Thing is... whatever we do, people ARE going to die of something. At a certain point, you get too old to handle a flu. That's where most of the 53.000 deaths comes from. The rest consists of cancer patients, people with deficient immune systems, and other severely ill people. They are all at "Fortitude save or die", to put it in RPG terms, because general health is so good that you need to be weakened to die from a flu. Thus... it does not in any way follow that we should give EVERY PERSON a flu vaccine every year to provide them with herd immunity, not to mention it's a severely unlikely scenario to EVER reach herd immunity levels of vaccination. There are few countries today that could reach there indeed, if even Sweden can't do so anymore.
Vaccination is a good thing. It protects YOU from various dangerous diseases. To say that it protects the population, well, that's not really true anymore. If you want to get the shots, do so for you, not others.
There is a sharp difference between old, well-tested vaccines taken one to four times during childhood and used for dozens of years, and high-profit yearly flu shots. Every yearly flu vaccine is a new medical drug. Testing is highly accelerated to make sure the vaccine is ready for flu season. Cheap boosters like thiomersal are added to the mix, because the alternatives aren't profitable enough. Most reliable drugs have decades of use and testing behind them. It's not the area you want to take unnecessary risks in. If we MUST use barely-tested fast-track drugs, then the resulting profit should be big enough, wouldn't you agree? A week in bed, is that enough? No. Give it to those who WOULD have serious consequences from getting sick. And please, when discussing vaccines, maintain the distinction between the old children's vaccines and the new flu vaccines. Consider what would happen if something serious followed for, say, 60% of those who took a certain flu shot, only five to ten years later?
And regarding the vaccine=autism crowd: Autism needs to exist...
Just like to point out that many phama companies refuse to make flu shots because of the terrible profit margins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wife's attempts to repel respiratory infections on her own is like trying to stop a Peterbilt truck with tissue paper (we're talking eventual hospitalization with pneumonia here); so, yeah, she gets the flu shot every winter. For my wife, the flu is not "feeling crappy for a few days," it's much worse.
I, on the other hand, have only needed to take sick time off of work twice in my life, and can generally ignore most illnesses that affect the rest of my family. I have never had a flu shot, and don't anticipate needing one in the near future.
YMMV, take it for what it's worth.
As for vaccinating your children against potentially fatal diseases, not doing so... (I tried to find a GIF of Viktor's "are you insane" line from Underworld here, but just couldn't find one).
In addition, as I understand it, the "herd immunity" that the anti-vaxxers are relying on is only present if enough of the "herd" is actually vaccinated. So, essentially, if the anti-vaxxers actually believe what they're saying they believe, they are telling the rest of the population "you go ahead and give your kids increased chances of autism and whatever else we think the vaccines are responsible for. We'll just sit back and benefit from your "foolishness" while complaining about it, instead of campaigning for a safer vaccine." *facepalm*
I say this as someone whose brother and sister-in-law are anti-vaxxers; needless to say, we agree to disagree on this topic. (And yes, they homeschool their kids, though I'm pretty sure that and the vaccine thing aren't causally related.)
My cousin-in-law is an anti-vaccination person. She's a moron for many reasons, but this is on the list.
Except, you know, mercury in it's natural form is bad for you, especially the fumes. In a chemical compound, however, it can be completely harmless.American poster here... The vaccinations=autism (Thank you, Andrew Wakefield, for causing all those measles outbreaks) view is not only wrong, it is also offensive. I think we can all agree that even the most severe forms of autism are far more fun than, for example, polio. If you are so concerned about your kids turning out autistic like me that you would rather risk them painfully dying, you are effectively telling me that it is better to be dead than to be like me.
I completely understand the "thimerosal has mercury in it, and mercury is bad!" argument, as I react to mercury the way others react to spiders, snakes, or mice, but the fact is that thimerosal is not present in most vaccines. Vaccines do not generally contain thimerosal, which does not cause autism, which is still better than dying of measles. I have all my vaccines, and the most harm they ever caused was making my arm sore.
Visit the Anti-Vaccine Body Count for more information.
I am not medically concerned about thiomersal, I just have an instinctive reaction to mercury the way other people react to mice, spiders, or snakes. I could still control myself enough to get vaccines if they still contained thiomersal, however. Generally looking away does the trick.
I am not trying to suggest that thiomersal posed a medical risk in the quantities found in vaccines.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Idiots in the U.S.A. who do not vaccinate their children should be charged with child abuse! Its the same idiots who don't take their children to the doctor, or ER, when they get sick. You can be an idiot to yourself, but not for your children.
|
I haven't read much more than the first few posts in the Thread but, in case no one else has mentioned it,...
In the US one has the option of not vaccinating their child, however, in (probably) all 50 States institutions such as schools will not allow a non-vaccinated child to enroll. So for those who want to live outside of society they can. Homeschool, curch dances with rattlesnakes, etc.)
(Each State can have it's own law on this but like most of these kinds of laws , all 50 States have the same law.)
Also, in most public health & safety situations, once a child's life is in danger, the State (not Fed) will take temporary custody of the child -- via a Judge -- give treatment or medicine or surgery or whatever, then give custody back to the parent (unless the State determines the child is still at risk with the parent -- and these decisions can be appealed and appealed and appealed for years and years and years.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only good thing that has come out of the anti-vax movement is the large sums of money that have been funneled into autism research as a result. Large sums of money that have found absolutely no correlation between autism and vaccination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think that vaccination should be mandatory, and not doing so punishable by law.
Maybe even compulsory.
Sorry, we've had our government take too much advantage of that kind of power to hand it to them again.
|
|
All vaccines? Including the not-so-important & with-bad-side-effects Flu?
More importantly, who determines (and HOW) what vaccines shall be mandatory?
In the US it's quite difficult to not vaccinate your kids unless you and they live in a box in the woods (no schools, no organizations, etc.)
And if the kid gets sick the State will take him or her and get treatment. The parents may end up losing the kid permanently afterwords.
Oh yeah. I got chicken pox (called sheep pox in my country), when i was three or four. I was done in maybe a week. My mother got it from me, and she had it for three weeks and nearly died. And she wasn't 30 yet then.
I had chicken pox and the mumps simultaneously. My sister gave our grandmother the mumps when she was 86.
And I would rather have something without mercury in it, or even better, simply bottles of vaccine that had been refrigerated, which apparently is an alternative. If, that is, I really wanted a flu vaccine. Don't put up false alternatives, Hama.
There's a rather big difference between ethyl and methylmercury and the effects on the body (as well as the clearance). But it's largely meaningless anyway because of the tiny amount that's actually present in a vaccine that uses it as a preservative (and the amount that's broken down to then put ethylmercury in the body is even tinier).
You're exposed to tiny amounts of some exceedingly toxic things every day, but due to the amount and their clearance rate it isn't an issue typically (for instance there's acrylamide in any baked or fried food that has starch - bread, potato chips, etc).
I worked on developing a multivalent, heat stable vaccine for anthrax, plague, and staph. Refrigeration isn't always available in every place that a vaccine is needed in or marketed to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When i say vaccines i mean vaccines given to children during childhood. For horrible diseases.
Enough people are doing it voluntarily (or with the "if you don't do this you can't send your kid to school) to give herd immunity to the people that don't. At present i don't see any need to send in the men in black for the rest.
When i say vaccines i mean vaccines given to children during childhood. For horrible diseases.Enough people are doing it voluntarily (or with the "if you don't do this you can't send your kid to school) to give herd immunity to the people that don't. At present i don't see any need to send in the men in black for the rest.
Besides, Darwin theory will probably take care of the rest within a generation or two.
|
Besides, Darwin theory will probably take care of the rest within a generation or two.When i say vaccines i mean vaccines given to children during childhood. For horrible diseases.Enough people are doing it voluntarily (or with the "if you don't do this you can't send your kid to school) to give herd immunity to the people that don't. At present i don't see any need to send in the men in black for the rest.
I wasn't aware that unwillingness to vaccinate was a heritable trait.
here's a good website about general quackery.
I got hip to it when I was looking up black salves/escharotics
which a patient I worked with had used one time.
From the CDC web page:
"Severe Problems
A severe allergic reaction could occur after any vaccine (estimated less than 1 in a million doses).
There is a small possibility that inactivated flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), no more than 1 or 2 cases per million people vaccinated. This is much lower than the risk of severe complications from flu, which can be prevented by flu vaccine."
Um, if you're really worried about Guillain-Barre from the flu, I'd suggest not operating a motor vehicle.
You have a 1 in 84 chance of dieing in an auto accident over a lifetime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, the more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
Hama I realize everybody's cultural assumptions are transparent to them, but do you seriously not see any problem in the scenario where the government decides that such-and-such medical procedure is "for your own good" and then requires everybody to undergo it, with no opt-out?
'Cause see in the US we had this little thing called the Tuskegee experiment. And you may be familiar with the history of Romania under Ceaucescu?
That is one thing. People willfully endangering their and other people's children because they are ignorant is another. And that second thing must not be allowed.
Also, you know that government puts fluoride in the tap water, so that risk of tooth cavities is lowered? I think that is a good thing, but there are some rabid detractors of this practice, because fluoride is on the periodic table and it is dangerous and we are ignorant an just spout BS
OK but nobody sends the cops to take your kids away because you drink spring water instead of fluoridated tap water. As to how much "willful endangerment" is going on I think that's debatable - people are doing what they think is best. I think it's unwise and inadvisable to go without vaccinations, but there's a difference between what's unwise and inadvisable and what ought to be illegal.
|
Plus, the more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You eat a lot of acid, Auxmaulos, back in the hippie days?
I read that in the US you can actually do that, with no legal ramifications whatsoever.
In my country, if you don't vaccinate your child, some very nice people dressed in blue will be coming to your door, forcibly taking your child to be vaccinated and probably incarcerating you fro child endangerment. Unless they just fine you into the ground.
Why wouldn't a person vaccinate a child?
Faith and personal beliefs are not an excuse.
What exactly are you talking about?
There is a difference between vaccinating your kids from serious diseases and vaccinating them from the flu. Getting the flu once per year can be enough of a boost to your immune system to decrease your chances for cancer later on (publication pending).
Furthermore not all vaccines are 100% safe. Oh sure 99.99% of children are fine, but how would you feel if your kid was the .01%? (although the autism myth is complete horse-s$~#)
Also in the US, many public school systems refuse to admit children without a proper vaccination record. This is one of those things that are handled state by state.
In America, parents are not obligated to take care of their children, the government is obligated to let them take of their children. Only in the most extreme cases of neglect/abuse does the government step in to protect one of their younger citizens. At its root our country exist to serve its people. Our people do not exist to serve the country. This philosophy has its ups and downs. People not getting their child vaccinated in one of those downs.
The only good thing that has come out of the anti-vax movement is the large sums of money that have been funneled into autism research as a result. Large sums of money that have found absolutely no correlation between autism and vaccination.
Well, the number of children diagnosed with Autism has exploded since the 80s. This clearly correlates with the development of cellular telephones or the invention of fudge-covered Oreos and does not have anything at all to do with an increased (and sometimes a bit over-eager) awareness of, and ability to diagnose, Autism.
Fearmongering 101!
:)
American poster here... The vaccinations=autism (Thank you, Andrew Wakefield, for causing all those measles outbreaks) view is not only wrong, it is also offensive. I think we can all agree that even the most severe forms of autism are far more fun than, for example, polio. If you are so concerned about your kids turning out autistic like me that you would rather risk them painfully dying, you are effectively telling me that it is better to be dead than to be like me.
I have autism, too, and I had all my vaccinations as a child. When my college offers free flu shots to reduce spread on campus, I get the shot. That said, if you gave me a straight choice between my mild autism and contracting polio, I'd probably take the polio. The chance of an infection causing symptoms is 10%. The chance of symptoms that could cause forms of paralysis is 1%. The chance of death is far lower than that. To top it off, I had all four polio shots as a child. If it meant I could have normal social skills, I would take those odds in a heartbeat.
Granted, I am pro-vaccine, and I don't believe there is a link between autism and vaccines, so my preference doesn't really matter. I also sure as hell don't want tetanus, so I better keep vaccinating.
This thread reminds me of Job Corps. When a student first arrived on center, they would get a medical exam, including checking lifetime immunization records. If something was missing (this is a low income program, so that happened at the time), the center gave you those shots. If you refused, you were not eligible to remain on center. Every winter flu shots were offered. Those weren't required, but there was massive pressure to get them. It comes down to the center being small and isolated. We had 225 people who lived and worked in an area that can be walked across in about 5 minutes, and the bedrooms lack doors. It's pretty easy for disease to spread in that environment, even when the population is mostly young and healthy. I can't imagine an anti-vax mindset working for the center. We'd be seeing outbreaks and hospitalizations left and right.
I know two people that have developed neurological disorders due to a flu shot. It's supposed to be extrememly rare, but watching the effect on my uncle barely being able to walk after only a year, no thanks. I'll take the flu.Actually, over the past 15 years, I've known three people who ended up in the intensive care unit of hospitals due to influenza. All developed viral pneumonia caused by an influenza infection. Two died, and the one that lived was in the hospital for six months-- and left with a hospital bill of $45,000 AFTER insurance. (A bunch of her friends held a fund raiser for her to help her pay her medical bills so she wouldn't lose her house.) All were in good health before they got ill. The two friends that died were in their late sixties/early seventies. The friend who was in the hospital for six months was in her early 30s. None had gotten the flu shot that year.
Influenza is usually mostly harmless, but it CAN and DOES kill people. Flu shots are an effective preventative. I get one every year, and have done so for 20 years.
Statistically, the risk of complications due to the vaccine are much, much, much smaller than the risks of serious negative outcomes of getting influenza. I'll take the shot, thank you very much.
But, honestly, your odds of getting killed each time you ride in a car are significantly higher than dying of an infectious disease or developing innoculation-related complications.
Also, remember that the Spanish Flu outbreak right after World War 1 killed more people than World War 1 did in half the time. Estimates range from 3 to 5 percent of the entire world population dying from it. The dead were mostly young and healthy, not children or elderly, because one of the effects of this variety of the flu was overreaction of the immune system, which is far deadlier when you have a strong immune system. The strain of the flu that caused this? H1N1, which is still in existence today, killing between 200 and 500 thousand in 2009's "swine flu" outbreak. Influenza may not normally be a deadly disease, and it may normally kill those with poor immune systems, but not always. It can be a vicious, prolific killer if you catch the wrong strain. Limited protection or not, I think I'll take the shots.
|
|
Where I live, in the Netherlands, there's a so called Bible Belt where people don't vaccinate their children. (My parents are christians and they had the sense to vaccinate me, even though I put up quite a fight at the time.) This year there was a measles outbreak, and so far only one person has died. Now the parents of this 17 year old girl aren't anti-vaxxers. As far as I could understand, the girl had some health problems related to her immunesystem and couldn't get vaccinated because of it. She died because her immunesystem wasn't strong enough, and because some people just didn't care. Anti-vaxxers are murderers.
Am giving serious thought to getting the chicken pox inoculation.
|
|
What exactly are you talking about?
There is a difference between vaccinating your kids from serious diseases and vaccinating them from the flu. Getting the flu once per year can be enough of a boost to your immune system to decrease your chances for cancer later on (publication pending).
Serious question (or two): publication pending where, and what's the source of the difference between the beneficial effect of provoking an immune response with an active pathogen and provoking an immune response with a vaccine?
Serious question (or two): publication pending where, and what's the source of the difference between the beneficial effect of provoking an immune response with an active pathogen and provoking an immune response with a vaccine?What exactly are you talking about?
There is a difference between vaccinating your kids from serious diseases and vaccinating them from the flu. Getting the flu once per year can be enough of a boost to your immune system to decrease your chances for cancer later on (publication pending).
Interestingly it has been shown that asthma and allergies correlate with a lower incident rate of cancer. There has also been many cases where cancer patient's tumors significantly shrunk during a fevor caused by an unrelated illness.
Immunotherapy is a relatively new field for cancer therapy and stands to replace chemotherapy (since chemo inhibits immunotherapy). Still, if I ever was diagnosed with cancer, I would try to find one of these kinds of therapies first. Unfortunately, immunotherapies in people normally exclude being able to do chemo should it fail. Immunotherapy helps the immune system remove cancerous tumors. This means the tumor continues to grow after the therapy is started until a critical point is reached where the tumor begins to shrink until it is gone. These therapies only have to help the immune system, because on average your immune system destroys one cell per day that could become a cancerous tumor.
By publication pending, I mean someone needs to look at health data and compare flu-shots to cancer rates. The data already exist to prove or disprove the claim. Personally I have grown extra paranoid at the idea that not getting sick is actually "healthy".
For better information (as in a better source than some dude on the internet) see link
|
|
I'm assuming ducks are involved somewhere, perhaps lipids extracted from snakes.Serious question (or two): publication pending where, and what's the source of the difference between the beneficial effect of provoking an immune response with an active pathogen and provoking an immune response with a vaccine?What exactly are you talking about?
There is a difference between vaccinating your kids from serious diseases and vaccinating them from the flu. Getting the flu once per year can be enough of a boost to your immune system to decrease your chances for cancer later on (publication pending).
Subtle, Krensky. Very subtle.
|
|
Also in the US, many public school systems refuse to admit children without a proper vaccination record. This is one of those things that are handled state by state.
.
.Incorrect here, as I mentioned earlier, NO public school (despite being a State decision as oppsoed to Federal) is allowed to admit a child without health records that show things such as vaccinations.
Now, as this is State prerogative and not the Fed, different States likely have different lists of what vaccines, etc. are required, but all 50 (even Alaska which is waaaay off the grid and a haven for those who want to live outside of society) require these health records.
.... My career is in the Private sector and I have never seen or heard of a Private school enrolling students without proper medical records. (Though it's a relatively small percentage, I am familiar with roughly 400+ Private Schools across 18 States -- including the Dirty South.)
"Private" schools are run by individual owners sorta like restaurants.
I wasn't aware that unwillingness to vaccinate was a heritable trait.Besides, Darwin theory will probably take care of the rest within a generation or two.When i say vaccines i mean vaccines given to children during childhood. For horrible diseases.Enough people are doing it voluntarily (or with the "if you don't do this you can't send your kid to school) to give herd immunity to the people that don't. At present i don't see any need to send in the men in black for the rest.
Ok, fine. Social darwinism.
People who don't vaccinate will have a harder time procreating and will teach what few children survive will do as they were taught and also not have as many children survive.
|
|
@ Slaunyeh,
I think I heard somewhere that "Correlation does not equal causation" -- something like day-1 / lesson-1 in all science & psychology classes ever.
But I don't believe it.
Did you know that 100% -- 100% -- of people who are addicted to cocaine also drink water! (heckuva corelation, huh!)
That's like, 85-90% more than the people who used marijuana and then used cocaine.
Now that is PROOF that drinking water leads to using cocaine. (cuz correlation = causation, right?)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't use cocaine. I just like the way it smells!
Now that is PROOF that drinking water leads to using cocaine. (cuz correlation = causation, right?)
I can't tell if you are just repeating the joke I just made, or if you're making fun of me because you think I wasn't joking.