I was vaccinated 3 days ago. Now I'm immune to bullets. Oh, and Measles too.
And no, I'm a bloody engineer, not a medic so I do not fully understand how vaccination works.
Comment has been collapsed.
Prove that you're a girl, then we will talk about the size of your ring finger.
Comment has been collapsed.
Consider a vaccine as firearm traget practice. "Dummies" are introduced into your body so the inmune system can recognize them and attack them more efficiently lately when the real threat is posed.
If you need a more scientific explanation, let me know and I'll provide.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the FDA vaccines are virtually free of thiomersal (Mercury).
It was used as a preservative. To prevent fungus and stuff from growing.
Comment has been collapsed.
"virtually free "? Right, only problem is that even trace amounts of mercury are bad for you, and it accumulates over time in your system.. And sure, there's no single other type of chemical they could have added that can act as an antimicrobial and antifungal preservative, right? Sure. Seems absolutely legit.. -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
There's no such thing as "free" from something. You can only assure there's not quantities of a product depending on the sensibility of the measuring system used.
As I've said, some fish contain more organic mercury than vaccines do.
Comment has been collapsed.
I eat fish multiple times a week, best thing to do to counter any of this is to detox once in a while, plenty of ways to do that really.
Yep...although I do avoid tuna for the most part, its more of a guilty pleasure....
Comment has been collapsed.
Perfectionist fallacy.. Just because that might be true, doesn't mean it's not bad for you either way. Also, what about the other part of what I said, you know, about there surely being something other than a poisonous heavy metal to preserve vaccinations?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't even follow your line of thought. My statement is fallacious in which way?
Comment has been collapsed.
If someone tries to stick a needle in me I'll take it and jab it in their eye. That is all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I present to you the same point I did to the Bunny guy up here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry but that made me lol to much to respond in a legit manner.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well. I don't think what might cause laugh of my comment. But well. Your call.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know people that never got vaccinated that are covered in tats, I just found what you said kinda funny.
Honestly on the topic of vaccination, I am not 100% against it, nor am I for it so much to the extent that doctors want to give them, lately it seems the amount "needed" have tripled or more maybe, all the shit they wanted to stick into my nephew was scary, we opted out for many, got the main important ones.
Also I have a hate relationship with the flu vaccine, reason being is my mom who is 50, got it a couple years ago because the doctor said it was gonna be a bad flu season, my mom had the flu once in her life before this in her teens, the first time she got the flu shot is the 2nd time she ever had the flu and it nearly killed her, she was in a delirious state, I was young and didnt know what to do, my dad is a bastard and never took her to the hospital, so thats that.
I survived the "dreaded" swine flu btw, being sick is usually not the end of the world, although anything can kill us really, so thats life.
Basically to summarize.
Some shots = Helpful
Others = Wtf seriously, this is not needed.
Main point = We should have the freedom to choose, we should not run the world based on someone else's idea of good, we should research and come to our own conclusion, if we pick the wrong one and die, thats our problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess you won't then be open to donate blood, receive any kind of enterally administrated drug or stuff like that, getting tattoos. You know, things.
Comment has been collapsed.
By the time I'd require blood or medicine, I'd likely be unconscious and or dying and would not be able to reject it. Also, paying a random person draw on me using a sharp utensil that makes me bleed and permanently marks me with their 'artistic ability' is not on my list of things to do. But if it's your thing then go for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are a bit too sure you won't need enteral drugs in the near future. Also I said donate, not receive.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's his choice, thats something many don't understand, some of us aren't even afraid of death believe it or not, personally I am not, my only concern is how it would make others feel, thats it, thats the thought that makes me sad and the reason no matter how bad life gets I would never off myself or not avoid death.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who cares whether you're afraid of dying? You just transmitted polio the poor sod down the street who wasn't able to get the vaccination. There are many reasons why some people are legitimately unable to safely receive vaccinations. Oh well. I'll laugh at the dumb crippled invalids after the next smallpox pandemic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right whatever you say....
You should work in government, they to are good at ignoring parts of conversations and blasting out hype and fear.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you keep saying enteral, when you mean parenteral? Weren't you some form of medical student? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not a medical student. I study Pharmacy and I'm about to complete a 5 year degree of it. And my bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably Gardasil. Good vaccine. Not so much for warts, rather prevention of HPV, which is really serious.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is it dangerous? And look at the stats regarding drops in HPV diagnoses after introduction of the vaccine. It works.
Comment has been collapsed.
It hasn't even really been long enough to say if it is effective or not. For all we know the vaccine could have led to fewer diagnoses of HPV because the vaccine itself being made would have raised awareness of it and with how lacking sex ed has been in the past generation, that's also something very necessary.
But one other thing to consider is that there are also a great deal of horror stories linked to it. Many young girls have had severe and crippling side effects from it, some of those young girls are no longer alive to tell their story about it. That is why it is highly controversial to have a vaccine for a disease that can also be prevented with actually educating girls about safer sex and being careful about who you have sex with.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vaccines have been studied for 300 years now and any claim they work by 'raised awareness' is plain nonsense. I guess bacterias know when doctor is around, even when vaccinations are done in Africa, by nurse, 500 km from nearest hospital, and they somehow magically work too? :|
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a logical fallacy. The HPV vaccine has not been studied for 300 years.
If the argument was about vaccines in general, I'd agree with your point, but the poster is right at the very least in that we don't know the long-term effects or efficacy on some of these newer (and compulsory) vaccines.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me. You say that vaccines lead to fewer diagnoses of HPV because of raised awareness? What is that supposed to mean?
Comment has been collapsed.
Most types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact. The mere fact of the creation and distribution of a vaccine for such an infection might serve as a form of awareness for many people to practice safe sex, thus lowering their chances of receiving said viruses, thus lowering the overall number of diagnoses. Essentially the equation: vaccine creation=>(awareness<=>safe sex<=>less diagnoses)=>vaccine gets credit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah okay - I didn't think the language of the post was that clear. I know, for example, GPTrixie attributed "raised awareness" to the virus itself "learning" about the vaccine and thus refuse to infect people as much. As absurd as this is, I can see how someone would arrive to this conclusion based on the language.
I do have to say that that type of argument is a bit flawed, however. There are always factors at work other than vaccines reducing the prevalence of a disease - healthier diet, increased health consciousness in general (washing hands more often, using toilet seat covers, etc). Just because there are other facts, does not discount the efficacy of a vaccine.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that eagerly establishing causal relations between things is not ideal. I have read many things for and against its activity and I only can say I'm not really sure of its effects.
Comment has been collapsed.
What's with that duddette? What did she say? And how on earth people give more credit to a naked model woman than doctors?
Comment has been collapsed.
People blame Anti-Vaccination celebrities for the deaths and sicknesses of non-vaccinated youths, simply because they have the means to televise and market their opinions. They use these celebrities as scapegoats instead of blaming the people centrally responsible for the situation, such as the parents refusal (because they heard it on E! news, or saw it on Oprah). This way they can focus the blame and attention on one individual, instead of turning their eyes on themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the first place I kinda think that uneducated people should not be able to broadcast nosensical opinions. Moreover I'm slowly leaining towards the opinion that spread misiformation in terms of health should be somewhat punishable.
Comment has been collapsed.
drug companies routinely ignore incovenient studies if itll get them a drug on the market so yeah ill stay skeptical thanks, deciding how your treated medically is a fairly basic human right that i for one am attached to, doctors arent any more infallible than the rest of us either id take a doctors opinion seriously but its not a gospel truth anymore than a politician's statements are
Comment has been collapsed.
WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT?
Seriously, stop bullshitting. Do you even know how long (or even what the process is) to have a drug approved? Do you know about therapeutical margins? Risk/benefit relations and so on and so forth?
Doctors are not infallible, that's for sure. But they are trained professionals experts on their field. That's what the "rest of us" ain't.
Also science is not (and has never been) about opinions. Science is about facts
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, no so much about facts, because those would be truths and Science does not deal in truths. You cannot accept the alternative hypothesis, only reject the null.
But other than that, I agree 100%.
Though I will say that some doctors are more focused on their career rather than their patients, but that is a whole other story.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Though I will say that some* doctors are more focused on their career rather than their patients, but that is a whole other story."
*Most
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the problem when you see medicine as a profit. Health should be nationalized and deficitary by definition. Your system is fucked up
Comment has been collapsed.
Man, you are preaching to the choir there, buddy.
I'd even be okay with a real free market system with government checks for the uninsurable. But companies would have to incur a large fine for dropping coverage.
Either way, your last sentence could not be more right, and that's truer than ever starting next year.
Comment has been collapsed.
What's happening next year? I'm not really into America's agenda.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "Affordable" Health Care act goes into effect.
Basically, you're required to buy private insurance, or you get fined by the government.
The original idea was to get everyone healthcare insurance, but in practice, it's turned into a complete disaster. Prices are higher for many middle class citizens, TBD on whether young people will buy in at almost twice the previous cost, when they weren't even buying in before, big business is exempt, and the administrative system is completely FUBAR.
It's ugly. It might be better in three years, or it might be a complete failure, but right now it's a mess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Damm it.
Seriously. That doesn't seem a good way of doing things. Anyways, as I've said, I'm all for public universal "free" healthcare.
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably the same thing. There was little/no capitulation on the part of the health companies in this whole thing. They've simply upped rates on those that aren't subsidized.
That would be great if it wasn't the middle class taking the brunt of the hike.
Now all they've done is shifted the uninsured income point on the graph higher. Those that are destitute have a better chance now, but just barely. And those that are struggling to pay rising costs of everything, just got dropped by their carriers and will be forced to either go without insurance or pay close to double for their same policy benefits.
It's especially harsh on 1099ers, since they have no company coverage.
It's also tough for folks that have one family member covered by work and not the other. The non-covered individual is going to see massive rate hikes because they can't claim dependents (already covered). Suddenly, someone making just over $40K to feed a family of four is going to see their rates rise astronomically.
I can't see how it's going to get better unless there is some sort of graduated plan to either subsidize a broader base (more socialized) or ban the providers from cancelling plans and generally being assholes about covering anything at all (it took us a 45-day fight to get my wife's surgery pre-approved - just three days prior to the surgery - and even now they're backtracking on what they'll cover).
MrC is right. It's fucked up. And it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some of it is about science, but who do you think pays the scientists?
Hint: It's not other scientists.
Bottom line is the bottom line sometimes. And that's got utterly nothing to do with any science but the science of economics.
Comment has been collapsed.
While your statement is factual, it is very misleading. Sure, corporate scientists are paid by the corporation to advance their own interests, but those in academia are paid by educational institutes. Technically an educational institute is not a "scientist" but I think you get what I'm saying. Scientists may not directly get paid by other scientists, but pay and other such things are decided by fellow scientists.
Now we'll move on to grants, the actual major funding source for research. If you focus on government grants, I would argue that they are paid, in effect, by scientists. Grant applications still must go through a panel of scientists to determine whether the work is good enough for funding and the money allocated. So if the money comes from the government, it is from taxes from the citizens of that country. Most of them will not be scientists. You could say that the ones from which the money comes from are not scientists, but the ones who allocate the money are.
Comment has been collapsed.
My statements were made with the context of for-profit pharmaceutical companies.
I understand that there is a ton of wonderful, publicly funded (or privately granted), research going on.
But I don't think I'm leading folks astray in saying that big pharma isn't primarily concerned with saving lives and advancing science for its own sake. Those are side effects (marketed as primary goals) of making shittons of money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also pharmaceutical companies might orientate their investigations to profitable fields. But the path to get a drug approved is both lengthy and costly. Not to mention it's also strict.
Comment has been collapsed.
MrC,
Unfortunately, in this country, there are many ways to fast-track all kinds of things. Almost all of them involve lobby money/influence. Big pharma is a big player in that game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm talking from my personal experience. I mean. I had to study laws and all that boring stuff and it can easily take 15 years or so for having something approved.
Fast tracking? I don't know, maybe I'm too naive and I keep thinking that things work as they should.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's true that scientists are paid by companies and things of the sort. But for their findings to be approved they have to adhiere by the Scientific Method. That means they have to follow a certain methodology, be reproducible and things of the sort. You can't (or at least you shouldn't be able to do it easily) make things up out of thin air.
Comment has been collapsed.
Keep in mind that there is no moral code integrated into the scientific method.
I'll let you extrapolate from there, but Leon Uris both lived and detailed some of that process.
Science has no morals. It isn't immoral, but it is amoral. Sometimes science and humanity don't always mix. Like anything, the point of a good government is to be able to regulate, within reason, the fringe actions of those that seek to cross lines.
Comment has been collapsed.
But there are uncountable ethics comitees and all that. (We are here entering a subjective territory, true)
Anyways. You can objectively determine whether or not something has this or that effect, you can scientifically determine risks and benefits, probabilities. There are organizations that look after that, the FDA to name one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right. But you never really know what's going to happen till you have a live, full-blown human population to "test" it on.
There are responsible (voluntary) and irresponsible (legislated/coerced) ways of doing this.
Comment has been collapsed.
But there's pharmacovigilance procedures and stuff of the sort for when unexpected side effects are discovered.
Also there's two kind of unpredictable side effects (Two major ones) type A or predictable and of mild severity and type B of unknown ethyology, unpredictable and often deadly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right.
And here's how it works in a major, publicly-traded corporation.
I know, because this is how major auto-makers did/do it.
A cost/liability report is run to determine whether it will be more detrimental to either recall a product, or deal with the potential lawsuits involving death/disablement later. If it costs more to recall the product, then you just deal with the percentage of people who sue for wrongful death/etc.
If your company is big enough, you have a huge legal team anyway.
And suddenly, science has nothing to do with what's going on...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes and no. There's also risk values that are acceptable statistically speaking. I mean, no drug (I'd go as far as to say, nothing) is free of risk. So there are the so called acceptable levels.
And I drugs go under way more strict controls than automobiles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who determines those risk values and how are they reported extra-corporately?
I'll take your word for it on the drugs vs. cars. I don't know. But I do know that risk assessment is bound to be similar.
No large corporation is going to intentionally lose money after a long period of R&D. Your assessment about time to market is an even stronger indicator of potential corruption/risk taking.
People/companies always push boundaries when there is more to lose.
We may have to agree to disagree here.
I don't trust for 2 seconds that a giant pharmaceutical company that is publicly traded has any interest at all in the greater good of the populace.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they don't do some good. But I know they're looking out for number one in the end. And that's not the people.
The problem is compounded by their lobbying efforts to corruptible politicians.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, vaccination should be mandatory. I hate needles though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really have no faith in what corporate owned scientists say, nor what corporate, medically unknowledgeable, government officials say.
Still, vaccines are probably good, I never put in any effort to find out.
There are hardly even any vaccines for even slighty dangerous viruses. I would rather just be sick for a day then take some mystery shot I know nothing about, other than that medical science is really shotty at best, and they have been willing to put stuff like mercury in them, in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
"even slightly dangerous viruses"
This is remarkably ill-informed. Smallpox, polio, rubella, measles, diphtheria, mumps, h. influenza (causes meningitis), and even chickenpox (varicella) all killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people a year pre-vaccination, many of them children. Take a look at this infographic. The chances of you "just being sick for a day" with these if you lived in the early 1900s were slim. I'd much rather take a "mystery shot" that went through rigorous scientific testing before it even got near my body than get a mystery disease that I knew nothing about.
Also, vaccines haven't contained thimerosal (the organomercury compound people claimed caused autism) since 1999, as a purely precautionary measure due to a FDA report recommending the removal of any mercury-based ingredients in food and other consumables. Autism rates have still increased since then, and the "scientific" study that claimed it has been thoroughly debunked as pure crap.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just to clarify one thing above...
That infographic isn't showing those "killed or maimed" by the diseases. You didn't explicitly say that, but it could've been inferred due to unclear language.
The infographic is only useful for morbidity, which doesn't really tell us much about mortality.
And diseases like varicella were and are relatively benign. Varicella killed about 100 people per annum in the U.S. Pretty darn low. I still am a little unclear how the varicella vaccine isn't a clear money grab for big pharma.
I guess we can claim that we've eradicated another disease "because we can", but we lose far, far, FAR more people each year from other causes that are also preventable. However, there are no legal mandates for life-saving interventions in those areas. I think, largely, because there is no major lobby behind them.
Your post is good, FWIW. I agree that many, MANY vaccinations are preventing some pretty hardcore diseases that folks have forgotten about the results of. But there are some...I'm not so sure. Varicella is the poster child for overreach in lobbying, IMO.
Comment has been collapsed.
Deaths per annum is a pretty useless statistic in my opinion. There are millions of people who have to die each year, and something will kill them. They will get some virus or minor infection, and since they are at deaths door it will be the thing that pushes them over, and will be labled the cause.
Or you will have death caused by bad water or food, or malnourishment, but the cause in the statistics will be some specific disease.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I and not a 2 month old child or a 90 year old man.
Very few of those have any chance of doing any serious damage to MY body, and most have treatments, and most are not prevalent.
SO yes, I will take a .3% chance that I permanently injure or kill myself, instead of a mystery chance on something (plus getting a dozen injections, plus taking time out of my day.). It is a more efficient use of risk than jaywalking to save 5 minutes.
Do I recommend no one take vaccines, no. But I am a healthy, young, moderately knowledgeable, person who does not even spend time around other people 99.9% of the time and who lives a mile from my nearest neighbour.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you are against vaccines, but you admit that you never put any good effort to find out more about them....
Comment has been collapsed.
Vaccines are definitely good. And I'm astonished at how you can present an opinion by admitting you took no time on informing yourself.
Most of the things you are vaccinated against (or people, generally speaking) are dangerous viruses (In fact almost any pathogenic virus or bacteria is able to kill you given the right circumstances) Anyways, and talking about mercury. There's more methylmercury on tuna or iridescent shark than on vaccines. Way more.
Also the metallic form of mercury is rather safe to eat (not inhale though, that's lethal) the organic thing is what's dangerous when ingested.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I never put in any effort to find out (about vaccines)."
"There are hardly even any vaccines for even slighty dangerous viruses."
"I would rather just be sick for a day then take some mystery shot I know nothing about"
Okay, I'm sure we all believe you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unless you are some kind of a field expert you probably don't. I'm a soon to be Pharmacist with a 5 year degree covering many of the fields related to vaccines.
Also I have no ironclad opinions at all. And you stated clearly you had no knowledge.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm fine with vaccinations. I don't know much about what they are, apart from the fact that they have a live virus (correct me if I'm wrong). Around where I live its pretty safe to get a vaccine so I don't usually worry about it going wrong. If I was in a poorer area I might be concerned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, usually a live, but weakened version of the virus. The first rudimentary vaccine actually used a form of cowpox, a generally nonfatal virus, to prevent smallpox. While the virus itself is not the one that causes smallpox, it was related enough that the antibodies produced would also bind to smallpox, making the subjects immune to that disease as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well considering theyve found live virus within vaccines that were distributed for the swine flu a few years ago im going with the argument that they are not always safe, and pharmaceutical companies have a lot to gain by being dishonest. Im not relating this to your reference to a plot to rule us all because that notion is rather silly, but greed is a real thing and its a lot more common than some realize. What are a few lives in the name of profit, this is a real ideal to some of the richest people/corporations in the world, hell just watch the US government bomb the hell out of millions for oil etc and they are supposed to be for the people by the people, not even a true private interest group. A good example of a situation that was utterly disgusting was when some doctors in Ontario were charged with intentionally infecting patients with HIV after being given incentives for doing so by an american pharmaceutical company rep, the intention was to increase sales on meds for the disease, as if enough people dont have HIV already.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, you have no idea how vaccines work. Vaccines are medically weakened forms of the virus they're protecting against, so that the human body develops effective antibodies to quickly take care of the infection should it actually appear. Hence why for some you have to get multiple shots months apart for the vaccine to work (depending on the vaccine). This is also why sometimes you might have a few mild symptoms, usually like the flu, after getting a vaccination shot.
As for not liking big-pharma, I can agree with you there. However vaccinations are a terrible example of them being greedy, since the history of vaccines have mostly been a push for a societal good (most of the vaccine diseases were dangerous/deadly to children after all) and heavily subsidized by the government.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, they don't all contain live viruses, but your point still stands. gamer84 certainly sounds like he doesn't know a single thing about vaccines.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly anyone that thinks vaccines are bad for you really doesn't understand basic science.
Also I haven't avoided getting shots since I was in elementary school, they really aren't bad at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's see...
As usual, somewhere in the middle is where I stand.
Pros - They can prevent some truly nasty diseases. Their original intent was nothing but positive. Anti-vax proselytizers that claim that polio and smallpox were diseases that would've solved themselves are revisionist historians with an inability to accept facts.
Cons - Lately, they have become a profit-pushing machine. Vaccines for HPV and Varicella (HELLO potential shingles during pregnancy in a zero-long-term-efficacy vaccine) are at least borderline ridiculous, and should never be required by law. There is almost certainly a money grab involved in regard to every vaccine under the sun being administered for school-aged children. Any medical "professional" trying to force a Hep B vaccine on a newborn with no family history of Hep should be slapped in the face and forced to eat rancid beets for dinner. That's some seriously stupid shit.
TL;DR: Some vaccines are very good in preventing horrible diseases, while some are big pharma lobbyist money grabs. Welcome to real life in the middle, fighting off the for-profit politicians on one side and the insane conspiracy theorists on the other.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Any medical "professional" trying to force a Hep B vaccine on a newborn with no family history of Hep should be slapped in the face and forced to eat rancid beets for dinner. That's some seriously stupid shit."
Uh, Hepatitis B is most often transmitted through open wounds. It has almost nothing to do with family history.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. I meant family actively carrying Hep B. It's a blood-borne illness. Yet most major hospitals try and force it upon newborns MINUTES after birth. Unless there is an immediate family member with the disease, then it is ludicrous to try and vaccinate a minutes-old infant for the disease.
Vaccines are overall a good thing. But there need to be MAJOR policy changes involved in how they are administered. And there needs to be far more flexibility, reason, and choice for parents in regard to childhood vaccinations. And far less lobbying and mandatory administration of vaccines that have not been tested for long-term efficacy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vaccines might be in some fringe cases money grab, but something that prevents diseases (and sales of these tasty, expensive medicines) from occurring at all is a terrible money making mechanism for big pharma.
And your point about school-aged children is complete, ridiculous nonsense. Look up 'herd immunity' - vaccinating as many people as you can to shield these who can't is the fraking point! :|
Comment has been collapsed.
No. No it's not.
I think you misunderstand my point, which is two-fold. One is that there is no need to rush many of these vaccinations, as outlined by my Hep B example above. Why in the world would a newborn infant, hours old, be subjected to a vaccination when their immune system has just been introduced to the outside world and whose parents or other immediate family members don't pose a threat from a blood-borne disease?
And secondly, every person has different reactions to different things being injected into their body. e.g. I'm allergic to penicillin and iodine. Many suggested vax schedules are for the doctor's (and sometimes parents') convenience. This isn't new. It's whey they wake people up at 4am at some hospitals to do vitals and testing. Not about the patient, it's about the doctors/institutions. And it's entirely unacceptable. Even now, parents are often shamed into having their kids pumped full of multiple vaccines. Has happened to me. We had our own schedule based on a ton of research on both the diseases and the vaccines themselves. Our doctor's office was compliant, but not without some pushback. That's unacceptable. Also not unusual in the medical community in the U.S., which is still seen in some sort of halo, when they are providing a service just like anyone else you hire. They should be treating patients as clients, and not as cattle. But that's another rant...
My take is that children should be given vaccines for highly communicable, highly fatal diseases first. I believe that all vaccinations should be separate administrations, and not combined. I believe that multiple vaccinations should not be given at once unless all of them have already been administered and found to be safe in the individual child. And I believe long-term testing should be done on the efficacy of new vaccines to make sure they are effective long-term and not a money grab that will be detrimental to folks later. I am particularly bothered by the varicella vax right now, as it has NOT been tested long term. Is there a chance that lifelong boosters will be required to prevent shingles later? We don't yet know. There are similar problems with HPV vaccines. I don't find that acceptable. Yet those vaccines were nearly instantly legislated as law when they were introduced, instead of being voluntary programs until proven.
I'm acutely aware of herd immunity is. Where was it that I said that children should not be vaccinated above? I made no such statement or even intimation. Your defensiveness is odd. I have many friends who are no-vaxers, and I don't agree with them. They are gaming the system...for now. Please pull back and read the full intent (and content) of my posts. I'm calling for a measured and patient-centric approach to administration of long-running vaccines, and a longer waiting period for making new vaccines compulsory.
As my very first post says, I believe that vaccines for big killers and long-running vaccines with the same formula are a godsend. But I also know that our political heroes and big pharma are in bed, and care not a whit for our children or us. There is a middle ground here of cautious skepticism for pharma and legal compulsion. But I don't believe we should all just cease vaccinating our kids, either.
Comment has been collapsed.
HRIWY-0L322-804DK
The above won't hurt you unless you skipped out on the last round of shots at school. :P Otherwise, Steamcoditis is a very bad thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I highly recommend you read up on these theories because they are not completely unwarranted. link to get you started another read containing multiple links Even if you don't believe it I think you should at least read the research before discarding it as bs.
Comment has been collapsed.
The aids origin is very complex and shrouded in mystery almost, honestly you will be reading for a while and might end up at the point I got at, which is holy crap which of these stories/information is correct.
Its ridiculous...
Good luck though, I got information overload two weeks in of researching(hours a day)...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I don't think that vaccines are used as secret ways to brainwash or neutralize us. If it is true it would be much easier to put stuff in our water at any rate, same effect, it enters our body and as water is gets carried all over it.
We do have to put our trust in the doctor and the guys developing the vaccine. Just as any medical drug or procedure can go wrong so can a vaccine. I mean they don't have those small print warnings on packages or info leaflets just for show. Still I would believe that percentage is quite small, I am sure at least some people would speak up if a vaccine caused them to develop any side effects. So based on the amount of vaccines done I would believe the rate at which it is harmful is small. Besides history has shown that certain diseases have been wiped out thanks to vaccines. At any rate just as I am willing to sign a "I am liable to die" agreement every time I get anesthesia just to relieve pain of operations I risk getting a bad vaccine for the benefit of promised immunity. So far so good.
I do think there is at least some conflict of interest. Big corporations might not have the greatest will to develop or put money into research against their main product of income. So I always liked the saying that cancer would of been gone long time ago if corporations chipped in but many earn quite well from these operations so from a business side it would be pure stupidity and suicide to invest in something that would bring your company down. Just as oil companies lobby against electric cars on some scale pointing out shortcomings of the technology instead of helping to develop it, I would guess medical companies do the same. We fight wars and kill each other, I am sure some influential people wouldn't even flinch if they had to decide if more money in the long run or less dead people. Hey more money for me and people die every day anyway right?
I do hate how some people are too reliant of drugs though. People eat some of those pills like candy. Oh my head aches a little? Pills! Oh my foot aches? Pills here! You do know you develop resistance towards good drugs also?
AWESOME ACTION OF IMMUNE SYSTEM FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT FOR US RIGHT HERE :D
It's a white bloodcell imprisoning yeast, marked with green. You go white bloodcell!
edit: Damn Wikipedia binge. Now I know that dead white bloodcells are partly the material that pus is made off. So remember kids! Next time pus comes out of your wound they are dead bodies of your immune system fighters.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vaccines are incredibly rigorously tested, moreso than a lot of other drugs. The reason being that the purpose of a vaccine is usually to eradicate a disease on the whole, and therefore needs to be administered to as many people in the populace as possible in order for it to be effective. And we keep research and keep track of medicines after they're out, particularly vaccines since they're almost always subsidized by the government(s), and haven't recorded people getting sick/dying from a "bad vaccine". Basically, a "bad vaccine" would be, at worst, one that is wholly ineffective in the long-term at preventing the disease in yourself and others, and the out of pocket cost is unreasonably high.
I have the same distrust of big corporations, but the cancer example is a terrible one. Cancer is far from a monolithic disease; there are literally thousands of different kinds of cancer for every different part of the body you can get it, and it can be different based on the individual and their genome, and there are literally millions of different things thought to cause cancers. The best we can do when it comes to vaccines is target specific cancers we know for a fact are caused by specific bacteria/infections, such as the HPV vaccine that targets one version of HPV that is well-known to create cervical cancer in women.
e: and yeah about over-medicating, but the worst case of becoming too reliant on drugs has to be antibiotics. We have major problems now because of overuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I was going by the one guy who claimed a vaccine had a live, non "neutered" virus in it. I have not heard of any cases where it has caused any long term harm besides a small cold. I think some people might get a little more sick, well besides the conspiracy theorists of course, they see a whole world of harm coming from vaccines. So yes you are right that a "bad vaccine" is unlikely to happen.
I have not actively researched cancers so I wouldn't know anything about them. I did think they were basically the same disease that caused cells to multiply without any stopping point and always thought that if you found a cause it would be a one-hit-kill for all types of tumors. So I kind of don't get it. There are a lot of different causes that attacks our cell reproduction and we call them cancer or has cancer evolved to use different ways to get into our body. I don't get it. I guess I could read Wikipedia but I don't want to.
Come here pardner, u som kind of those doctor fellows wi keep hiering about? Golly yous souund so smart as thi say.
Comment has been collapsed.
You do know there are such thing as infectious diseases, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
You know there are people carrying concealed weapons, right? So we all need to be wearing a bulletproof vest 'just in case'. You can err on the side of overcaution or you can be unprepared and die. But I'm not sure how you go outside knowing that you could catch something that there was no vaccination for. I ordered a bubble to live out my life in just in case, and only now can I truly be safe from infectious diseases. Laugh all you will, but when you die from an unknown disease I'll be here with one less entry standing between me and winning giveaways, sucka!
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would it be? I'll simply try to force my views in an unnecessary aggressive way into people. I mean, debate. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it depends on the vaccine. The ones that are tried and true and we've been using since most adults were little kids, those are proven to be effective and safe.
Some of the newer ones, like HPV and the flu shot? Not so sure on those. Flu shot seems to have various statistics showing that it is actually worth the potential drawbacks. HPV is definitely looking not worth it.
I do feel that no person should be forced to vaccinate themselves or their kids or should be guilted into having to do so, and this even includes health care professionals. Please do explain to me how a vaccine is going to stop someone from transmitting germs that were picked up from touching something? The vaccine only stops that person from getting sick (and even that is questionable with the mixed results of studies), it doesn't stop them from being able to pick up the virus and transmit it to others if they fail to wash their hands. If they do get sick then they should be taking off work until they get better and they definitely should be washing their hands before touching equipment that will touch a patient.
Personally, I think the fact that many health care professionals won't touch the flu shot and some others without being forced to is a very telling thing about how effective and safe they are.
Comment has been collapsed.
HPV vaccine only prevents some forms of HPV, so it's still quite possible to get it even with the vaccine. It has huge risks to it, nasty side effects, and hasn't even been proven safe and effective or even necessary. And with the number of stories coming up about very dangerous side effects that have left healthy young women crippled or even dead, it doesn't seem worth the risk.
On top of that, HPV is easily prevented with being smart and using protection and/or being careful who you have sex with. I'm in my 30s, and that's how my generation prevented it and it worked for many of us just fine.
And I did look up herd immunity, but it does specifically state that it isn't contact immunity, and how the flu tends to be passed along is from contact with the virus, as in you touch something an infected person does and then touch your eyes or mouth without washing your hands. And like I stated, flu vaccine is questionable on efficacy, many studies are showing that it barely even prevents the flu, in some people actually causes it and new studies are showing that it changes our antibodies in such a way to make people who are vaccinated susceptible to more dangerous forms of the flu that are far more likely to be fatal. Sorry, but the flu vaccine needs a lot more study before it is considered safe and effective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Different companies' HPV vaccines may cover different HPV types. Gardasil, which is the most well known now in the US, I think covers four types ... two of which are known to lead to cancer. Some of the other types are more cosmetic, like genital warts, or just don't really do anything (that we know of). The focus is really addressing the nastier variants that cause cancer.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you wouldn't have supported mandatory smallpox vaccination in the past?
Comment has been collapsed.
You are missing a point. That point is called Public Health.
Comment has been collapsed.
Public Health should not make a point of forcing itself onto people. It should make a point of educating those about the risks of not taking the medication needed to cure the illness. It's a simple matter of opinion/misinformation that keeps people from getting inoculated.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm all for informed consent. It's true that it's ethically ill to force people to receive treatment against their will and I'm all for educationg.
Having said that, misinformation should be prosecuted.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a difference between making an educated statement, and purposefully spreading incorrect or uneducated information. Nature is constantly changing the way it works. The same goes for the human condition. If one day a virus is cured, and the next "oops" it evolves and becomes more deadly, it is not the scientists fault. It's simply a matter of nature working to correct itself. You need to remember that "Mother Nature" is the most sadistic, and successful, serial killer of all time. We may cure a disease tomorrow, but she'll just make a new, deadlier type later in the timeline. Either that, or we will.
Comment has been collapsed.
We must kill nature!
Its so simple, why didn't they think of it! :-D
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't mean at any point scientifically based disgression and discussion. I mean simply spreading bullshit around.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to shoot yourself, by all means, go ahead. On the other hand, speeding endangers many people. I understand the point you are trying to make with your petty sarcasm, but it is a moot one. If there was a law that forced the elderly to be euthanized without choice to save public taxes by cutting social security and medicaid, and to further increase the well being and leisurely living of the masses, would you support it, no matter how immoral it was? It is unjustifiable to do something to someone that they would never do to themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
You could make the same argument for not getting a vaccination - it endangers many other people.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not true at all. Vaccines are not 100% effective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, Yes, Yes, and No.
I get the whatever vaccines my doc suggests, and usually get the flu shot every year. And this is why. TL;DR: Vaccines don't just help keep YOU from getting sick, it helps others (like those who are allergic to the vaccine or have compromised immune systems) too.
Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy should both be in prison. I have no idea how many kids have died from easily preventable illnesses because of those two, but it's a number greater than 0.
Comment has been collapsed.
All they did was state their opinion, such as you are doing right now. They had no physical control over the parents or doctors of these children. It's the parents and doctors you should be blaming. Your statement is akin to saying "Let's throw the Pope and every Christian and Catholic Priest in prison because their religion and followers caused mass murders, wars, and genocides." Blame the sheep. None of those things would've happened if those people could've made up their own damn minds.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a line between stating an opinion and telling bullshit with no evidence whatsoever. The latter should be punished because creates false alarms, unnecessary worries and makes people do the wrong decisions.
Try to scream in an airport that some random guy has a bomb, then tell officers that you were just stating an opinion and see what happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
To correct you, there is no line. They are one in the same. For example, you may be religious, and your opinion is that God exists. No matter what you may say, there is no factual evidence of this. Many people share your opinion, and can either do great or horrible things. It all depends on what you choose to do with your opinion, and how others perceive your actions based on them. The same goes for this instance with the vaccines. They may have not had any factual evidence of their claims, but they still believed. They have the right to state their opinions, just like everyone else. As I said before, it is up to the people to decide for themselves what they think. If they choose to follow another person's opinion, you cannot rightfully blame the original opinion. Case in point: the Crusades and the Inquisitions could have been avoided if people had not followed those that orchestrated them. Street-side doomsayers are regarded as mentally ill, even by the church faithful, though they speak of the same end times, yet they believe in their priest's words, though they are verbatim to the doomsayer's. In the end, it all depends on the listener, and how they personally view the person speaking. You can blame the original speaker all you want, but the true fault lies with the followers.
Comment has been collapsed.
No , we 're talking about fanaticism here , which is dangerous as demonstrated by wars " in the name of god" ( yeah, sure) . Of course it all depends by the
messenger and not the message itself, but the mass entity known as " people" is easily influenced by the words of few as long as is said by those people who
represent an image or an ideal. In other words, people itself believe not the right thing , but the thing they want to hear, especially if it 's said by someone
who is perceived as " the truth " . Think at all those mass suicides led by preachers .
I don't know if i am clear here.
On the other side, listeners actually are guilty of not thinking with their own head, but you simply cannot expect everyone to think rational, because they are maybe ignorant, dishonest or just plain stupid. Either way, people can't make the right decisions and that's why democracy will never work. That's also why we let few experts to decide for us, in medical aspects, security and about everything we can't do by ourselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vaccination is mandatory by law in Singapore.
Yes. Yes.
Yes. I learn in biology a little bit about the mechanism behind vaccination (it's something about introducing dead pathogens into the human body to induce the formation of the antibodies against the pathogens, thereby providing immunity against that specie of pathogens)
No. Vaccinations help save many many lives..if they constitute an evil scheme to rule us all it would have been done long ago
EDIT: Thanks for skyrim ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I keep myself up to date on things like TDaP, and would unhesitatingly vaccinate a child with that and MMR.
I'm not sold on the chicken pox vaccine, because of the tendency to let boosters slip as you get older. Chicken pox as an adult is generally a lot worse than as a kid, and it seems to me the risk of forgetting a booster as an adult and getting sick is a lot higher long term than the risk of adverse effects to a child.
Hep B vaccine for babies/children seems a bit early to me. I had it in college for clinicals, reacted pretty poorly; not sure I'd want to try it for a kid. Once they're older and able to understand the risks, then if they want it I'd make it happen. Same for HPV.
Way I see it there's pros and cons to both of those, and once a kid is old enough to understand, they can decide how much risk they're willing to take. I don't see it as a moral issue. Anyone can be raped. Anyone can be assaulted or in an accident. As hardy as Hep B is, I'm actually somewhat surprised there aren't more indirect transmissions...but neither of those are decisions I'd make for someone else without their input.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here chickenpox vaccine is only administrated at 14 y/o if you haven't had it as a child.
Comment has been collapsed.
76 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by Reidor
765 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by grimfandango8888
0 Comments - Created 2 hours ago by PaganFears
43 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Qnemes
70 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by orono
12 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by orono
17 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by SeaGoblin
77 Comments - Last post 11 seconds ago by Eiion
0 Comments - Created 13 seconds ago by abc6366
0 Comments - Created 10 minutes ago by antidaz
2,166 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by Xeradan
118 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by Kappaking
416 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by Kappaking
28 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by Carenard
Hello everyone. Today's topic is vaccination. I'll try a different approach to the discussion today and I will let you do the talking.
Have you been vaccinated? Would you vaccinate your children?
Do you understand how vaccines work and what's their purpose? Do you think that vaccinations are part of some plot to rule us all?
Go ahead, speak your minds, feel free to adress anything related to those I might have forgotten. I'll have a look at them in a while and we might be able to start a debate or something.
Cheers.
Comment has been collapsed.