do not get vaccinated. Let's ignore the likely possibility that due to media reports, parents are more likely to be alert to symptoms of autism right after vaccination, and assume that children are vaccinated on a random date, and first exhibit clear symptoms of autism on a random date. If autism is unrelated to vaccination, what is the probability that a child in the US will first exhibit autistic symptoms within 72 hours (3 days) after vaccination?
3 days is 3/365 = 0.0082 year
About 4 million children are born in the US per year. Let's assume that they are all vaccinated in a single year (yes, I know children get multiple vaccinations throughout childhood but I'm being conservative)
Incidence of autism is hard to estimate as diagnostic criteria have changed and doctors are more likely today to consider a diagnosis of autism as opposed to simple mental retardation. Current estimates of incidence are around 1%, and a survey of incidence of autism in adults in Great Britain indicates this has been fairly stable for the past 70 years. But this is still somewhat controversial, so let's be very conservative and assume that only 1 child in 1000 will first exhibit clear symptoms of autism in a the same year as he or she gets a vaccination. How many children per year will, purely by chance, first exhibit clear symptoms of autism within 72 h of their vaccination?
4 million * 0.001 * 0.0082 = 33 per year
So over 10 years about 330 children would have first exhibited autistic symptoms within 72 hours after vaccination. Expand the period after vaccination to 2 weeks (I've heard people blame vaccination when their child was diagnosed a month or two after a vaccination), and that number rises to 1,524.
So even if autism has nothing to do with vaccination, plenty of parents would have children who developed autistic symptoms with 72 h of vaccination.
Which helps to explain the scientific adage: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
When was the last time that they required smallpox vaccination in order to attend school? Heck, when was the last time they even recommended it outside of special circumstances?
Of course, the smallpox vaccine is one of the nastier ones, but even as nasty as it is, it's still incredibly safe compared to the disease - which would kill something like 30% of the infected last time it ran wild. Variolation, an 'early' form of vaccination* which killed 1% of those treated, was considerably better. Then they developed the cowpox technique, which was more like .1% dead, on up to the bifurcated tine poke vaccine, which is more like .00001%.
The medical community is constantly doing risk analysis studies. They've dropped vaccines before, when they're sufficiently eradicated.
I don't read AC A human right
Actually, I don't believe that is the case. Smoking kills people who have survived to adulthood to start smoking, and then kills them later in life. Most diseases you vaccinate against kill children, and children are not going to be smokers and usually have not lived enough to contract most forms of lung cancer.
Vaccines saved more children who can then go on to smoke, which may have increased the absolute number of people dying from lung cancer, but the relative percentage was not affected by vaccinations. In other words, 100 people may now be dying of lung cancer instead of ten, but that's because the adult population is ten times higher (and now 900 people do *not* get lung cancer, as opposed to only 90 before).
But I do agree that we need to take action against non-vaccinated children. We rely on herd immunity to keep us safe. I would prefer that the method of doing so be one that is humane, but it may be difficult to manage that outside of something that would resemble an internment camp or penal colony. Personally, I believe purposely unvaccinated children should be removed from their parents, vaccinated, returned, and that should be the end of it. Parents would be detained or lose custody as required only to ensure that the vaccinations were completed. And mind you, I despise big government, but there are definitely things government is meant to do which does not count as overreaching.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You confusing a couple of things. Vaccines do outdate quickly, but except for influenza, the formulation is pretty stable.
The big problem with vaccine production is that bulk production is a cast iron bitch. It's difficult and expensive. And because most of the buyers are large, bulk purchasers, few pay 'retail'. Then there are the lawsuits....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Are you sure that's the case for vaccines like MMR or MMRV?
Definitely true for the Flu virus - to the point that they need to reformulate yearly because the virus mutates so far. That's also a big reason why there's a yearly flu virus and the flu hasn't been eradicated. If the measles mutated like that, we wouldn't have vaccinated it (virtually) out of existence.
Yes, Viagra had a huge up-front cost and now is a cash cow like so many others. But if the flu vaccine took years for approval and had a huge up-front cost it would be impossible to make and sell.
Is there a lower profit on flu vaccines than viagra? Sure. Is it manufactured solely for the good of mankind? Certainly not.
P.s. pills don't have an unlimited shelf life (though it's typically far longer than the expiration date on the bottle)
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Our son has autism and was about 4 1/2 when his younger sister was born (his twin sister does not). Our doctor congratulated us when we "decided" to vaccinate our youngest daughter because a lot of parents of a child with autism either are not or have to think about it a lot more than they should. It still makes me mad when I see the Jenny McCarthy types making their money promoting their anti-vax books and then I have to spend time explaining to relatives and friends that Jenny McCarthy doesn't have any real knowledge of science and is probably pretty useless source of information about anything except what kinds of bikinis are popular these days.
When I was a kid, my parents painted every scratch and scrape with mercury antiseptic.
But they don't do that anymore, and they took mercury out of almost all of the vaccinations (the only exception is multi dose flu vaccine, and if you really want, you can pay for the more expensive single-dose shot without preservative)
Some say that autism incidence higher than when I was a kid.
Could it be because kids today are not getting enough mercury?
I'm grateful for your more thoughtful response.
Patents don't really apply to many vaccines, since the rules are different. Merck pretty much has a forever monopoly on MMR, for instance. But Merck is only in the vaccine business because of pressure by the government - so pathetic are the profits. The reason is that the government is by far the largest buyer of vaccines, so they can exert a lot of pricing pressure. I think the government pays under $20 for the same MMR that costs the market over $40.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you eat fish even a few times per year, that plus your exposure through drinking water probably adds up to more mercury than you'd get from a vaccine.
There's a difference between ingesting Mercury (or aluminum salts) and injecting them directly into the muscles, fats, and blood stream. It's the same reason you can eat food that's questionable and probably be fine, but cannot rub that same food into an open wound. It's also a big part of why surgeons are very careful to sanitize/sterilize their equipment. What you said might be true, but there would have to be studies comparing intramuscular injections of mercury versus ingesting mercury. Are you aware of such a study?
A lot of the anti-vaccine crowd *are* just stupid people. But there are legitimate concerns with preforming intramuscular injections of aluminum salts, formaldehyde, etc. More studies need to be performed on the effects of these chemicals when injected as they normally are via vaccinations. From my understanding most studies that have been performed on the safety of these chemicals focus on ingestion of them.
TLDR: Vaccines are great, but please stop the rhetoric from the pro-vaccine side as well and stop labeling anyone that has concerns over vaccines a nutjob.
Because vaccines are not 100% effective. They work because enough people are immunized that it prevents the disease from spreading.
i trust big pharma to do 1 thing, and 1 thing only: do whatever it can to make money. no, i'm not just some idiot that doesn't understand the idea of vaccinations. but i'm also not that idiot that believes we need to buy every product they're selling either.
i also trust big pharma to try to convince the world we need more vaccinations so they can sell us all more drugs. (easy example: HPV vaccine for men?) and i trust human nature that many companies would doctor any test results they need to, if it will make them more money. this also includes bribing any officials needed to get their pockets filled. what could be more profitable than convincing us that every human needs to buy their product or possibly die? even better- that we need to do this annually!
sorry, but i think before taking every drug offered to me. isn't that what they teach in schools these days?
So, then...why even do them? They're not required by law to make them. Follow the money, fool. Big Pharma, the bunch making this stuff does nothing that isn't profitable- and big profits when done in whatever levels they do it in.
Malaria caused a selection for sickle-cell anemia. The ability to survive does not have to mean survival of the fittest.
One of our strongest attributes is supposed to be our brains and the ability to work out solutions and/or create tools to help us survive adversity. It should be clear by now that if we were to try and survive in the wild without using even the most primitive of tools or our capacity to reason, most of us would fail. Though eventually selection of the physically stronger, faster, tougher and more vicious would probably make us more like our primitive ancestors.
Another consideration is that the children who "SURVIVED" grew up with immunity to diseases like chicken-pox. I chose the vaccine for my daughter because I did not want her to be one of the few who died. It's stupid lottery to play.
By avoiding modern health system, you'd be bringing us back to the Middle Ages. If you cut down the average life expectancy, it won't be effective to properly take care of the children, why send them to college until they're twenty-five when half of them will be dead before they are forty? Eventually we'd all sink to the level of dirt streets and chamber pots being emptied out of people's windows and famines and everyone of us would have a really bad time. Oh, and no Nintendo for you.
BTW, meanwhile, evolution happily churns on, no matter whether you like it or not. You don't have to be worried about that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Exactly how many bubble gum wrappers did you read before you thought you could claim to have researched anything? And yes, just to save time, you are stupid. I think you know that since you were too cowardly to use your name.
See:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283
Huffington Post has been classified as the n. 10 worst anti-science website due to its promotion of crack-pot medicine, including the alleged vaccine-autism link.
You're totally right dude! Don't have kids and there will be less selfish idiots who value their personal liberty to not receive a vaccine over the importance of a clear-cut public health issue. Thanks so much!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Or agree with him that he doesn't have a problem while he's puking his guts out in the gutter, or do you do any and everything possible to see that he doesn't hurt either himself or others around him. Suffering fools lightly only results in even more insufferable fools in the future.
Many of the vaccines still contain aluminium, which can be toxic in the bloodstream. Although that's actually the whole reason it's there. By adding the aluminium the body's immune system will react more strongly and so less viral material is needed.
It's kind of like how for bull riding competitions they put a belt on the bull that causes pain to piss it off. This ensures a better show as otherwise the bull might not care enough to buck the rider off.
There is some concern though about whether when giving a young child a barrage of vaccines all at once it could be pushing the toxicity level higher than necessary. The method my family has chosen to mitigate this is to spread the shots out a bit.
So far the only one I think we are outright skipping is Chickenpox. It seems like every child I know who has recieved the vaccine has ended up with chickenpox more than once. It appears to not give much in the way of lasting immunity and could possibly be setting us up for a large adult population that isn't immune. The majority of deaths from chickenpox have been from secondary infections due to poor sanitary practices.
This line of thinking always makes me laugh, since the same people who argue that vaccines are all about making profit will often argue that 'they' won't release a cure for cancer because there is too much profit in treating the disease instead of curing it. So which is it?
So the system can tolerate a certain failure rate. Just figure that part of that failure rate includes people who refuse the vaccination.
Presently, there is no cost to opting out of vaccinations. So the fear is that parents will forgo the (slight) risk of side effects by selecting the zero cost option (no vaccination). Simple solution: Make sure that parents of unvaccinated children incur the cost of their decision through either higher insurance rates or a reduction in the income tax exemption for their child.
Have gnu, will travel.
What, we aren't just listing unrelated, off-topic items?
It is interesting that the many /. posters that have strong opinions also seem to lack both facts and long term perspective. One of the issues that has not been addressed by pharmaceutical companies is multi-dose vials. Syringes are placed into these vials repeatedly (not the same syringes). This breaks the seal which keeps the vaccine sterile. In order to keep the contents of these vials sterile, the following additives are used:
Mercury - Yes, it is still in flu vaccines. Thimerasol has been in use since 1928, was grandfathered into FDA approval, and is considered toxic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal
Formaldehyde - Another highly toxic substance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
Many, Many others - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients
To mitigate this exposure, vaccines need to be distributed in sterile single dose vials lacking these ingredients. This would, of course, reduce pharmaceutical company profits and therefore they will fight against it. There are some ingredients, however that would be hard to eliminate:
Aluminum hydroxide - An adjuvant in vaccines.
Now, if you are done bashing those who choose not to expose their families to a toxic cocktail (regardless of Autism fears), consider the long term effect of vaccination. The healthcare industry believes that they are "SAVING LIVES" when the reality is that they are simply prolonging them. Nobody wants to face death, but we all have to go eventually. I have seen this first hand when relatives begged to be "unplugged" from equipment keeping them alive at the end of their terminal illnesses. Perhaps it would be better if we learned how to face the inevitable instead of spending so much time fighting it.
The net effect of vaccination is that we are eliminating the natural processes which keep our population in check. This also applies to healthcare in general. In other words, a side effect of vaccination is overpopulation. In the long term, our reproductive success comes as a detriment to all of the other species on the planet. To prevent the complete collapse of our society and our ecosystems, we simply need less people. We must learn from the Mayans or we will become them.
Star Trek put it eloquently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_of_Gideon
And that's why they need educated.
With apologies to Ron White, you can't fix stupid. There's not a class you can take or a pill you can eat.
He is not saying to artificially select people.
What he is saying can only be called anti-dysgenicist.
The funny part is my children don't get sick. My son on the spectrum is one of hyper immune variety.
R&D has already been paid for on older vaccines. That takes a lot of people getting a slice out of that equation but still leaves insurers, utility companies, and pharma companies. The margins may be slim, but they exist and slim margins with millions and millions of customers is still good profit.
Unfortunately, parasites want to leach off of everyone else instead of going away to where they won't damage the functional members of society.
Maybe in another 20 years you will grasp reality.
For the same reason car insurance is mandatory, some things just have to be.
he is a human. Apparently you consider yourself an entitled two-legged tick who just hangs onto humanity and takes everything they can.
The risks of vaccines are well documented and so are the benefits. And the benefits of vaccination massively outweigh the risks of not doing so.
Self-entitled, spoiled brats like to have temper tantrums when the adults ask them to do their share, but there is no way they would actually leave if it meant they couldn't sponge off of everyone else.
In these cases, I think the person has a tendency to cling to their beliefs. Because changing the beliefs entails coming to terms with what they did (in this case, causing many deaths).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Design defects, in contrast, do not merit a single men-tion in the NCVIA or the FDA’s regulations. Indeed, the FDA has never even spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use.55 And the decision is surely not an easy one. Drug manufacturers often could trade a little lessefficacy for a little more safety, but the safest design is not always the best one. Striking the right balance between safety and efficacy is especially difficult with respect to vaccines, which affect public as well as individual health.Yet the Act, which in every other respect micromanagesmanufacturers, is silent on how to evaluate competing designs.Are manufacturers liable only for failing to employ an alternative design that the FDA has approved fordistribution (an approval it takes years to obtain56)? Or does it suffice that a vaccine design has been approved inother countries? Or could there be liability for failure touse a design that exists only in a lab? Neither the Act nor the FDA regulations provide an answer, leaving the uni-verse of alternative designs to be limited only by an ex-pert’s imagination.
Jurors, of course, often decide similar questions withlittle guidance, and we do not suggest that the absenceof guidance alone suggests preemption. But the lack of guidance for design defects combined with the exten- sive guidance for the two grounds of liability specificallymentioned in the Act strongly suggests that design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability.
The mandates contained in the Act lead to the same conclusion. Design-defect torts, broadly speaking, havetwo beneficial effects: (1) prompting the development ofimproved designs, and (2) providing compensation for inflicted injuries. The NCVIA provides other means forachieving both effects. We have already discussed theAct’s generous compensation scheme. And the Act pro-vides many means of improving vaccine design.
It goes on and on.
Simple Solution:
In order for a parent to opt-out on a vaccination for their child, they have to pay for the vaccination of another child (presumably from a low-income family).
At least we'd get something out of the idiots who refuse, and the offset of "child of idiot refuser" to "under-privileged child who might not have been vaccinated otherwise" might equalize the herd immunity rates.
It's not good profit if there are more profitable things to do with your money.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You're going to shit your pants when you find out what table salt is made of.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The problem is risk assesment - does any vaccination program evaluate your individual risks (hereditary atypical reaction, longterm gene regulation towards depression, batch contamination, increased tumor risks to name few) against average contagion risk at current time, against death risk from disease? What about silent atypical infections (like atypical rubella among vaccinated population, strain accumulating mutations)? I do WANT to vaccinate, I just find it bit weak if typical approach is that it is for common good and statistically you do not win the anaphylactic shock lottery ever.
Maybe if they stopped using toxic mercury metal in some vaccines people would trust them more. Do you know how mercury damages brain neurons? Look it up. Don't inject that shit into my kids.
Well, yeah, if it was only very small minority refusing vaccinations. The point is that vaccination refusal is becoming common enough that the system can no longer tolerate it. There will always be wingnuts, and as long as they're few in number, they're not really a problem. But when wingnut thinking becomes mainstream, we're all in trouble.
The idiots will kill all of us at some point. They've never heard of the herd immunity? What could happen is that the unvaccinated kids just die off while those who got the vaccination will thrive. I think the world could do without a lot of idiots.
it's not mandatory if you do not drive.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
The amount of stupid in this post is outrageous. I can't decide whether or not to vote it funny or troll.
I agree that many anti-vax folks don't know what they are talking about. I would also state that neither do the commenters here. Before you start calling people idiots, do a little research. No one here has mentioned the terms 'immunological adjuvant', 'chronic microglial activation', or 'molecular mimicry'. Anyone here ever read the study in which auto-immune disorders were triggered by injecting an immunological adjuvant in combination with a self-antigen? That's right, people with misgivings about vaccines are idiots...not like the commenters here. They use linux, they must know everything!
Water found to be wet, shit to stink, and the cake is a lie.
Your choice: artificial selection or natural selection.
Let's use science: which one has been proven to work, and which one has been proven to fail disastrously?
Also, let's look down the road, maybe 100-200 years... (Most) humans got immune to (eg) polio. Without the expression of those genes, what will happen to them, or us?
If you could make it sound less clinical, I think less people would oppose it. We have reached a critical mass where people have a pure hatred for technology with no logically backing. It is all simply image. People wonder how Apple is successful and it all boils down to image. Arguing numbers and sound reasoning simply does not work.
"I can assure you when people were being vaccinated for smallpox or polio, no one gave a rats ass about who was making a profit, or if a profit was even being made. All they cared about was that the yearly sweeps of infections that plagued the country came to a stop. "
Actually, there was a clear and HUGE profit motive there: the profit motive for the thousands of people that would otherwise be out of work because they were either incapacitated for the rest of their lives or they were dead. In that sense, if you want to strictly confine the benefits of vaccines to financial gain, that's thousands of productive people growing up rather than dying in childhood, and they'd be out there buying product from innumerable companies throughout the entire economy instead of spending it mainly on healthcare for the rest of their lives.
But if you mean corporate profits for the vaccine makers, no, there's no obvious benefit. Vaccines are a pretty slim profit margin for all the reasons you list.
Of course, all of the financial rationale pales in comparison to the fact you're saving people's lives, but I guess the people making these "profit motive" arguments don't care about that much.
Just to reinforce your point...
Dr. Jonas Salk was the man who came up with the polio vaccine. He could have patented it and become rich beyond his wildest dreams.
And yet he did not. In fact, when Ed Murrow interviewed him and asked "who owns the patent?", do you know what Dr. Salk's response was?
"No one. Could you patent the sun?"
Bless that man's heart. Saving his fellow human beings from a lifetime of paralysis - regardless of their gender, race, creed, or religion - was all the compensation he needed. Surely, if anyone rests in peace, it is him.
:(){
Please explain for all the stupid people in the room how, if student A is vaccinated but student B is not, that this will make student A sick.
From the top of my head:
Vaccine aren't 100% efficient. There might by a few case where the student received the vaccine but didn't develop the antibodies. (Just an example: if you're sick with a fever, there's a risk that the ongoing inflammation will destroy the vaccine content (through macrophages) before antibodies are developped (through lymphocytes))
There might be student aren't anti-vaxx but who aren't up-to-date just yet (they missed a dose or whatever).
There are people who have a compromised immune system (that's an example from TFA) and can't get vaccinated.
There are people who have allergies and for whom the vaccine might be risky (another example from TFA). (As an example: for practical purpose, flu vaccines are grown on eggs. If you're allergic to the egg proteins, no shot for you, even if you're not anti-vaxx).
There are people who have been vaccinated but can't momentarily fight the disease due to a compromised immune system (AIDS, or even disease as simple as mononucleosis can momentarily b0rk the immune system).
etc.
(Case in point: with some disease (like the flu) it's better to vaccinate the population which is at risk of spreading the disease, rather than the group which is at risk of the disease - it better to vaccinate the care taking/nursing/medical personal, rather than the weak elderly patients.)
You end-up with a bunch of people who aren't anti-vaxx, but which still aren't protected against the disease.
- If the number of non vaccinated people is underneath a specific treshold. Nothing happens. When somebody gets the disease due to complex unlucky circumstances, nothing happens, because chances are the sick person will never meet another susceptible person. The disease just can't manage to find enough victims to spread among.
- If the number of non vaccinated people rises above a specific treshold, the shit hits the fan: the disease get a big enough and dense enough population among which to spread. There's a far greater chance that the disease in one sick person will get a chance to meet a susceptible person to whom to jump. Disease which were taught to be almost eradicated suddenly appear again and run epidemic.
By being selfish and refusing to vaccine, anti-vaxx will raise this number above the treshold. They will not only pose a danger to themselves, but to the population as a whole including all the "innocent" categories cited before who weren't anti-vaxx, but will suffer because of the anti-vaxx.
In a completely selfish way, it makes sense for the anti-vaxx to refuse the vaccine: vaccine aren't perfect and there very slight chance of secondary effect (ranging from simple inconvenience to more serious effect). Even rarest problem don't have a rate of absolutely zero but slightly above. And if the disease is almost eradicated chance, the chance to catch is are nearly zero.
But that behaviour is really dangerous for the community because as a consequence of it, the number of susceptible people is at risk at passing the treshold. They end up making the chance to catch the disease non-zero. By just wanting to avoid a statistically really rare inconvenience, they put the community at a bigger risk.
The example is the polio. In theory it has been recently almost eradicated, chance of catching it are nearly non existant. But vaccine against polio isn't a synthetic product, but a "stunned" virus. There a very slight but not completely null chance to develop a serious effect, something like a polio (sorry I don't remember if it was either because the virus wasn't stunned enough, or because the immune system was compromised).
So the reasoning inside the head of anti-vaxx goes "chance of problems with vaccine > chance of problems with polio" therefore "don't get the vaccine".
But the problem is that, in consequence of just a reasoning, the treshold has b
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm
Often the allergic reaction is to whatever the vaccine was made in, e.g. eggs or yeast.
You don't have to show your true colors. I saw them from a mile away. You are the type who defends your position with personal insults.
Maybe in another 20 years you will grasp reality
Oh, I grasp it. The solution to human nature is coercion. Violence. Threats. Physical force. Am I right? It sure works for the animal kingdom.
Vaccines should only be mandatory when they are completely open. I want to know exactly what is in each one before I get it.
I am not anti-vaccine, I understand both the personal and the public benefits of regular vaccinations. My problem is that due to some rather nasty childhood trauma I now have a rather extreme case of resistive trypanophobia. If anyone approaches me with a needle my concious mind shuts down and I go straight into fight-or-flight mode (minus the flight). So far, therapy has had exactly no impact on this problem. Intellectually I'm fine with them, emotionally? forget it.
So, if you have a vaccine that doesn't need an injection I'll take it. I'm glad I can finally start taking flu vaccines again. But if it involves an injection, It also involves a high probability of damage to the health care professional administering it - and let's face it, they don't deserve to be beaten up.
1)
Nazi are widely known everywhere we all grow up with plenty of stuff against them so using it makes a point the most people can understand.
2)
Using logic labels or descriptions of behaviors sadly is not enough for most people who are ignorant of them or fail to see the value of those labels; plus the descriptions of the objectionable behavior may not convey why it is a bad thing. So using some evil group is a quick way to summarize something rather than expand upon it and take up more time. Naturally it can be misused and abused-- that is what false analogy, strawman, over simplification and ad hom exist to point out. Simply because those errors could be applied is not a reason to make connections in order to be more effective in communication.
Nazi's are authoritarian and many times their invocation is in place of the proper description but it is not incorrect to use them or Stalin because those are examples of extreme authoritarians to which no reasonable person would object to being classified as such. That is one of the big reasons for using extreme examples, because it avoids side debates quibbling over the example when the main point is the classification they are being used as an illustration for; and quite possibly also being used for guilt-by-association (a loose association.) The grand parent meant to say authoritarian but either lacked the word or wanted to emotional charge/emphasize his statement.
3)
If people were properly educated, they would be well versed in the terminology of politics which is required for a functional democracy -- which we do not have - sadly, the reason for public education was to make democracy function better but it has lost out to producing worker drones at all cost, even at the cost of its founding principles. As a agrarian society without technology, literacy was not necessary, and only the most primitive math was ever used; it was also a time where actual witch hunts were possible.
One of the flaws of US primary education, is that the inmates (bug-fuck crazy fundies and anti-government wack-jobs) run the assylums (school districts). With one of the two political parties taking great pride in short-circuiting and actively trying to destroy rational, nationally consistent public education (because an dumb populace is easier to manipulate), the return of disease is only one of many brutal consequences of paranoia, self-interest, and goodly bit of racism.
Disconnect from the emotion of this issue and try to think logically and I will too.
If vaccines allegedly protect children from viruses by infecting them,
And a child A has been vaccinated,
how can child B who has not been vaccinated be a threat to a protected child?
And is not Child A a threat to child B because Child A is carrying a live virus?
Do they not report that sometimes innoculations will actually cause the very outcome which they are designed to protect against?
Do you really have a good basis to trust your government?
How do you know that what they are putting inside you isn't intended to make you more controllable?
I would defend myself against innoculations as strongly as if someone were coming at me with a knife.
That's just how I think of it.
We've been conditioned to be very emotional about this issue. I hope we can someday lay aside the emotion and rationally discuss this.
Meaning, if you don't want to vaccinate your kids, that's your right, but you shouldn't be allowed to send them to school...
Either the vacine works or it doesn't. If it works then they are protected, and the only only people in danger are those unvacinated, and that is their choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7pyRWhRvAA
Steptoe and Son - Christmas Special
Start watching from 37:30.
"You can't have chickenpox at YOUR AGE".
Why would he say that, unless EVERYBODY had had chickenpox as children?
What a bunch of idiots you are.
"Everyone's had chickenpox."
It was the NORM - EVERY child had chickenpox, measles, and mumps. So why are these diseases suddenly so 'dangerous' today? They're not dangerous at all - it's all about MONEY.
Thank you for a most intelligent and informed post.
Since you're not a native speaker, a couple of English language hints for you:
1. It's "threshold", not "treshold". (The initial th is voiceless, as in "thin".)
2. One disease is rampant; two diseases are contagious. (The plural has 3 syllables, and all 3 s's are voiced like z, not voiceless.)
On the mercury front, most don't have any. However many still have Thiomersal, which contains mercury.
On forcing vaccines, NO ONE should be FORCED to take them, that kind of thinking does not have a end.
The one exception on this for me would be if we are going for PLANET-wide eradication, nothing less seems acceptable for the lose of rights.
On vaccines in general, I am OK taking the ones for majors diseases, obviously the risk benefit ratio here is huge.
However there are ones that the risk benefit ratio is closer, in that case I question weather it is necessary.
There have been many instances of the public being assured that something was 100% safe, then we find out later it was not, this is what worries me about vaccines (also why I stay away from artificial sweeteners and fluoride).
EX, mercury fillings,Rofecoxib, hell at one time we were told SMOKING was good, "calmed the babies nerves"
Note: MSc Math
AC, you're right on the HepB vaccine costs/benefits for newborns and why the official recommendation is poorly thought out. What you are seeing through most of the responses to your well reasoned position is that vaccines have become a religious argument for most people on slashdot -- coupled with a moral righteous fervor like few other things on slashdot can invoke, every time this issue comes up. Suggest putting at risk of death a new person just born in this world for an issue they have no significant risk of for a decade, and people will come down on you hard. Yet, suggest to people that they are putting others at risk because they eat poorly or don't take supplemental vitamin D, and suddenly it is a freedom of lifestyle thing. It's a crazy double standard. Anyway, there are tons more reasons vaccines are problematical, from the evolution of pathogens, to the need for women to breastfeed to pass on their immunity as their immune system scans for threats, to a possible limited number of immune cells to respond to threats, to the fact that every new lot of vaccine is a crapshoot without 50 years of human testing to look for long term effects (how can it), that much disease was reduced by better sanitation and better access to fresh food, and there is vast conflict of interest in this area including that vaccines drive a pediatricians larger business, and so on. It's just really sad people have been conditioned not to see that. Keep researching. I'd suggest looking at Dr. Fuhrman's stuff on superimmunity for kids through better nutrition.
Story title: "Study Finds Unvaccinated Students Putting Other Students At Risk"
I suppose this means vaccination is not effective.
"In 2008, a measles outbreak spread in California. It was traced to a child whose parents had decided not to vaccinate him. He brought the disease back from Europe, infecting other children at his doctor's office and his classmates."
This begs the question, were the other children and classmates that got infected, vaccinated but still got sick anyhow? Or were all of the people who got sick not vaccinated?
While vaccinations are essential, miracles of modern science, I would still like to know what the data is on effectiveness per vaccine formulation variation and so on. For example, I've read the current whooping cough vaccine is weaker and therefore less effective than its predecessor that had some minor side effects in some people.
I wouldn't say that vaccines aren't profitable. What I will say is that they're closer to computer equipment profit margins(1%), not jewelry store ones(50+%) like designer drugs have.
Then why develop a vaccine for Chicken Pox? The rate of complications from the vaccine is comparable to the rate of complications from the disease (at least it was with the stats a few years ago). Worse, while catching chicken pox gives lifelong immunity but having the vaccine only gives ~10 years of protection (again this was as of several years ago when the vaccine was newer) so boosters are needed. However what is really terrible is that chicken pox is far more serious if you catch it as an adult. So if the vaccine immunity wears off and you forget to have a booster as an adult you can end up with a far more serious case of shingles.
The WHO used to primarily recommend the vaccine for developed countries only as a way to reduce lost productivity due to child care while a kid had the chicken pox disease. So if drug companies do not make money from vaccines why on earth did they invent this one? There are far more important diseases out there with serious health implications - why target a relatively innocuous disease, especially one which is far more serious as an adult? Our family has had every vaccination that is recommended except for this one but when our doctor suggested that we might want to skip this one until the kids were older in order to give them a chance to catch chicken pox we thought that this was strange advice and looked up why.
Everyone knows that vaccines only kill off the weaker pathogens leaving a super race of only the most deadly ones.
If we had to prove technologies were safe before we started using them fire would have never been accepted and we'd still be living in cold dark caves eating raw meat.
Well not a crime against humanity, but I certain would consider a child who wasn't vaccinated due to personal belief against a disease, who then got the disease would be chargeable for child neglect. After all if it's God's will your that your child gets a disease or not, then it follows that if you go to prison if the un-vaccinated child gets ill, then it's God's will that your sorry ass rots away in prison.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Last year we were getting free vaccinations from our work place but you had to sign up for them. One of my co-workers op-ed out stating that he didn't "believe in vaccines". I responded, "Vaccines aren't ghosts. You don't get to NOT believe in them.".
Very good explanation.
One way to think about "group immunity" it is to compare disease spread to a nuclear reactor. Push in the control rods until one slow neutron produces less than one new one on the average and the reaction peters out. Pull them out until it produces more than one and the reaction grows exponentially. Same with a case of disease causing more or less than one new case on the average.
Another way to think about it is that only the susceptible population matters for disease transmission. The immune are just background (like furniture) who might carry contagion on their surface until they're cleaned or it degrades, but won't generate new bugs. If there are too few potential victims the disease peters out, just as if there were only so few people wandering around in a wilderness that a sick person, while contagious, encounters less than one other person on the average.
Too many skipping the vaccination means the population of susceptibles becomes dense enough for an epidemic to occur. If only those who skipped out got sick the rest of us wouldn't care. But I hear the no-immunity-developed rate for typical vaccinations is often the two-digit percentages. So a lot of people could be hurt if a disease gets going again. Further, even if the multiplier on the exponential IS above one, the higher it is the faster the disease spreads. So keeping it down makes it possible to contain and extinguish occasional outbreaks (with supplemental vaccinations, quarantine, increased sanitation, reduced interpersonal contact, and other public health measures), as was done late in the elimination of smallpox. Anti-vaxx ideologues and their victims defeat this, as well.
Re: Polio: For a long time there were two types of vaccine: Salk and Sabin. (These days there may be more. Like something assembled from biotech-generated virus components made without any actual virus involved.)
Salk was the first: It was made of killed virus. The surface proteins provoke the immune reaction. It has a slight risk of producing full-blown polio, if some virus doesn't get killed. (In the very early days there was a significant amount of that: Turns out the virus crystalizes under some conditions. When that happens the virus in the middle of the crystal doesn't all get killed. Oops! They got that figured out pretty quick and made sure the conditions weren't right in the killing stage. Meanwhile, even with a few cases caused by early defective batches of vaccine, they were still ahead of the then-rampant natural transmission.)
Sabin was the second. It is a "weakened virus", a live, mutated, version of the virus that doesn't cause paralysis. (Think of polio as a cold that happens to look enough like motor nerves that, once you've had it, your body now thinks motor nerves are a disease and attacks them. Sabin vaccine gives you the cold, doesn't look enough like nerves to give you paralysis, but DOES look enough like wild polio that if you've had one you're immune to the other. Just like cowpox vs. smallpox.) It was preferred because actually having a disease gives much longer-lasting immunity than just being exposed to its components (plus an "adjuvant" to do enough damage to signal the body something is bad.) Also: As a live virus it is contagious. Thus the immunization is also contagious. If a few kids in a school don't get the vaccine, they may still get the "cold". And it doesn't need to be injected - just eat the sugar cube with the pink drop on it. The risk is that, very occasionally, the virus may mutate BACK into real, paralytic polio - and spread.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Unlike a drug like Viagra where then can spent a bunch of money researching it, then make pills that have a nearly indefinite shelf life and they do not have to start over every year unless some terrible side effect is found.
You do realize that the research dollars for Sildenafil were mostly spent trying to create a drug to treat hypertension, right?
Tell me, how well did your theory pan out during the heyday of polio and smallpox?
The biggest problem with that anti-vax movement is that the herd immunity protects not just the unvaccinated that the infected mingle with both those that get the disease third hand. People like young babies that can't get a vaccination because they are too young.
Babies that wouldn't normally get whooping cough or measles or such because they were exposed to it because a sibling or parent (who was probably vaccinated) was exposed to a disease they then carried home.
If we're starting to stop people from smoking in bars because of second hand smoke we sure as hell can force most everyone to be vaccinated because of third hand infections.
Again, tell me, how well do you think your solution would have worked during the heyday of smallpox, or polio?
It is known to have worked out great for immunity, just like I originally said. Thanks for asking.
It even helped us beyond the original diseases:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050307/full/news050307-15.html
Yeah. Ask anyone who's ever had to get a 'booster' shot (pretty much everyone, if they've gone to the doctor and been tested for it) how effective their first shot was. You know, the first shot that was supposed to give them life-long immunity.
Booster shots exist precisely because numerous types of vaccine are well-understood to *not* confer lifelong immunity. Tetanus immunizations, for instance, generally last for 10 years.
I'm not sure where you came under the impression that all vaccinations are "supposed to give [you] life-long immunity", but that's simply just not the case: you appear to be confused, or misinformed.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Almost every person with a healthy natural immune system exposed to Poliovirus will brush it off with no symptoms and gain additional lifelong protection.
Wrong.
in fact, a strong immune system increases the risk of paralysis. The virus masquerades as nerve sheathes to try to delay immune system response by triggering a mechanism that protects motor nerves. If the immune system isn't fooled it will often go on to attack motor nerves as well, which is what causes the paralysis. (It's similar to Multiple Sclerosis, which can develop from an allergy to cow's milk.)
5% [of those exposed] will have mild symptoms such as fever. Paralysis occurs in 1 of every 1000 of this 5%, and it's theorized that this group has genetic and anatomic susceptibility.
Whose behind did you pull those numbers out of? The CDC's MMWR has the fraction of paralytic vs. non-paralytic cases (in the years they distinguished them before the vaccines started knocking the numbers down) running in the 35%-48% range, not the 0.01% you claim. Given that, I also chose to reject your 5% number for "any noticeable symptoms at all among those exposed."
A polio victim's organization has a fine summary of those numbers, for those who don't want to look up decades of CDC reports and do their own math.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
After a high percentage of their cousins had sever and life changing medical conditions from vaccines, we passed on them. There seems to be something on my wife's side of the family, which does not agree with vaccines. We then moved to a small remote town with a low population that almost never leaves the area, and purchased a "vacation" cabin in the middle of nowhere. In the case of any outbreak we can home school the kids, and in the case of something huge we can retreat to the cabin. I'm not excited about not vaccinating them, but I'm glad I had a choice. Now it's up to them to make the choice. I also hope that a more mature body might be a good defense against whatever happened to their cousins.
Their cousins from different parents came down with autism spectrum disorder shortly after vaccination. I've been told its' impossible, but it started within a day of vaccination in all cases. It was like day and night.
Drunk driving vs. flu deaths? Wow....
I wish people would stop comparing vaccines with things wildly unrelated.
He was comparing the number of deaths annually from something that is largely preventable. If you can't see how those things are related, then you have no business commenting on here.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html
Another indirect datapoint about the link between autism an vitamin D deficiency: http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/higher-autism-risk-for-march-conception/
It may also turn out that some children are better at dealing with excreting heavy metals and other toxins than others for whatever reasons. See also Dr. David Brownstein on Iodine and Dr. Joel Fuhrman on vegetables and children's nutrition.
A book on dealing with tough times when all else fails:
"Dark Nights Of The Soul: A Guide To Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals"
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
Good luck!
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
My point was that coercion is not harmony. It is violence. It is immoral and unjust, the polar opposite of harmony. I will believe this until the day I die.
I'm sorry, but your conclusion is completely off base here. Society having rules for being part of society is NOT coercion. It is part of a people's right to self-determination.
Oh, I grasp it. The solution to human nature is coercion. Violence. Threats. Physical force. Am I right? It sure works for the animal kingdom.
But there's absolutely none of that at play here. So your conclusion is completely wrong.
"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Not having your kid eat whole mainly nutritious foods like Dr. Joel Fuhrman outlines in "Disease-Proof Your Child: Feeding Kids Right" and "Super Immunity: The Essential Nutrition Guide for Boosting Your Body's Defenses to Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free", or not breastfeeding for the first two to four years, or not getting plentiful sleep, or not getting lots of outdoor exercise in the sunlight plus supplemental vitamin D, or not getting enough iodine and omega-3s, or not homeschooling and working from home to avoid disease transmission centers like schools and workplaces, or not living in a relatively stress-free home exposes mine to potentially life-threatening disease because yours has an immune system working less than optimally. If you think that the (vanishingly small) risk of complications from living a healthy lifestyle or short-term difficulties of breaking out of the "pleasure trap" your family is stuck in ( http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx ) is more important than my (well-nourished) kid's risk of contracting a disease that has mutated inside your (poorly fed) kid.. well, you're bad at math. And, a selfish short-sighted asshole.
I've never really understood why it is that something you were going to do anyway becoming mandatory means that you should automatically resist it. You've lost nothing except the choice you weren't going to make, and society has benefited. Making eating well and getting good sleep and playing outdoors in the sunshine and so forth mandatory is not the same as Hitler storming across Europe, get a grip. If the slope were really that slippery, we would have fallen down into the abyss a long long time ago.
Obligatory car analogy: Sure, you have the right to drive around with faulty brakes. At least in this state, you do not need working brakes to pass the yearly inspection. You can argue that you're risking nobody except yourself.. except, you're not. Your passengers, and the other people on the roads that you slam into because you can't stop, would disagree.
Part of living in a civilized society is recognizing when your actions have consequences for others that have no say in the matter. Yes, you can make the choice not to feed your kid really well or to send your kid daily to a disease transmission center like a public or private school. But realize that your actions have consequences for others. (It may come as a shock to you that there are other people in the world besides you and your child.) One of the major problems we (USA) have as a society is the attitude of "I've got mine, fuck you." Take responsibility for your choice; keep your kid away from mine. If your idealism leads to my kid's death.. then it's not worth protecting. Die for your ideals if you want; it's your life to throw away."
FTFY.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The hole in your logic has a four lane highway running through it.
Facts man, you dont have any of them. Go get some.
I've been paying more attention to this issue. My partner is anti-vaccine, and I have to admit that I now share some of her concerns. We are both pro-science educated common sense people. Being in the naturopath industry she naturally takes on a more holistic stance on health issues.
The vaccines that you and I got as a kid are not the same as today (in Canada at least). Today it's a cocktail of about 30 different vaccines with such things as H1N1 Contrast this to about 5 vaccines from 30 years ago. It's completely overkill. All this is administered to an infant during a time when their immune systems are still developing, thereby possibly jeopardizing their natural immune system development. The likelihood of a fatality of H1N1 is close to nil. I have issue with the brute attitude of over vaccination for the off chance.
Can you select which vaccines you want -no. Can you get mercury free vaccines -no. Unfortunately it's a situation of take it all or leave it, and this is what prompts parents to hold off. The debate has also been in terms of "if you don't vaccine you're an anti-science idiot, and your kids deserve to die from karmic darwinism", thereby leaving out any broad discussion of exactly how vaccines are handled in the health industry. I don't wear a tin foil hat, but I do hold scepticism towards large pharmaceutical motives. Do you trust the word of Monsanto and McDonalds with regards to health? Of course not -their interests lie elsewhere. So, why should I trust the motives behind a super cocktail of vaccines pushed by pharmaceuticals?
We're currently looking for alternatives (none so far) for the essential life threatening deceases like polio, measles etc. We both want our child to be immunized, it's just a bit more of a complex situation.
Your an idiot.
Injectng mercury is a far cry from biological digestion, and the results are not even close chemically, or the causality that results from the delivery systems to the neurological systems vs DNA damage.
Totally different issues and either one could be the cause for the rise in autism. (Vaccines vs Increase in seafood products/by products in food manufacturing.)
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
If we don't vaccinate everyone, the pharma companies lose profits.
There is absolutely no reason to get vaccines unless there is a outbreak in progress. Genomics has show us that outbreaks of viral diseases require elaborate and extensive study in populations to create a vaccine in an outbreak.
Getting a Vaccine for a season is a marketing ploy, and will not help at all if there is no acute outbreak in the general population.
When you see hospitals nation wide filling up, by all means, get a vaccine.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
"Your an idiot."
Possibly, but at least I can spell. Seriously, do you open all your conversations like that?
"Injectng mercury is a far cry from biological digestion, and the results are not even close chemically, or the causality that results from the delivery systems to the neurological systems vs DNA damage."
Injection and digestion are different, and the effects are potentially different. However, if you actually bother to look it up, you'll find that ingested methylmercury is absorbed readily and completely by the gastrointestinal tract, so there's not really that much difference between drinking methylmercury and shooting it up. And no chemical difference. Now, methyl mercury, which is most of what you get from water and fish, is not the same thing as thimerosal, which is the preservative used in some vaccines. but the OP was afraid of "mercury," not any particular kind of mercury.
I can't address the second part of your run on sentence because it doesn't make sense.
No, actually. Thimerosal is almost certainly (as very, very, very, very likely) not in any way linked to autism. There have been a LOT of studies on that, due to the fraudulent and unethical work of Dr. Wakefield and the ensuing hooplah. As someone else pointed out, thimerosal was even removed from most vaccines some time ago, and that had no effect whatsoever on autism rates.
I'm not aware of any specific research looking at methylmercury exposure (from fish) and autism. Methylmercury poisoning can produce lowered IQ and attention problems. I don't know if it's ever been linked to more autism-like symptoms. However, a quick glance at some numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism) doesn't show any obvious trend to increased autism rates in fish eating countries, not even in Japan (a high fish consuming nation) where methylmercury pollution has been a huge problem.
Oh, do you write a medical column in a newspaper or magazine?
If they mad 5 cents per vaccination they would be that profitable with so many people using them.
And I bet they make a hell of a lot more, this is even ignoring research money.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I am not going to try looking up to see if the following is 100% accurate, but Washington state has exemptions for personal beliefs, religious beliefs, and medical issues. I think in order to get the former two you need to discuss the risks with a doctor, but I could be wrong about it. I agree that the parent should be fully informed before being granted any sort of waiver. However, we need to respect the personal and religious beliefs of those who don't belief in injecting foreign substances (viruses) in their body when it's otherwise healthy, even if it is statistically "foolish".
If I'm not mistaken, if there is an outbreak, you get pulled out of school if you're not vaccinated. And I think it'd be a good idea to encourage children to have good hygiene in order to reduce the risk further.
If my cat hasn't got her shots up to date, I am not allowed to leave her at the cat boarding house. This is because she has FIV or another illness, and my pass it on to the other cats.
Why should parent be allowed to send their unvaccinated kids to the same kindergarten or school where I send my boy?
Free choice is fine, but don't pass whooping cough or polio onto my son.
i think youll find that modern sewage systems had a much more profound impact on the spread of disease than vaccines.
With more and more evidence surfacing about the dangers of vaccination, I can say that I will never have my children vaccinated. Also who's grand idea was it to put mercury and aluminium into the vaccines. Both do serious harm to the human body.
The human immune system is more then enough to get through most anything. Humans have been around for millions of years in various forms and vaccination has only been around for less then 100. Im not saying that modern medical science is useless, but until someone can prove that vaccinations are 100% safe and remove the mercury from them then I will refuse to allow my children to be poisoned.
By CDC numbers, 96% of the US population has received the pertussis vaccine. The vaccine is '71-85% effective' according to a search engine summary of the pertussis Wikipedia page.
Let us imagine environmentally exposing 1,000 people to the disease: say the chance of acquiring this disease being 10%, 96% of the people are vaccinated, and the vaccine is completely effective 75% of the time (75% effective), completely useless otherwise.
Without the vaccine, a similar 1,000 exposed people would have 100 acquiring and suffering from the disease..
With a 96% vaccination rate, 960 of the 1,000 exposed would have had the vaccine (vs. 40 that have not). 10% acquiring the disease is again 100 people. Of those 100 infections, the breakdown would now be 96 vaccinated vs. 4 non-vaccinated people.
Of 96 vaccinated people, only 75% are effectively vaccinated -> 96 x 0.75 = 72, so the remaining 24 are no better off than not having been vaccinated at all.
This means there are 24 + 4 = 28 total infected and suffering people. 24 vaccinated folks amongst 28 means 85% of infected and suffering people were vaccinated. In comparison though, 72% of those suffering from infections in the 1,000 no-vaccine scenario are prevented in the 96% vaccination scenario (96% x 75%).
This, of course, is meant to be entirely illustrative, but the point should be evident: the expectation is that vaccinated people will be over-represented in samples where the population's vaccination levels are high and the vaccine is less than 100% effective.
!Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
I think you'll find modern sewage systems actually spread the SARS virus. A vaccine would have been better.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr70/en/
Need Mercedes parts ?
" I'm sorry, I fail to see the similarities between optional alternative "therapies" and a mandatory government-required system of vaccinations of which any and all profits roll into the same large companies. If the program was not profitable, the drug companies wouldn't produce the vaccines -- their boards of directors would shoot them (and they'd be legally fiscally accountable to their shareholders & boards for running a program at a deficit for decades...). So you have to assume that it brings in some type of profit -- or the companies wouldn't produce them. "
That's not how it works. The government, in the form of an NIH/CDC proceeding, will identify a vaccine that, say, everyone needs to get. Then they call the drug companies in and have a little talk and basically say this is what we need, how much. If they price is more than reasonable they suggest it's national security and they'll be taking the plant and the army will make it now how much and they agree on a price and they roll out the vaccine.
It's best not to talk about things you know nothing about; passing on a hypothesis as fact isn't such a great idea either.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Links in my earlier comment: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3068759&cid=41115073
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Since vaccines in many cases produce life-long adverse effects, among which allergies are the most prominent, how can you argue vaccines are not a business. The margin overall depends on the scale of the production and this is exactly why drug companies lobby and get the mandatory vaccine list longer and longer.
Drug companies do not want you to contract a disease which is a one-off. Also, they do not want you to be dead, either (you cannot pay if you're dead). What they definitely want is a perpetual business and vaccines provide it through: (1) many rounds of vaccination against the same disease (2) allergies which is a superb business to be in - the patients pay through the nose for the rest of their lives.
"Alternate hypothesis ; anti-vaxxers are actually a shadowy conspiracy of the radical Green movement who want the human race thinning out a bit to lower our impact on Mother Earth."
From some of the other activities I know of from the radical greens, ARs, and suchlike, there is probably more than a tad of fact in that hypothesis. Their goals are often the "unintended consequences", not the obvious.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
authority
Science is the current state of knowledge about the incomprehensible magic known as nature. Anybody claiming otherwise, please read scientific views of about anything but some 200 years back in time. Many human inventions, with time, turn out to be good money-makers but very rarely, especially in chemical/medical science, do they stay as clear advancements. Vaccines fit the bill very nicely here.
To all you anti-vaxxers who try to arrogantly argue with doctors who have far more medical knowledge than you do: I know you won't listen to rational argument, so perhaps you will listen to an emotive argument:
I am a doctor, yes the obsessive kind that actually reads and researchers medical literature out of interest and fun. My daughter (currently 3-years old) has up to date with all her vaccinations per the schedule. I even paid for vaccinations that weren't on the schedule, particularly varicella to the cost of USD$100 when she was only 12 months old. (Varicella is not covered on the schedule in New Zealand, cf USA). PS: medicines in NZ are much cheaper in NZ than USA, even those that are unsubsidised.
Not only that, over the last 5-years I have paid for a number vaccinations for myself personally to the tune of about USD$700, including Gardasil (there is some evidence of effectiveness even after exposure to sex/HPV). I also get the annual influenza vaccine (provided free by my employer).
Now, if that doesn't satisfy you, please choose your response:
1. I am so corrupted by the drug companies that I am willing to pay $800 to get that $5 worth of kickbacks (in case you miss the sarcasm, I don't get anything).
2. I am a heartless father that is trying to give my daughter autism
3. I am so stupid and deluded that I have no business being a doctor.
If these abysmally stupid parents, who get their science info from a Playboy model and a thoroughly discredited "researcher" who was in cahoots with a lawyer in a cynical scheme to make money were just taking themselves from the gene pool, that would be a general plus for humanity.
Unfortunately, they are endangering their children, other people's children, and other adults with their stupidity.
In my mind, a parent that refuses to get their eligible child vaccinated, is as guilty of child abuse as a parent who deliberately harms their child, or refuses to get their child treatment for an easily treated condition that is otherwise fatal. Child abusers all.
Otherwise I have no strong feelings on the matter.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The pro vaccine group are their own worst enemy. I cannot have a reasonable discussion with any I have tried so far (both online and in person). My children have received their scheduled vaccinations but they and I will not get the seasonal flu vaccine. Why? It doesn't work as advertised and has more risk than reward. Pure and simple. If you think it does please address the reviews by the doctors and researchers a cochrane.org as a start. Keep in mind that the folks at cochrane.org are not anti-vax, see most vaccines as being worthwhile and see no link between autism, allergies etc and vaccines.
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004879/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-in-healthy-children
By insisting (adamantly and quite ignorantly too I must say) that I am just a "anti-vax nutjob" and that I should "have my kids taken away" the pro vaxers really succeed in making me view them as just a bunch of brainwashed losers (just as I view the other side in this psuedo religious war). By claiming that all vaccines work and should be forced on people they are just as clueless as those they oppose.
Every medical intervention needs to be evaluated independently. IMHO most vaccines have a risk reward ratio worth taking a chance with my kids health on. The seasonal flu vaccine does not. So before you force my kids to get the seasonal flu vaccine please address the research of cochrane.org and Dr Lisa Jackson who clearly showed that the healthy user effect was responsible for the vast majority of life saving claimed for the flu vaccine.
Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all.
It's so not-profitable that the government has to pull on Merck to keep making them.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
When I was a kid, they vaccinated the lot of us in elementary school for some things. Maybe we were poorer than the average crowd and that's why they sent the vaccinators to us. I thought that was the norm for school. They also did an eye clinic to see if any vision problems existed in 4th grade. But for dental stuff, we just got the advertisement crap (comics, a sample of XXest or XXlgate, and the silly tablet you put in your mouth to see where it turns red to show you how much better you need to be brushing your teeth.)
I agree with you whole-heartedly that they should provide free vaccinations for all as needed. And that they ought not let un-vaccinated kids into the schools. They did that for a while in colleges: if college kids couldn't prove measles vaccinations, they had to be vaccinated or they couldn't register for classes that semester. (SDSU 1995? 1996? Beuler... Anybody remember???)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3072769&cid=41127913
Some states have started the push of making it harder for the poor and needy to actually assert their ability to collect anything for which they are qualified. Examples abound:
Florida unemployment system: phones that go unanswered, the "runaround" when you do get someone on the phone; changing rules as the game goes on.
California's Medi-Cal system: Jerry Brown is fixing a lot of the mistakes that his predecessor and Grey did earlier on, but check the details on actually trying to enroll your children into the system.
Florida's band-aid Medical system: Rick Scott, Florida's governor (and former HCA CEO when HCA was indicted and found guilty of medicare fraud and fined billions of dollars [but that's another diatribe]) has been forcing Medicaid patients into "Medicaid HMOs" in many counties and making it difficult for pediatric patients to be added to the system.
All states: good luck finding a doctor who is willing to take on Medicare or Medi-cal or Medicaid patients as new ongoing (non-emergency patients).
And also search for "balance billing" by emergency room physicians and for the presence of debt collectors sneaking into emergency rooms and forcing (yes intimidating and FORCING by implying that they must pay before getting any medical care) ER patients into paying debts that may not even legally be owed. (search bill collectors in the emergency room)
Anonymous non-Cowardice
----
md5sum message2
f81f05afa9d93d13a7e271cf83dfe467 message2
What risk are vaccinated students facing? The statnent should be "Unvaccinated students place other unvaccinated students at risk". And the risk is even somewhat further mitigated by their family's attention being focused on health care.
The choice should belong to the community and the parents. We have to be able to begin the dialog that eventually causes the community to say No. After all, some bright health care experts had us willing to spray DDT everywhere, as part of the effort to combat Polio before the vaccine was available. And the first polio vaccine trials were a disaster, too.
A parent's willingness to say no is the only check and balance we have against miguided public health care policies. Do not always assume the health care people are right. They sometimes aren't, and you don't want to discover that with a large public program.
This is one way to cut down the cost of Social Security and Medicare.
Have all comments that may have a thread of opinion against vaccines been censored? /. with a -1 filter, shouldn't I get all the nasty stuff and trolls and everything in between?
That is, unless there's something about discussions that I don't understand...
I'm browsing
You may very well have good points, but I've already said that I support making the vaccines free as part of any legislation making them mandatory.
In my state (PA), each county has a health department. In mine, you call your local clinic, make an appointment, and go get your free shots. If the local clinic is not working out for you (weird hours, etc), there are also community clinics that aren't free, but are very low-cost. Without doing too much research, I see that there is a clinic in my county that will do immunizations for $15 a pop.
I have no idea what it's like to be on Medicaid, and I'm sure it sucks. I don't want to minimize what poor people have to go through. That said, there is charity care available. It probably shouldn't be made too great, or other people would take advantage of it without really needing it. You have to balance people's genuine need for charity with people's innate ability to leach the system. It's a very difficult problem.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Really. What are you worried about if your kids are vaccinated. If the vaccine works what are you worried about.
I'm surprised to find that such a progressive community could be so ignorant.
It seems clear that this creationist thinking discounts the reality of continued evolution.
Feel free to weaken your immune system's response and intelligence by pumping it full of artificial responders. Go ahead and gamble with the chance that your baby may or may not contract a direct insult to brain functioning as a result of unproven herd truth scare science. Please.
You can keep your institutes for non-thinking to yourself too with your petri dishes of multiple dead-virus carrying, spectrum disorder, non-critical, hyper oppressed, irrationally violent, emotionally stunted cretins.
Then my bohemian, fully and naturally evolved, high functioning, monster children, with their big brains, healthy digestive tracts, and fertile adaptable genes can critically select your artificial, institutionalized, stunted, dumbfuck retards out of the gene pool.
Perhaps you can explain the following for the so-called stupid people in the room:
CDC and Friends Sprinting Towards the Polio “Finish Line,” by Suzanne Humphries, MD
The CDC announced on June 8th that they are almost at the finish line of global polio eradication. LINK HERE. They’ve not had a case of wild polio since January 13, 2011. Whoopee! But they still have plenty of paralysis. In fact they have more and more every year. AND children with non-polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis(AFP), the new name for polio, are at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection! In fact, more oral polio vaccine has correlated strongly with “non-polio” AFP. One must wonder what exactly the WHO, UNICEF, Rotary International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are really going for.
Many believe that a disease called “polio” has been eradicated in the Western hemisphere. Most everyone thinks that “polio” was eradicated by vaccination. To fully understand where polio went, one must understand what polio was. When one understands what polio was, it becomes clear that it is impossible to eradicate it with a vaccine. But that never stops vaccination interests from launching full- scale propaganda misinformation campaigns in order to vaccinate the children of the world, even though they fail in eliminating paralysis. “Wild” poliovirus may be gone from vaccinated countries, but what was once called “polio,” and frightened the wits out of parents world-wide, is still ubiquitous.
The term “poliomyelitis” is a description of spinal pathology. The meaning of the word comes from Greek:
polios= gray, and muelos =marrow, itis=inflammation; meaning “inflammation of the gray matter of the spinal cord.”
All poliomyelitis means is that the gray matter of the spinal cord is inflamed. This can occur anywhere from the brainstem to the end of the spinal cord, and it has always had many causes, the least of which is a virus that lives in intestines of healthy people.
The result of this inflammation, whether chemical or viral, leads to certain characteristic muscular symptoms that have been conditioned into the minds of several generations of people to appear as the classic atrophied limbs, iron lungs and other horrifying images.
By definition and by historical documentation, these infamous images of polio should by no means be blamed solely on a specific wild-type (naturally occurring) virus. Environmental toxins, other infections, and laboratory-derived vaccine viruses were all implicated in paralytic polio over the years. Yet wild virus, even though it is said to be asymptomatic in 95% of infected, and only causes paralysis in a small amount of infected is the excuse for world-wide polio vaccination with live viruses that are known to cause their own outbreaks of polio in China, Nigeria and India.
“Approximately 95% of persons infected with polio will have no symptoms. About 4-8% of infected persons have minor symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, nausea, headache, flu-like symptoms, stiffness in the neck and back, and pain in the limbs, which often resolve completely. Fewer than 1% of polio cases result in permanent paralysis of the limbs (usually the legs). Of those paralyzed, 5-10%[of that 1%] die when the paralysis strikes the respiratory muscles.”[1]
Naturally existing polio is thought to have been a normal bowel commensal for hundreds of years before paralytic polio emerged as an epidemic disease, beginning in white populations. For instance, an in-depth study of a remote Indian tribe in the Rio das Mortes in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil demonstrated the presence of the virus with consistent and high levels of immunity – and no disease.
“The paradox of a virtual absence of paralytic poliomyelitis among such heavily infected groups as this, despite high antibody titers, is well known, but the interpretation of the observation remains u
Tonsillectomy was at its peak in 1959 at 1.4 million surgeries and declined drastically in years following. DDT was outlawed in the USA but is still found all over India. Arsenic is no longer commonly used as an intramuscular injection up to 100 times in a single person to treat syphilis like it was in the 1940’s – but there is an abundance of unnecessary intramuscular injections in India. Differential diagnoses now exist for paralysis unlike the old days of polio epidemics before the hailed Salk vaccine came to be, when all that became numb or transiently paralyzed was “polio.”
History is about to repeat itself in India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. In the USA there was a similar campaign and renaming- after the vaccine was accepted- just like occurs today in India. During a Detroit epidemic in 1958, four years into the Salk vaccine campaign, it was determined that nearly half of the cases of “polio” were not poliovirus-associated and were given other designations than polio.
“During an epidemic of poliomyelitis in Michigan in 1958, virological and serologic studies were carried out with specimens from 1,060 patients. Fecal specimens from 869 patients yielded no virus in 401 cases, poliovirus in 292, ECHO (enteric cytopathogenic human orphan) virus in 100, Coxsackie virus in 73, and unidentified virus in 3 cases. Serums from 191 patients from whom no fecal specimens were obtainable showed no antibody changes in 123 cases but did show changes diagnostic for poliovirus in 48, ECHO viruses in 14, and Coxsackie virus in 6. In a large number of paralytic as well as nonparalytic patients poliovirus was not the cause. Frequency studies showed that there were no obvious clinical differences among infections with Coxsackie, ECHO, and poliomyelitis viruses. Coxsackie and ECHO viruses were responsible for more cases of “nonparalytic poliomyelitis” and “aseptic meningitis” than was poliovirus itself.”[5]
Today in India, “polio” is a well-publicized problem, and DDT can be found on the shelves just about everywhere. India is the only country that still manufactures DDT, and remains the chemical’s largest consumer.
DDT enhances the release and intracellular multiplication of poliovirus.[6] Thus it likely contributes to creating a monster out of a normally benign gut virus. Additionally, exposure to DDT induces symptoms that can be completely indistinguishable from poliomyelitis – even in the absence of a virus.[7] Here is a description of DDT poisoning, which is indistinguishable clinically from poliomyelitis.
“Acute gastroenteritis occurs, with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea usually associated with extreme tenesmus. Coryza, cough and persistent sore throat are common, often followed by a persistent or recurrent feeling of constriction or a “lump” in the throat; occasionally the sensation of constriction extends substernally and to the back and may be associated with severe pain in either arm. Pain in the joints, generalized muscle weakness, apprehension and exhausting fatigue are usual; the latter are often so severe in the acute stage as to be described by some patients as “paralysis.”[8]
Despite the known dangers of oral polio vaccines, that paralysis is on the rise, and that many other entities enhance the virulence of poliovirus, multi-billion dollar polio eradication campaigns march on, often vaccinating a single child 15 times (or more) with live vaccine by their 5th year of life.
“In fact, at the end of 2005, children under 5 years old were reported to have received on average 15 doses of tOPV in UP and Bihar, compared with 10 in the rest of India, and only 4% of children were reported to have received fewer than 3 doses, of whom 90% were under 6 months old this level of vaccine coverage should have eliminated infection.”[9]
It didn’t eliminate infection, and in fact more oral polio vaccine has correlated strongly with
Here is a picture of what is happening in India, the country that hasn’t had a polio case since January 13, 2011:
In India today, as the World Health Organization tracks polio during the vaccination campaigns, it seems that “polio” has declined while “acute flaccid paralysis” (AFP) has increased annually, reaching 60,000 new cases in 2011.
The causes of AFP that have been identified are as follows:
Poliomyelitis, Non-polio enterovirus, vaccine-associated poliomyelitis (not counted as polio), Rabies virus, Varicella zoster virus, Japanese encephalitis virus, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Cytomegalovirus, sciatic neuritis from injection, Transverse myelitis, epidural abscess, spinal cord compression, exotoxin of Corynebacterium diptheriae, toxin of Clostridium botulinum, Karwinskia, tick bite paralysis, Lyme borreliosis, Myasthenia gravis, polymyositis autoimmune, viral myositis, trichinosis, toxic myopathies among others.[11]
As a result of the unrelenting OPV campaigns in India, there has been an exponential rise in “acute flaccid paralysis” while the number of documented cases of “polio” has declined.”
“It has been reported in the Lancet that the incidence of AFP, especially non-polio AFP has increased exponentially in India after a high potency polio vaccine was introduced Sathyamala examined data from the following year and showed that children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection non-polio AFP rate increases in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses received in each area Nationally, the non-polio AFP rate is now 12 times higher than expected. In the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month, the non-polio AFP rate is 25- and 35-fold higher than the international norms The non-polio AFP rate during the year best correlates to the cumulative doses received in the previous three years. Association of the non-polio AFP rate with OPV doses received in 2009 was 41.9%. Adding up doses received from 2007 increased the association (R2 = 55.6% p 0.001).”[12]
What is clear from the above graph is that massive “pulse” vaccination campaigns have done nothing to eliminate paralysis, and in fact there is evidence pointing to the likelihood that vaccination is related to the rise in AFP. Isn’t the vaccination really about eliminating paralysisor is it simply to replace wild virus with a vaccine virus no matter the outcome?
Why doesn’t the World Health Organization notice the medical literature that points to the truth that paralysis has increased with pulse vaccination campaigns in India? How could they possibly explain the intensification of a failed and harmful vaccine campaign where a deadly form of non-polio AFP increases exponentially in children heavily vaccinated with oral polio vaccines?
CDC says on June 8, 2012:
“If we fail to get over the finish line, we will need to continue expensive control measures for the indefinite future More importantly, without eradication, a resurgence of polio could paralyze more than 200,000 children worldwide every year within a decade.” Now is the time, we must not fail.”
I say God help the children of targeted nations.
References:
1. Center For Disease Control and Prevention. Department of Health and Human Services, USA. “Polio disease in short.” http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/in-short-both.htm
2. Neel JV et. al, 1964. “Studies on the Xavante Indians of the Brazilian Mato Grosso.”Am J Hum Genet, Mar;16:52-140 PMID 14131874
3. Ibid Neel.
4. Aycock L.,1942.”Tonsillectomy and poliomyelitis:epidemiologic considerations.” MEDICINE 21: 65-94, February
5. Brown GC, 1960. “Laboratory data on the Detroit poliomyelitis epidemic-1958.”J Am Med Assoc. Feb 20;172:807-12.
6. Gabliks J, Effects of insecticides on mammalian
I guess if you believe that the end justify the means then you could have a valid argument. However, you would have to believe that the vaccines don't work for "everyone else" only on me , or else I would not be causing harm to "everyone" only the other selfish people who deserve to get sick anyway.
Many children have died from vaccines, for diseases that they had a near zero chance of being exposed to. My 2 older children who were vaccinated in 2000-2006 have a laundry list of disabilitys Autism, ADHD, OCD, and others. When my youngest got his first shots (we turned down the in hospital shots (we did not believe that he was high risk for Hep A)) and the baby got croup so he was about 6mo. he stopped babbeling (trying to talk) and was silent for 3 months. We have not had any other vaccines. It took almost a year and a half for him to catch back up, if we would have kept giving him the shots he never would have, as they are given every 3 months.
FYI more cases of Polio have been caused in the United States over that last 2 generations by vaccines than by exposure, so in accuality less vaccines would mean less polio, and if you are vaccinating your child with a weakened virus your (weakened) viruses (which have made people sick) are actually putting my child at risk.
Question: If the people who are vaccinated are protected and the people who aren't are willing to take their chances, what's the problem?
Have you EVER SEEN an epidemic? Do you know what polio does to people?
Do you know how many millennia that Measles ravaged the population?
You think that somehow immunity to Measles will magically appear when you stop giving vaccines? What?!?
Measles, smallpox, rubella, scarlet fever, etc killed almost 40% of children before the age of 5 just 80 years ago.
You WANT this?
Vaccines are the primary reason that life expectancy increased from 45 to 70+. Antibiotics being the other... Do you advocate for the elimination of those as well? After all, the negative effects of their overuse are actually far more relevant than those of vaccines...
Wow..... I'm stunned. I prefer to chalk it up to ignorance, rather than malice... I hope I'm right.
Hasn't it occurred to any of you, that vaccinations have side effects? A vaccination is like taking a sledge hammer to a laptop computer. Your immune system is an incredibly sensitive miracle that protects you from a wide array of illnesses including autoimmune diseases. An autoimmune disease is where your immune system (i.e. antibodies) start and forever attack a particular type of tissue in your body. M.S., Rheumatoid Arthritis, Myastania Gravis, Lupus, and scores of other autoimmune diseases are on the rise and plague our society. Romney's wife has M.S., a god awful disease. Just the high percentage of kids with asthma should send a red flag that makes you wonder why this is happening. Immunizations are one of the factors in a screwed up immune system. One day, on my unit, after everybody got Flu Vaccinations, we had three people paralyzed with Guillan Barre, an autoimmune disease. Cancer is where one of your cells starts to divide without any inhibitions causing a large energy sucking tumor. Every day, millions of your cells divide and a dozen become oncogenic (cancerous). Your immune system recognizes they're whaco and a Cytotoxic T-cell attaches and kills that cell before it can get going. Do you really want to meddle with something that uses such a miracle of recognition? If you want to learn to get Healthy and stay Healthy, or get free medical care in a Hospital, read a great book, "The Healthcare Guide for Republicans", ebook at Amazon and Apple. mensunion org
Look at all the new vaccines big pharma has been pushing on the public.
What about the stupidity in giving so many vaccines at once, increasing the likelihood of adverse reactions ?
What about the adjutants IN the vaccines ?
What about the fact that conferred immunity lasts, whereas vaccine immunity does not ?
Rarely do people ask the pertinent questions when the rallying cry of "won't somebody think of the children" has shut down skepticism, and most people's minds.
We have a huge federal government that has failed to properly regulate, that is corrupted by industry, and that wields power and authority primarily to deceive the public. We have massive programs to finance "research" that yields nothing most of the time, and we have a media that panders consistently to the lowest common denominators in society.
Nobody should be surprised that people have failed to vaccinate their kids for the most common diseases, when they've no experience with them, and nobody should be surprised that people eschew all vaccines, when the number of vaccines that are being foisted on the public has increased so markedly.
Blind faith in medical authority is just as irrational and inane as religious faith.
Please look at the link you supplied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Toxicity
"For infants (birth to 12 months), the tolerable upper limit (maximum amount that can be tolerated without harm) is set at 25 micrograms/day (1000 IU). One thousand micrograms (40,000 IU) per day in infants has produced toxicity within one month.[80]"
So, after some body gave an infant 100X the RDA every day for a month, the infant showed signs of toxicity. I'd venture the signs of toxicity probably went away when they stopped supplementing (given the examples I cites about East German infants getting massive doses and going on to win the Olympics). If an infant 100X the RDA for iron, in one day they might be dead? Based on that comparison, vitamin D is a very safe supplement for children. The health consequences of getting one tenth the RDA are far greater than getting 10X the RDA. Error here is much better on the side of abundance.
Still, for infants, I'd agree the US RDA is more or less correct, and there is probably no reason to ever give an amount about the RDA. Based on what I've cited from Dr. John Cannell's writings, the fears of what happens near that limit are overblown. And the "official" recommendations remain way too low for adults, as it is not much more than infants, and your comparisons while plausible sounding don't match the science, because vitamin D is used in every cell for signaling more than for "growth". (Even ignoring the RDAs are just probably wrong for lots of things -- his chatter on RDAs is all too true:
http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=329928 )
The bottom line is that humans are adapted to a life outdoors in the sun. That includes pregnant women getting enough sun. We deviate from that norm at the risk of our own health, and it is only in the past few decades that so many of us have become indoor creatures, with health consequences probably including autism. Some culture clashes even make that worse, like devout Somali Muslim women moving from near the equator where they lived in houses with open courtyards to northern latitudes around Minneapolis where they stay indoors all the times and wear a Burka otherwise, and then people wonder why so many of their children are autistic (as they do not know yet to supplement with 6000 IU D3 daily when pregnant and nursing):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vitamin-d-and-autism
"What If Vitamin D Deficiency Is a Cause of Autism? A few researchers are turning their attention to the sunshine vitamin as a culprit, prompted by the experience of immigrants that have moved from their equatorial country to two northern latitude locations"
P.S. I did not call you an "idiot" that I could see. But on this one issue, you are certainly echoing the conventional wisdom that has caused so much suffering over the past few decades (including bad advice we got from our own pediatrician). Good luck in finding the right amount of vitamin D3 that works for you and your family.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
By getting vaccinated, I am dependent on everyone injecting poison into their blood just to stay alive.
Actually, no, by NOT getting vaccinated you're dependent on everyone else getting vaccinated. Since you can catch and transmit the disease, while people that are vaccinated (almost) can't. And the more people that agree with you and are not vaccinated, the larger the impact of a potential outbreak, because there are more people to make sick.
Us (humans) developing vaccines is part of "evolution"; we get rid of all the "weak" diseases.
Of course, as for the pharmaceutical industry, I really do prefer evil corporate overlords over a high risk of disease. At least you can control the industry through oversight and laws.
Some pretty stupid logic to think that a vaccinated child is at risk when put with non-vaxed kids. Ignorant. The vaxed child can shed certain diseases and actually infect the non-vaxed. You idiots go ahead and play Russian roulette with your children. I refuse to inject mine with poison.
I was fully vaccinated as a child (though the schedule was much less rigorous than it is now) and so were my three oldest children. I didn't doubt vaccines until 1985, when I went to the local health department to get my shots before traveling to Thailand (my husband's country) for the first time. That night I got very sick, with a high fever. The fever went away after a few days but my health has never been the same. And that's when I started looking into vaccines, what they contain, how they work, and if they're really necessary. It took me until 1995, after my health had worsened to the point of including severe food allergies, before I was ready to stop vaccinating my children. And even then I wasn't completely convinced at first. I had a baby that July. Three times I tried to take him for his vaccinations, and every time something happened to stop me--car trouble, etc. I was praying and doing research, and after the third time I gave up trying to vaccinate him, and I also stopped vaccinating my others. That "baby" is 17 now and very healthy. He's never had anything more than a winter virus. Meanwhile my oldest, who was fully vaccinated, had a hard case of the mumps a couple of years ago. He was much sicker than my daughter-in-law and granddaughters were, and they'd never been vaccinated. I struggle daily with immune system problems. But my 61-year old husband and my 76-year old mother--both said they received only one vaccine as children, probably for polio--are going strong and taking care of me. I believe in God and I believe that God equipped us with the immune systems we need. The problems come when we mess with things because we think we know better. Modern medicine and the "wonders" of chemicals have caused me more harm than anything I would have encountered naturally in the environment.
artificial herd immunity defiles all logical and analytical thinking: if vaccines work 100% than all vaccinated people are safe so no need to worry about non-vaccinated ones, if vaccines are NOT 100% effective & vaccinated people can contract specific disease in spite of having been vaccinated for it , it means that they can also be carriers and spread the disease the same way as non-vaccinated folk, so vaccinating all would make no difference as they can still get sick...besides even in the best scenario, everybody knows that vaccine induced immunity is temporary , never lasts for life.... how people can be so retarded to buy into the vaccine induced herd immunity ?!!! Because they believe in absurdities they can easily commit atrocities against us non-vaxers as they are driven by fear that totally blures their ability of logical thinking.. the same pattern was followed during inquisition times when general population bought the non-sense concept of witches and devil and they were burning millions of innocent people mostly women on stocks... now when we are finally free from religious inquisition we are at the gates (hmmm "Bill Gates... ?) of medical inquisition...Humanity did not make much progress at all... it is still in dark ages of barbaric mentality and so called technological advancement is only masking the real face of it.....
usually non-vaxers are also more health conscious , eat better use more natural remedies and have generally stronger immune systems...there was NEVER any studies done to compare eg nurses vaccinated for flu versus nurses who are non-vaccinated... my friend is a nurse, she NEVER takes flu shots and she NEVER has flu but most of nurses who get flu shot also get flu!!! and stay sick sometimes for weeks! man !!! vaccines mess up our immune system! we can NOT and will NEVER be able to improve artificially the human immune system, we can only cause so many calamities in the form of chronic diseases , allergies, diabetes , cancer etc...the immune system is already PERFECT, we need to take good care of it by proper nutrition, proper life style and proper thinking and not falling into paranoia and idiotic hysteria about herd immunity and "dangerous" presented by non-vaxers to pro-vaxers.Actually it is other way around! Many vaccines cause shading for days or even weeks so vaccinated people are endangering non-vaccinated ones! Vaccinated people sooner or later enter the stage of compromise immune system so they can contract many strange bugs easier... etc etc...start thinking for themselves, do your proper research and do not parrot medical/pharma propaganda....
wow, the page automatically gives a name to me as an anonymous coward !!! that's really big courtesy !!!