Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Should People Who Refuse Vaccines Pay A Price?

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805

    Should People Who Refuse Vaccines Pay A Price?

    [URL="http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138476664/should-people-who-refuse-vaccines-pay-a-price"]www.npr.org[/URL]


    [QUOTE]
    July 18, 2011
    New Zealand is experiencing the largest outbreak of measles in over a decade. Public health officials there say the virus is spreading faster than they can quarantine the infected. In England and Wales, officials report more measles cases so far this year than in all of 2010. And in the U.S., the CDC reports 156 cases as of mid-June, the highest number in 15 years.

    Measles can be almost entirely eliminated by universal vaccination. But vaccination rates are down, because some people refuse the shots on philosophical or religious grounds. Others worry the injections are harmful, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

    Public health officials agree choosing not to vaccinate raises the risks for everybody. And David Ropeik, an author and instructor at Harvard University, argues it's time for those who refuse vaccines to face consequences.

    In a piece for the online forum The Big Think titled "Vaccines: Time For Society To Say Enough Is Enough," he offers a variety of possible ramifications for people who refuse vaccination, from higher health insurance premiums to restricted access to community resources.

    Ropeik tells NPR's Neal Conan that people who make the decision not to vaccinate themselves or their children seem not to realize the broader implications of their choices. They think the risk is limited to themselves and their children.

    But Ropeik says that's not the case. "Of the 156 measles cases in the United States last year, 1 in 5 were people who were vaccinated, but the immunity had worn off or they hadn't had their booster." Additionally, the vaccines don't work for some people.

    "We live in a society; we are all rowing in the boat together," Ropeik points out. "I'm not calling for more big government. I'm just calling for government to do what it always does when we can't protect ourselves as individuals."
    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,092
    I believe certain vaccines should be all but mandatory, provided they are administered in a safe and thoughtful manner. If it is deemed a health necessity (governmental decision) that people receive X vaccine, there cannot be a profit motive attached to how that vaccine is administered, e.g. multi-dose vials containing preservatives instead of single-dose vials without.

    Additionally, if the vaccines are to be researched, manufactured, marketed and sold by private companies, those same companies should bear the burden of consequence when it comes to litigation involving their product. Presently, no vaccine manufacturer in the US can be sued for any ill health effects that result from one of their products. Not. One.

    The CDC currently recommends 36 vaccinations for a child. That is more than any other country in the world and yet infant morbidity for the US ranks near the bottom and children with a serious allergy is ~7%. I would like to see the number of vaccines paired back a bit, especially for the more extraneous of the bunch. If a woman is tested prenatally in this country to determine if they are a Hepatitis B carrier, why make the vaccine all but mandatory in the first three days of life for every baby? The varicella (chicken pox) vaccine significantly increases the chance that an adult will contract shingles, usually at an advanced age when it is more of a health risk than catching chicken pox as a child. Lastly, the rotovirus vaccine was pushed by an unscrupulous doctor under the premise that it would save hospitals from the burden of "thousands of otherwise unnecessary" emergency room visits. For those of you that don't know, rotovirus is also known as the squirts, which can be deadly in under-developed countries, which the US is not.

    I would like to see MMR, Hib, DTaP remain. Maybe add Hep B when the kids is more than a few days old, how about 2? Utilize adjuvants that are less harmful than aluminum. To better enhance confidence, in addition to what I recommended, some forthrightness would be nice, too. Instead of saying that all these ingredients are in the air, water etc, how about pointing out the fact that doesn't mean you are injecting them into your bloodstream and bypassing the body's natural defenses when you normally encounter them as well? Perhaps admit that, since you've never studied the schedule as a whole, you really don't know what kind of affect they have on some people when given en masse?
    Last edited by Jetworks; 07-19-2011 at 06:14 PM. Reason: left out "vaccine" manufacturer

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4063936]I believe certain vaccines should be all but mandatory, provided they are administered in a safe and thoughtful manner. If it is deemed a health necessity (governmental decision) that people receive X vaccine, there cannot be a profit motive attached to how that vaccine is administered, e.g. multi-dose vials containing preservatives instead of single-dose vials without.

    Additionally, if the vaccines are to be researched, manufactured, marketed and sold by private companies, those same companies should bear the burden of consequence when it comes to litigation involving their product. Presently, no manufacturer in the US can be sued for any ill health effects that result from one of their products. Not. One.

    The CDC currently recommends 36 vaccinations for a child. That is more than any other country in the world and yet infant morbidity for the US ranks near the bottom and children with a serious allergy is ~7%. I would like to see the number of vaccines paired back a bit, especially for the more extraneous of the bunch. If a woman is tested prenatally in this country to determine if they are a Hepatitis B carrier, why make the vaccine all but mandatory in the first three days of life for every baby? The varicella (chicken pox) vaccine significantly increases the chance that an adult will contract shingles, usually at an advanced age when it is more of a health risk than catching chicken pox as a child. Lastly, the rotovirus vaccine was pushed by an unscrupulous doctor under the premise that it would save hospitals from the burden of "thousands of otherwise unnecessary" emergency room visits. For those of you that don't know, rotovirus is also known as the squirts, which can be deadly in under-developed countries, which the US is not.

    I would like to see MMR, Hib, DTaP remain. Maybe add Hep B when the kids is more than a few days old, how about 2? Utilize adjuvants that are less harmful than aluminum. To better enhance confidence, in addition to what I recommended, some forthrightness would be nice, too. Instead of saying that all these ingredients are in the air, water etc, how about pointing out the fact that doesn't mean you are injecting them into your bloodstream and bypassing the body's natural defenses when you normally encounter them as well? Perhaps admit that, since you've never studied the schedule as a whole, you really don't know what kind of affect they have on some people when given en masse?[/QUOTE]

    +1

    I had my kids doctors space out the vaccinations. I was surprised that the doctor was very willing to work with me. We just brought the kids in once a month for a couple vaccinations instead of giving the poor kids 10 at the same time.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4063944]+1

    I had my kids doctors space out the vaccinations. I was surprised that the doctor was very willing to work with me. We just brought the kids in once a month for a couple vaccinations instead of giving the poor kids 10 at the same time.[/QUOTE]

    I figured that was standard. My kid is three months and he gets some each visit (some visits none). never even discussed, doc just said here is the plan.

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    [URL="http://bigthink.com/ideas/39328"]http://bigthink.com/ideas/39328[/URL]

    The article I should have posted in the first place.




    [QUOTE]
    What does society do when one person’s behavior puts the greater community at risk? That’s a no-brainer, right? We make them stop. We pass laws, or impose economic rules, or find other way to discourage individual behaviors that threaten the greater common good. You don’t get to drive drunk. You don’t get to smoke in public places. You don’t even get to leave your house if you catch some particularly infectious disease.

    Then what should we do about people who decline vaccination for themselves or their children, and put the greater public at risk by fueling the resurgence of nearly eradicated diseases? Isn’t this the same thing, one person’s perception of risk producing behaviors that put others at risk? Of course it is. Isn’t it time for society to say that in the greater public interest, we need to regulate the risk created by the fear of vaccines? Yes. It is.

    The evidence is overwhelming that declining vaccination rates are contributing to outbreaks of disease. Take just one example, measles. The WHO reports outbreaks in many countries where vaccination rates have gone down: As of June - France (12,699 cases in 2011, more than in all of 2010 already, including six deaths), Spain (2,261), Italy (1,500), Germany (1,193, one death), Switzerland (580), Romania, Belgium, Denmark, and Turkey. There have already been 550 measles cases in England and Wales this year compared with 33 all of last year.

    The U.S. has seen 156 cases as of mid-June, compared to a total of 56 cases per year from 2001-2008. The CDC has an emergency health advisory out for measles, a disease officially declared eradicated in the United States in 2000.

    Small numbers, you say? True, but consider their cost (beyond the suffering of the patients). Measles is ferociously infectious, and potentially deadly to the young or old or people with weakened immune systems, so it requires an intense response from the medical and public health communities. Consider just one small outbreak: [B]When a woman from Switzerland who had not been vaccinated for measles visited Tucson and became symptomatic, she went in to a local hospital for medical attention and three months later at least 14 people, including seven kids, had gotten measles. Seven of the victims caught the disease while visiting health care facilities. Four people had to be hospitalized. The outbreak cost two local hospitals a total of nearly $800,000, and the state and local health departments tens of thousands more, to track down the cases, quarantine and treat the sick, and notify the thousands of people who might have been exposed[/B].

    Fueling the spread? None of the victims had been vaccinated, and, remarkably, 25% of the workers in the health care facilities where the patients were treated had no immunity to measles (either they had not been vaccinated or the antibodies from an earlier vaccination could no longer be detected in their blood stream.) One health care worker got the disease, and gave it to two other people.

    [B]That’s just one example of the growing threat to public health caused by people worried that vaccines will cause autism and other harms, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary[/B]. In many places, particularly in affluent, liberal, educated communities (Boulder, San Diego), unvaccinated people are catching diseases that vaccines can prevent, like measles, whooping cough, and meningitis. In 2010 as California suffered its worst whooping cough outbreak in more than 60 years (more than 9,000 cases, 10 infant deaths), Marin County, one of the richest and most educated areas in California, had one of the lowest rates of vaccination statewide and the second highest rate of whopping cough. A 2008 study in Michigan found that areas with “exemption clusters” of parents who didn’t vaccinate their kids were three times more likely to have outbreaks of whooping cough than where vaccination rates matched the state average.

    And this is a risk to far more people than just those who have opted out of vaccination. People are getting sick who have been vaccinated but the vaccine either doesn’t work or has weakened. (Of the 156 measles victims in the U.S. as of June, nearly one in five of them had been vaccinated but the vaccine didn’t work, or had weakened.) [B]Infants too young to be vaccinated are getting sick, and some of them are dying, when exposed to diseases in communities where ‘herd immunity’ has fallen too low to keep the spread of the disease in check. [/B]Unvaccinated people are getting sick and visiting doctor’s offices or hospitals seeking treatment, raising the risk to anyone sharing those facilities, costing the health care system millions of dollars in avoidable expense, and costing local and state government (that’s taxpayer money, yours and mine) millions more as they try to chase down each outbreak and bring it under control, to protect the public’s health. Your health, and mine. (A recent economic analysis found that “…vaccination of each U.S. birth cohort with the current childhood immunization schedule prevents approximately 42,000 deaths and 20 million cases of disease, with net savings of nearly $14 billion in direct costs and $69 billion in total societal costs.

    It is time to act in the face of this threat. This is not to deny the feelings of those who fear vaccines, or denigrate those fears as irrational, as many in the health care and vaccine communities too readily do. In fact, this is to recognize and respect the honest and powerfully deep roots of those fears, and the fact that no amount of communication or dialogue or reasoning can make people really worried about vaccines, stop worrying. Risk perception is ultimately subjective, a combination of the facts and how those facts feel. Sometimes our fears just don’t match the facts, and the gap between our feelings and the evidence, what I call “The Perception Gap”, produces real risks all by itself, risks which need to be managed the same way society tries to manage myriad other threats to public health from which we can’t protect ourselves as individuals.

    There are many potential solutions, each fraught with pros and cons and details that require study and careful thought and open democratic discussion.

    [B]-- Perhaps it should be harder to opt out of vaccination. (Twenty-one states allow parents to decline vaccination of their children simply for “philosophical” reasons. 48 allow a religious exemption but few demand documentation from parents to support claims that their faith precludes vaccination.)

    -- Perhaps there should be higher health care/insurance costs for unvaccinated people.

    -- Or we could do it in a positive way, with reduced health care/insurance costs for people who do get vaccinated, ‘healthy behavior’ discounts paid for by what society saves by avoiding the spread of disease.

    -- There could be restrictions on the community/social facilities unvaccinated people can use, or limits on the social activities in which they can participate, like lengthy school trips for kids, etc.

    -- Here’s an idea; vaccination, including boosters, should be required of anyone who wants to work in health care.[/B]

    This is not about creating more government to intrude further into our lives. There is already too much of that.[B] This is about calling on government to do what it’s there for in the first place, to protect us from the actions of others when we can’t protect ourselves as individuals[/B]. We do this in countless ways already. It is appropriate, and urgent, that we act to protect ourselves from those whose choices about vaccines are putting the rest of us at risk, and do the same thing society always does whenever one person’s behavior endangers the greater community. We make them stop.
    [/QUOTE]

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064108]That’s just one example of the growing threat to public health caused by people worried that vaccines will cause autism and other harms, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary...[/QUOTE]

    LMFAO!!

    "Overwhelming evidence" that comes from the same people who manufacture the vaccines.

    Listen, I know the paranoia may be overblown....but no matter how people try to reconcile it, you're still injecting mercury (Themerisol) into a child. "Studies" showed years ago that smoking was completely harmless. Who funded those studies? Tobacco companies.

    So forgive me if I don't pout much stock into what pharmaceutical companies say about their "product".


    And another. I love how Docs try pushing fluoride on babies.

    Doctor: "Here. Give your 1 month old fluoride drops!"
    Me: "Ummm... fluoride is good. But isn't too much flouride bad?"
    Doctor: "Yes. Too much fluoride is very very bad. Worse than no fluoride at all"
    Me: "Soooo...how did you come up with the dosage amount for my child?"
    Doctor: "We give everyone the same amount"
    Me: "Our water is fluoridated and we feed our baby formula."
    Doctor: "Oh yeah. You don't need the fluoride drops then."
    Me: "Shouldn't you have asked me that question beforehand."
    Doctor: "Probably. lololololololzzzzzzz"
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 07-19-2011 at 07:24 PM.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064119]LMFAO!!

    "Overwhelming evidence" that comes from the same people who manufacture the vaccines.

    Listen, I know the paranoia may be overblown....but no matter how people try to reconcile it, you're still injecting mercury (Themerisol) into a child. "Studies" showed years ago that smoking was completely harmless. Who funded those studies? Tobacco companies.[/QUOTE]

    from what I understand that stuff is no longer used in the common vaccines but it was used in H1N1 because of "the rush to market" that was caused by that flu




    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064119]
    So forgive me if I don't pout much stock into what pharmaceutical companies say about their "product".


    And...what about anti-biotics. Great job! Let's give EVERYONE anti-biotics when they have the sniffles and doubly ensure that manking helps produce a super-cold that is immune to medicine and kills like the Spanish Flu. We salute you, real profit driven men of genius!!![/QUOTE]



    Anti-biotics were over used for many reasons. The main one being pressure from parents to "give my kid a pill so he will get better". Maybe that was fostered by big pharma but that is a different argument and hard to prove.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064125]from what I understand that stuff is no longer used in the common vaccines but it was used in H1N1 because of "the rush to market" that was caused by that flu[/QUOTE]

    They were "asked" not to use it and they "said" they don't for the most part anymore.

    Either way....people DO NOT need to receive 30 vaccinations. We're turning ourselves into a planet of complete immuno-wussies who need to take a week off for a cold. It's f*cking ridiculous.

    Chicken Pox? Are you freaking serious?!? Do we really need to vaccinate kids against something that causes mild itching, 2-3 scars and a week off of school? And who told us we "need" this? The same people who make $$$ off of the vaccine?

    Complete. Utter. BS.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064129]They were "asked" not to use it and they "said" they don't for the most part anymore.

    Either way....people DO NOT need to receive 30 vaccinations. We're turning ourselves into a planet of complete immuno-wussies who need to take a week off for a cold. It's f*cking ridiculous.

    Chicken Pox? Are you freaking serious?!? Do we really need to vaccinate kids against something that causes mild itching, 2-3 scars and a week off of school? And who told us we "need" this? The same people who make $$$ off of the vaccine?

    Complete. Utter. BS.[/QUOTE]

    You miss the good old days of most people taking the dirt nap before the hit 60?

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,092
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064149]You miss the good old days of most people taking the dirt nap before the hit 60?[/QUOTE]

    I fail to see what you are saying here. Many vaccines have a finite period of protection for the most part and the vast majority of adults fail to either A) have their titers checked or B) get their booster shots. And last I checked, varicella was not a particularly lethal illness in this country.

    The numbers in the articles you quoted also fail to mention the much higher number of people who are killed or maimed every year by the same vaccines.

    Do you not see something inherently wrong, both ethically and lawfully, in forcing someone to put something into their own body "for the greater good" when the people saying it assume no liability whatsoever for their product? In the recent decision of the SCOTUS in the case of [I]Bruesewitz v. Wyeth[/I], it was ruled that vaccine manufacturers are exempt from any litigation that could result from an injury inflicted upon a person by their vaccine, even if there is evidence of a design defect or unforseen interaction. Think about that. The US government pushes a product for a multi-billion dollar private industry while shielding it from any litigation should it kill or injure anyone. That, to me, is Orwellian frightening.

    Now, if someone in your family does wind up injured or killed by a vaccine, there is a "Vaccine Court" which is overseen by Special Masters for Federal Claims. They will consult with HHS to determine if this injury/death was a "table injury", a known effect of a vaccine. From there an award will be determined and administered. The money itself is derived from taxes paid on the administering of....VACCINES! Nice, tight loop right there.

    Thimerosal is used in all multi-dose vials of flu shots, regardless of any "rush to market". Additionally, it is only necessary as a preservative in multi-dose vaccines lots. The reasoning for it's use is that utilizing single-dose vaccines is not cost-effective. And as I previously stated, if something is to be compulsory, the safety and efficacy of the product should be paramount to the cost. But yes, as PK stated, the manufacturers kindly said they voluntarily removed it after the FDA asked. Nicely. Of course, now they say it is still in some vaccines, but only in "trace amounts".

    As for the autism connection, you will continually hear how the question has been "asked and answered" and that numerous, large studies and consensus science says there is "no link between autism and [U]vaccines[/U]". Here is where the whole thing is falling apart. People actually read stuff nowadays. They see that the whole truth isn't being said in those statements, about how there have only been studies on the MMR and thimerosal, not on Hep B, DTaP, Hib, flu, varicella etc, or any combination of them. They see that the "large body of evidence" on thimerosal is largely based on data obtained by a Danish scientist who steered millions in CDC research monies to his university before absconding with a million or so for himself. The true statement is that these studies have looked at ONE vaccine and ONE ingredient. Last time I checked, ONE is not plural.

    Now, do I think vaccines are bad? Nope. Do I think they cause autism? Not wholly, no. But I do think there are too many given, too soon and for some people that results in serious health issues, likely due to an underlying, undiagnosed condition. The cliche is "nature loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger". For some, vaccines may be that trigger. The sad part is, those poor souls will never see justice carried against the gunman.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 07-19-2011 at 09:35 PM.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4064183]
    Do you not see something inherently wrong, both ethically and lawfully, in forcing someone to put something into their own body "for the greater good" when the people saying it assume no liability whatsoever for their product? [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm....pretty silent on that one, huh? '

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,192
    I have a massive problem with the government telling me what I have to inject into my body and the body of my kids. I have friends whose kids received a batch of immunizations and 3 days later developed autism. Friends, as in two different families.

    I got the measles vaccine and all my boosters I also got the measles at the age of 19 so I'm not so hot on how well it works I also did not die or have any other long term problems

    I also have Total Confidence that my government would never approve something that could later prove harmful. No politician would approve something for a drug comPany in exchange for a huge campaign donation

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,385
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064129]They were "asked" not to use it and they "said" they don't for the most part anymore.

    Either way....people DO NOT need to receive 30 vaccinations. We're turning ourselves into a planet of complete immuno-wussies who need to take a week off for a cold. It's f*cking ridiculous.

    Chicken Pox? Are you freaking serious?!? Do we really need to vaccinate kids against something that causes mild itching, 2-3 scars and a week off of school? And who told us we "need" this? The same people who make $$$ off of the vaccine?

    Complete. Utter. BS.[/QUOTE]

    Vaccines BOOST the immune system, they don't weaken them. Most vaccines have ZERO mercury anymore. That is old news.

    The chicken pox vaccine lessens the impact of chicken pox and more importantly is will help wipe the disease out and prevent shingles and severe cases of chicken pox.

    So you long for the days when people weren't immuno-wussies but were crippled with polio? You sir are a real humanitarian.

    Check table1 on ths link.
    [URL]http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228[/URL]

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,385
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064129]Do we really need to vaccinate kids against something that causes mild itching, 2-3 scars and a week off of school? And who told us we "need" this? The same people who make $$$ off of the vaccine?

    Complete. Utter. BS.[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]
    [B]The question[/B]

    What has been the effect of vaccination against [URL="http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/vaccineInfo/vaccine_detail.cfv?id=11"]chickenpox[/URL] on the number of deaths due to chickenpox in the United States?
    [B]The study[/B]

    Researchers analyzed data on deaths in the US due to chickenpox from the National Center for Health Statistics Multiple Cause of Death Mortality Data for 1990 through 2001. The study also examined whether the chickenpox infection was the cause of death or contributed to the cause of death—for example, the cause of death was because of a bacterial infection of chickenpox lesions.
    The number of deaths due to chickenpox was also calculated according to age, sex, race, ethnic background and birthplace. Preexisting conditions that increased the likelihood of severe chickenpox infection, complications of the disease and seasonal trends were also examined in this study.
    [B]The findings[/B]

    This study found that from 1990 through 2001, 1,465 death records listed chickenpox as the cause or a contributing cause of death. [B]Chickenpox-related deaths averaged 145 per year from 1990 through 1994 (before the vaccine was licensed) and declined to 66 per year from 1999 through 2001 (when the vaccine was being used).[/B]
    The decline in deaths due to chickenpox was noted in all age groups less than 50 years of age, but especially in children 1 to 4 years of age. Additionally, since vaccine introduction, racial and ethnic disparities in chickenpox mortality disappeared.
    [B]The relevance/bottom line[/B]

    The decline in the number of deaths due to chickenpox has coincided with the increased use of chickenpox vaccine in the United States.
    [/QUOTE]

    Sounds like chicken pox can be worse than just "


    for reference


    [QUOTE]
    [B]History of Measles and the Impact of the Measles Vaccine[/B]


    Prior to 1963, almost everyone got measles; it was an expected life event. Each year in the United States, there were approximately three to four million cases, and an average of 450 deaths. Epidemic cycles occurred every two to three years. More than half the population had measles by the time they were six years old, and 90 percent had the disease by the time they were 15 years old. However, after the measles vaccine became available, the number of measles cases dropped by 99 percent, and the epidemic cycles diminished drastically.
    [/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    [QUOTE=Trades;4064294]The chicken pox vaccine lessens the impact of chicken pox and more importantly is will help wipe the disease out and prevent shingles and severe cases of chicken pox. [/QUOTE]

    There's this really awesome way to build immunity to Chicken Pox that was created through millions of years of evolution. It's called getting chicken pox as a child.

    When a person normally contracts chicken pox...it's through the nose or mouth. The body will sense the virus and start the immune response. Then, the virus enters the lymphatic system where additional body defenses are triggered. Finally, the virus enters the bloodstream...after the body has had sufficient time to gear up for the infection and protect major organs from infection. Now...when you get a vaccine, you bypass the mucous membranes and the lymphatic system...something millions of years of evolution tried to avoid.

    [QUOTE]Chickenpox-related deaths averaged 145 per year from 1990 through 1994 (before the vaccine was licensed) and declined to 66 per year from 1999 through 2001 (when the vaccine was being used).[/QUOTE]

    OMG!! A whole 145 people a year?!?!? Let's vaccinate EVERYONE!!

    9,000 people die a year from swimming pools. Let's ban swimming pools!!!!!

    Most of the deaths, if not all, are in people who already have serious health problems. Imagine if the US would spend that much money to prevent 40 deaths per year from other any other cause.
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 07-20-2011 at 09:55 AM.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,092
    [QUOTE=Trades;4064294]Vaccines BOOST the immune system, they don't weaken them. Most vaccines have ZERO mercury anymore. That is old news.

    The chicken pox vaccine lessens the impact of chicken pox and more importantly is will help wipe the disease out and prevent shingles and severe cases of chicken pox.

    So you long for the days when people weren't immuno-wussies but were crippled with polio? You sir are a real humanitarian.

    Check table1 on ths link.
    [URL]http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Lots of wrong information in this post.

    First, vaccines do not "boost" the immune system, they trick the body's immune system into thinking it is being exposed to a disease and elicits an exaggerated immune response, thereby creating antibodies. There is evidence to suggest that vaccines in fact lessen the body's ability to respond to an "in the wild" version of what it has previously been vaccinated against, which leads me to...

    Varicella. It is a fact that getting vaccinated for chicken pox significantly increases the risk for getting shingles as you get older, and usually with a severe case, too. Additionally, it is estimated that as many as 4% of varicella vaccinations result in a serious adverse event such as encephalitis, pneumonia, anaphylaxis and seizure disorders (all of which can lead to death or severe, permanent injury). Funny how you always hear about child deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases, but never about the ones from the vaccines themselves, eh?

    Not saying that the polio vaccine should be eliminated, but you do realize that thousands have contracted vaccine associated paralytic polio outside of the US, right? Of course, that's because of that dollars & cents mentality of vaccinating. The chances of acquiring VAPP from the dead form of the vaccine is almost nil, but it costs more.

    Ironically, it was the polio vaccine that eventually led the government to enact the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to protect pharmaceutical companies from being sued out of existence for putting out a shoddy product. I'm pretty sure 2-3 vaccine manufacturers went out of business because of the live-attenuated polio vaccine. A guy in Staten Island just settled a couple of years ago after contracting polio from his daughter's diaper 30 years ago. No lie.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4064183]



    Do you not see something inherently wrong, both ethically and lawfully, in forcing someone to put something into their own body "for the greater good" when the people saying it assume no liability whatsoever for their product? .[/QUOTE]

    You obviously have greater knowledge on this subject than I do. But the government requiring all citizens to do something for "the greater good of all" is what governments do. We have all benefited from similar actions taken by our government in the past. I think the author of the article has a good idea, if folks want to opt out they need to pay a larger premium.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064368]...if folks want to opt out they need to pay a larger premium.[/QUOTE]

    You know who else should pay large premiums? People who refuse to have lasik eye surgery and wear glasses instead. Think about it. People who wear glasses are a danger to society at large. What if they break them while out somewhere and then have to drive home without their glasses on? They could kill countless people on our nation's highways.

    In fact, people with lower than 20/20 vision should be allowed to drive or operate any machinery of any sort. Lots of people who have to wear glasses decide to NOT pay extra for prescription sunglasses and choose to just drive w/o wearing glasses.

    That is extremely dangerous to the rest of us non-glasses wearing people. I think the government should ban them from driving altogether for the greater good....

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,192
    How about people who don't work out at least 4 days a week pay a higher premium? Everyone knows that working out decreases blood pressure, strengthens the heart, and makes you overall healthier.

    Everyone who eats fast food should pay higher premiums, that stuff is death.

    How about there is no way the government is telling me what I have to inject into my body. If my kid gets a batch of shots, and gets seriously ill, does the government pay me to make it better?

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    [QUOTE=chirorob;4064541]If my kid gets a batch of shots, and gets seriously ill, does the government pay me to make it better?[/QUOTE]

    Nope. In fact, the government made it harder for you to do ANYTHING about it. Wasn't that nice of them?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us