Can we drop the friggen autism issue. It's like saying CO2 is the only environmental issue and ignoring deforestation, toxic waste, and other pollution.
The FDA should mandate ALL events that transpire immediately following a vaccination be recorded in VAERS. And then let the "data analysts" filter the data and remove non-relevant listings.
Otherwise, we're defeating the purpose. What if a vaccine caused heartburn. Lots of people bring their kids in for heartburn after a vaccination. But the doctors see no association, so the never report it to VAERS.
For VAERS to be most affective, all things need to be entered within a given relevant time frame. (at least 48 hours IMHO).
Then we might see that 150 entries for heartburn were entered after vaccination and discover there is an issue. Frankly, data reporting to VAERS should be mandatory, even for seemingly un-related issues. (Even broken bones, what if we discovered a vaccination weakened bones, and that there was a 500% increase in broken bones in the weeks immediately following vaccine xyz.
And might I add, that if you can't prove it safe for adults too. Then I do NOT believe it should be considered safe enough to mandate by law for children.
VAERS, but what good is it, if your doctor won't report an incident, because it's well known that there are very few side affects from vaccines. Therefore, the issue at hand, is NOT a vaccine related symptom - even if it meets documented symptoms.
When patents are given for things as basic as rounded corners, or actions that have been around for decades, or grids of icons like my old Palm Pilot from the 90's.
It is not optional. It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.
My issue, was with the fact that the doctor out-of-hand, dismissed that possibility of the incident being vaccine related.
The fact that it was dismissed and would have gone un-reported. That's BAD!!!
The irony, is that I had read about many similar complaints. It's almost like how when everyone is complaining that their new gadget is having a problem, it's all over the web, in discussion groups, etc. But when you call the company they plead ignorant like they've never heard of it and it's not happening to others (ignore the hundreds and thousands of posts to the contrary).
It's that denial mentality. That's bad for science, bad for everyone.
"Did you know that the human body can react differently to the same substance depending on how old you are?"
Yes I did....
I also am aware that we're talking about a difference between 26 & 27. Not that much difference.
I am also aware that many children are lactose intolerant. So if that's a risk, it's a risk across all parties.
Let's talk about dosage. Is the dosage for 26 different than 27?
The truth is though, that more often than not, a healthy young to middle age adult is more likely to handle any processing of a substance than a child.
20-35 year old is pretty much in almost all cases be less at risk. Sure there are probably a few exceptions. But I wager they're very few and far between.
"I damn well hope you wouldn't just assume that if insulin injections were safe for a child, that they would be safe for an adult exhibiting symptoms of diabetes."
And there are children who are likewise insulin senstive due to juvenile diabetes. Granted, it's less common.
So if it were unsafe for adults with diabetes, it would pose a risk to juveniles. But have even less chance of having been discovered during testing.
Would we rather have some of us old folk drop from such a mistake than our children?
My problem is when they can feel free to "mandate" with gaps in knowledge, but then "refuse" over gaps in knowledge.
I can accept the FDA warning against use, or declaring this is not a proven use, whatever. But I am bothered that I am refused access over some "theoretical" gaps in knowledge. Than told I'm a lunatic when I have concerns over "mandated" vaccines in which concerns have been expressed.
Do you see the juxtaposition of that logical conundrum. Basically, I'm losing out in both ways. I've lost liberty twice. Liberty to DO, or NOT DO, with my body.
Yes, but the point is, had I not submitted my own daughter's case. There would be no entry. The doctor refused, and dismissed the notion that it could even be vaccine related.
And worse, I've read hundreds of similar accounts...which points to a problem in our implementation of reporting for our scientific process (does it not?)
So imagine, a study was done, and a bunch of people are fed peanuts. A few minor irritations at most were noticed. And chalked up to other causes. We deem, peanuts do not cause allergies.
So when your son eats a peanut, and has an allergic reaction. You bring him to the doctor. You suggest that you think it's peanuts because he was just eating them. Your doctor replies, now, reactions to peanuts are very very rare.
He was probably stung by a bee or ingested something else. The result, no association is made between peanut and allergies. Others have had a similar experience. But the "belief" becomes self-perpetuating. And the data proves there are no allergic reactions to peanuts. Mind you, there have been, they just weren't recorded as such because of the underlying "belief" in their safety.
Granted, peanut allergies and vaccinations issues are probably an order of magnitude or two apart. But it's the same premise. And it's a fundamental flaw in our implementation of science in that area.
What I found astounding, is all these folks decrying anti-science. So adamant, that they can't openly accept the notion that the earth might revolve around the sun. But here I am pointing to an extremely dangerous (to the scientific method) practice that is common in American doctor's offices.
And the retort is "science, science, science"....yes, I agree. So let's DO IT RIGHT!!! Dammit!
They already turned in thousands of test cases. And since we've pretty much cleared it for kids to 26. I think there need only be a minimal affirmation for the use on adults. Would you not agree?
But you know what, we already pay more $$$ per person than those countries. So let's provide universal healthcare. Just do it for no more than we're already spending.
My point sir, is that vaccines should only be mandated for highly infectious diseases. If we're mandating such, than it should be a highly infectious disease.
We're mandating the Hep vaccine which is basically on par with HIV transferrance methods. So we're deeming it highly infectious, but not quarantining.
That's my point, if it can spread from sneeze to cough. Yes, I see a societal need. But if it's not highly infectious. Than I do not think it should be mandated by law. Highly recommended - yes.
My point is, that there will almost never be a perfect "herd immunity". Granted, perhaps we might actually make a few diseases go extinct. Lyme would be nice. Seriously wish we ahd a vaccine for that.
And for the most part, I am very supportive of vaccines for highly infectious and contagious diseases. Like respiratory infections, measles, etc.
I have issue on mandates for less infectious diseases, particularly those that are along the lines of STD transfer. (drugs, sex, blood/fluid exchange, etc). Not sure I feel those should be mandated.
My daughter was up on all her vaccinations, but Hep B. We were waiting a while longer on that one. And was unable to attend pre-school because of it.
If you give a child multi-package vaccines. It becomes much more challenging to determine which may be providing a negative indicator.
And we can probably look to the history of number of people who die when 2 or more illnesses afflict them as being statistically higher. As pretty solid proof of a higher stress on the immune system.
But my whole point is how said info is reported and collected, essentially it's usually not. Leads to a gap in which pretty much all the evidence is questionable in most of these studies.
Just the fact that the doctor immediate dismissed vaccine as a reason, and retorted that vaccines are unlikely to be the cause. Even given the symptoms matched the symptoms of the illnesses that vaccination was for.
And the fact that such experiences are fairly common, is proof the system of solicitating the data is flawed. And sorry, scientific method says if you discover a flaw, you go back an fix it. And right now there is a serious flaw in medical denial of symptoms being attributed to vaccines.
The doctor wouldn't even bother to report it, so I had to report it to VAERS. (And yes, I did confirm, it is there...) But for most people, when something like this incident occurs. It's not ever being reported. So we're making assumptions on bad data.
Heck, and I'm not even anti-virus. I don't buy the autism link. I just think our methodologies of implementing, delivering, and how we require/refuse certain vaccinations is rather !@#$% up.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we drop the friggen autism issue. It's like saying CO2 is the only environmental issue and ignoring deforestation, toxic waste, and other pollution.
The FDA should mandate ALL events that transpire immediately following a vaccination be recorded in VAERS. And then let the "data analysts" filter the data and remove non-relevant listings.
Otherwise, we're defeating the purpose. What if a vaccine caused heartburn. Lots of people bring their kids in for heartburn after a vaccination. But the doctors see no association, so the never report it to VAERS.
For VAERS to be most affective, all things need to be entered within a given relevant time frame. (at least 48 hours IMHO).
Then we might see that 150 entries for heartburn were entered after vaccination and discover there is an issue. Frankly, data reporting to VAERS should be mandatory, even for seemingly un-related issues. (Even broken bones, what if we discovered a vaccination weakened bones, and that there was a 500% increase in broken bones in the weeks immediately following vaccine xyz.
That is GOOD SCIENCE...
I agree, the silliness lies with the FDA.
And might I add, that if you can't prove it safe for adults too. Then I do NOT believe it should be considered safe enough to mandate by law for children.
That is just !@#$% ridiculous.
VAERS, but what good is it, if your doctor won't report an incident, because it's well known that there are very few side affects from vaccines. Therefore, the issue at hand, is NOT a vaccine related symptom - even if it meets documented symptoms.
(This is VERY common, sadly.)
When patents are given for things as basic as rounded corners, or actions that have been around for decades, or grids of icons like my old Palm Pilot from the 90's.
No, I was thinking about maybe age 7-10 when their immune system is a bit more developed.
It is not optional. It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.
My issue, was with the fact that the doctor out-of-hand, dismissed that possibility of the incident being vaccine related.
The fact that it was dismissed and would have gone un-reported. That's BAD!!!
The irony, is that I had read about many similar complaints. It's almost like how when everyone is complaining that their new gadget is having a problem, it's all over the web, in discussion groups, etc. But when you call the company they plead ignorant like they've never heard of it and it's not happening to others (ignore the hundreds and thousands of posts to the contrary).
It's that denial mentality. That's bad for science, bad for everyone.
Autism is a red herring...
Seems like everyone focus' just on that one aspect. I really don't buy the autism link much myself.
There are other concerns....largely in regards to reporting of incidents.
"Did you know that the human body can react differently to the same substance depending on how old you are?"
Yes I did....
I also am aware that we're talking about a difference between 26 & 27. Not that much difference.
I am also aware that many children are lactose intolerant. So if that's a risk, it's a risk across all parties.
Let's talk about dosage. Is the dosage for 26 different than 27?
The truth is though, that more often than not, a healthy young to middle age adult is more likely to handle any processing of a substance than a child.
20-35 year old is pretty much in almost all cases be less at risk. Sure there are probably a few exceptions. But I wager they're very few and far between.
"I damn well hope you wouldn't just assume that if insulin injections were safe for a child, that they would be safe for an adult exhibiting symptoms of diabetes."
And there are children who are likewise insulin senstive due to juvenile diabetes. Granted, it's less common.
So if it were unsafe for adults with diabetes, it would pose a risk to juveniles. But have even less chance of having been discovered during testing.
Would we rather have some of us old folk drop from such a mistake than our children?
My problem is when they can feel free to "mandate" with gaps in knowledge, but then "refuse" over gaps in knowledge.
I can accept the FDA warning against use, or declaring this is not a proven use, whatever. But I am bothered that I am refused access over some "theoretical" gaps in knowledge. Than told I'm a lunatic when I have concerns over "mandated" vaccines in which concerns have been expressed.
Do you see the juxtaposition of that logical conundrum. Basically, I'm losing out in both ways. I've lost liberty twice. Liberty to DO, or NOT DO, with my body.
Yes, but the point is, had I not submitted my own daughter's case. There would be no entry. The doctor refused, and dismissed the notion that it could even be vaccine related.
And worse, I've read hundreds of similar accounts...which points to a problem in our implementation of reporting for our scientific process (does it not?)
So let's use "peanuts"
So imagine, a study was done, and a bunch of people are fed peanuts. A few minor irritations at most were noticed. And chalked up to other causes. We deem, peanuts do not cause allergies.
So when your son eats a peanut, and has an allergic reaction. You bring him to the doctor. You suggest that you think it's peanuts because he was just eating them. Your doctor replies, now, reactions to peanuts are very very rare.
He was probably stung by a bee or ingested something else. The result, no association is made between peanut and allergies. Others have had a similar experience. But the "belief" becomes self-perpetuating. And the data proves there are no allergic reactions to peanuts. Mind you, there have been, they just weren't recorded as such because of the underlying "belief" in their safety.
Granted, peanut allergies and vaccinations issues are probably an order of magnitude or two apart. But it's the same premise. And it's a fundamental flaw in our implementation of science in that area.
What I found astounding, is all these folks decrying anti-science. So adamant, that they can't openly accept the notion that the earth might revolve around the sun. But here I am pointing to an extremely dangerous (to the scientific method) practice that is common in American doctor's offices.
And the retort is "science, science, science"....yes, I agree. So let's DO IT RIGHT!!! Dammit!
They already turned in thousands of test cases. And since we've pretty much cleared it for kids to 26. I think there need only be a minimal affirmation for the use on adults. Would you not agree?
HIV is almost guaranteed to be a mandated vaccine when it comes out in a few years.
Probably be mandated for children and not available for adults. :-P
Could a more likely reason be twinkies and crack babies?
That's right....
But you know what, we already pay more $$$ per person than those countries. So let's provide universal healthcare. Just do it for no more than we're already spending.
Deal?
Really, cause it always seems people are coming to the U.S. to get treatment they can't get approved elsewhere.
My point sir, is that vaccines should only be mandated for highly infectious diseases. If we're mandating such, than it should be a highly infectious disease.
We're mandating the Hep vaccine which is basically on par with HIV transferrance methods. So we're deeming it highly infectious, but not quarantining.
That's my point, if it can spread from sneeze to cough. Yes, I see a societal need. But if it's not highly infectious. Than I do not think it should be mandated by law. Highly recommended - yes.
Yes, that'd suck...and my kids were vaccinated for polio and most other common illnesses.
In fact, I'd like to get the HPV vaccine....but can't. Cause I'm too old. Yet it's okay to mandate children get it?
Seriously, that's just !@#$% up.
Not harming mine...
Then not harming millions...
Call me evil, or call me a father.
But I am kind of confused here. So if I don't get my kid vaccinated, and you do. What risk is there to your kids? Just saying...
My point is, that there will almost never be a perfect "herd immunity". Granted, perhaps we might actually make a few diseases go extinct. Lyme would be nice. Seriously wish we ahd a vaccine for that.
And for the most part, I am very supportive of vaccines for highly infectious and contagious diseases. Like respiratory infections, measles, etc.
I have issue on mandates for less infectious diseases, particularly those that are along the lines of STD transfer. (drugs, sex, blood/fluid exchange, etc). Not sure I feel those should be mandated.
My daughter was up on all her vaccinations, but Hep B. We were waiting a while longer on that one. And was unable to attend pre-school because of it.
Well, I'll give you one right now...
If you give a child multi-package vaccines. It becomes much more challenging to determine which may be providing a negative indicator.
And we can probably look to the history of number of people who die when 2 or more illnesses afflict them as being statistically higher. As pretty solid proof of a higher stress on the immune system.
But my whole point is how said info is reported and collected, essentially it's usually not. Leads to a gap in which pretty much all the evidence is questionable in most of these studies.
Just the fact that the doctor immediate dismissed vaccine as a reason, and retorted that vaccines are unlikely to be the cause. Even given the symptoms matched the symptoms of the illnesses that vaccination was for.
And the fact that such experiences are fairly common, is proof the system of solicitating the data is flawed. And sorry, scientific method says if you discover a flaw, you go back an fix it. And right now there is a serious flaw in medical denial of symptoms being attributed to vaccines.
The doctor wouldn't even bother to report it, so I had to report it to VAERS. (And yes, I did confirm, it is there...) But for most people, when something like this incident occurs. It's not ever being reported. So we're making assumptions on bad data.
Heck, and I'm not even anti-virus. I don't buy the autism link. I just think our methodologies of implementing, delivering, and how we require/refuse certain vaccinations is rather !@#$% up.
Yes, but let's look at which ones are needed early and which ones are not. Hep B is not really needed early if mother is not infected.