U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,860,730 times
Reputation: 7441

Advertisements

Don't Believe Everything You Read About Flu Deaths*|*Lawrence Solomon
Just like the thousands of flu deaths reported by the CDC every year warning you to get your flu shot.
Way off base, and way out of reality. Scarring people into medicine they don't want is becoming common place.
We already voluntary vaccine enough to thwart disease armagedon. Calm down, we do a good job here in America. We also do a great job attacking each other. We should learn to have civil conversation, and respect for those who simply disagree with commercialized medicine.

 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,510 posts, read 2,937,478 times
Reputation: 6379
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Pro-Vaxxers are the new pro-lifers: Religious hysteria trumps rational discussion in the vaccine debate -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net

Oh geez, stop with the fear of our impending deaths by thousands of Measles cases. Stop believing all the media hype. You pro vaxers are so terrified of the future what ifs that you might lock up all those who refuse vaccines in anti vax camps. Juram wants them huddled in diseased groups, Suzy wants armed nurses going door to door. Lighten up. The U.S. is in no danger of this, not even close. This isn't Sudan, comparisons like these are just more fear tactics. It's so overboard and overstated its becoming cult like.

More emotionally driven rhetoric from PoppySead as usual. The reality is that this law passed, it will be upheld, and when other states see that the world isn't ending, it will pop up in more and more places.


The small but vocal minority upset over this will cry and stomp their feet and complain and in the end, they will deal with it and move on to something else to be upset over. Meanwhile, maybe we can finally see an end to preventable diseases, that no child will have to suffer through or die from.
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:08 PM
 
Location: BC, Arizona
1,170 posts, read 791,314 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Hmmmm... So apply your reasoning to sex.
Rape: Forced
Date Rape: Coercion (drugs, "I love you", etc.)
Consensual Sex: Choice

Notice that in this case, Coercion and Choice are waaaayyyy different.

If a family cannot homeschool, for whatever reason, then they are being coerced into a choice they would otherwise not have made.

Choice may come with "tradeoffs" but usually it is not a "do it or else you lose this" which is hardly a trade off.
Your analogy is illogical.

I do note that you're comfortable denying an immune compromised child a public education. Alrighty then.

I'm sick of trying logic with illogical people.

Here's my view - frankly tough luck. You and your ilk lost in California because reason and logic prevailed. You can choose to vote for someone else but every poll shows that thankfully you're not likely to change the public health policy. Mandating vaccines for attendance at school is thought by most capable of reason and risk assessment to be a good thing. Too bad for you.

Personally I disagree with some of the prescience folks here in that I HOPE people don't homeschool and their children are vaccinated and prevented from becoming sick because of their parents' lack of logic and the overwhelming hubris that leads someone to think their "mommy sense" is more powerful than thousands of peer reviewed studies. Someone should be looking out for the kids who aren't making this choice to be at risk of life threatening diseases.

Whine away. Do you whimper every time you can't drive drunk, send your kid o school with a loaded weapon, have to wear a seatbelt or helmet?

As the poster above stated, grow up. Being part of society means responsibility for others.
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:10 PM
 
9,573 posts, read 5,767,595 times
Reputation: 9652
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Hmmmm... So apply your reasoning to sex.
Rape: Forced
Date Rape: Coercion (drugs, "I love you", etc.)
Consensual Sex: Choice

Notice that in this case, Coercion and Choice are waaaayyyy different.

If a family cannot homeschool, for whatever reason, then they are being coerced into a choice they would otherwise not have made.

Good analogy.
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,860,730 times
Reputation: 7441
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Hmmmm... So apply your reasoning to sex.
Rape: Forced
Date Rape: Coercion (drugs, "I love you", etc.)
Consensual Sex: Choice

Notice that in this case, Coercion and Choice are waaaayyyy different.

If a family cannot homeschool, for whatever reason, then they are being coerced into a choice they would otherwise not have made.
There are a lot of single parents, I doubt welfare paying for them to homeschool because their child got kicked out of school will fly regarding the extra taxes we will pay for this. Can't work because I have to homeschool? I guess we'll see.
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,860,730 times
Reputation: 7441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram View Post
More emotionally driven rhetoric from PoppySead as usual. The reality is that this law passed, it will be upheld, and when other states see that the world isn't ending, it will pop up in more and more places.


The small but vocal minority upset over this will cry and stomp their feet and complain and in the end, they will deal with it and move on to something else to be upset over. Meanwhile, maybe we can finally see an end to preventable diseases, that no child will have to suffer through or die from.
Calm down Juram. It's not law yet. Nobody's dropping dead all over California from Measles either.
We will see how it plays out.
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,510 posts, read 2,937,478 times
Reputation: 6379
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Don't Believe Everything You Read About Flu Deaths*|*Lawrence Solomon
Just like the thousands of flu deaths reported by the CDC every year warning you to get your flu shot.
Way off base, and way out of reality. Scarring people into medicine they don't want is becoming common place.
We already voluntary vaccine enough to thwart disease armagedon. Calm down, we do a good job here in America. We also do a great job attacking each other. We should learn to have civil conversation, and respect for those who simply disagree with commercialized medicine.

Not sure why you think citing an article from Solomon, way out on the fringe of the anti-vaxxers makes you think people will take you anymore seriously. He has no scientific credentials and his anti-vaccine rants are just as factually challenged as his rants claiming that climate change isn't real.

Might as well cite Robert Kennedy while you're at it.




Quote:
Why The Press Shouldn't Be Your Source For Medical Advice


Perhaps you read the Huffington Post article "Why The Press Shouldn't Dismiss Vaccine Skeptics" by Lawrence Solomon. In it, Mr. Solomon concludes with the worthy (if not lofty) goal that we should spend a lot of research dollars "identifying vulnerable populations" so that "all can be confident when vaccines are administered." (Lofty I say, because study after study has shown that vaccinated children are at no higher risk for autism than are unvaccinated children, and severe vaccine reactions - or reports alleging the same - remain almost entirely without causal verification and number fewer than one per million for most childhood vaccines).

The rest of his article drops a few names, and attributes a few out-of-context quotations. For example, he claims that Dr. Diane Harper, one of the lead developers of Gardasil, "believes [the vaccine] is less effective than the common pap smear, and that it may harm more children than it helps." He doesn't link to any transcript of her saying any such thing, and as far as I can tell from Snopes there's a pretty good reason for that [Correction: Since I first published this entry, he changed his hyperlink to direct to an article by a known anti-vaxxer who seems to parrot the debunked statements]. Let's look at what Dr. Harper actually says about the vaccine versus what Mr. Solomon says she "believes." It's class anti-vaxx twisting:

According to Snopes, and to another more in-depth discussion here, Dr. Harper has said: "Cervarix is an excellent choice for both screened and unscreened populations due to its long-lasting protection, its broad protection for at least five oncogenic [read: cancer-causing] HPV types, the potential to use only one dose for the same level of protection, and its safety." She did speculate that cervical cancer screening may be just as effective in preventing cervical cancer, and she expressed concern that vaccinated women would fail to use other protection and/or to follow-up with annual pap smears, which would remain important for detecting rarer strains of HPV not covered by the vaccine. She finally went on to recommend expanding the guidelines for HPV vaccines for older women (in other words, using it more often). And yes, there is continued confusion over Dr. Harper's views on the effectiveness of the vaccine 5+ years after it is administered (because current research shows that it is highly effective longer-term - see the link and the comments section).

Hmmm. A pretty far cry. Any innocent reader who didn't dig beyond Mr. Solomon's article would walk away thinking "The very creator of the HPV vaccine doesn't think it's the most effective option and thinks it may harm more children than it helps. Guess I won't be using that!" In reality, Dr. Harper's statements have been a ringing endorsement of the vaccine. Plus, anyone with a little medical knowledge will tell you that even if pap smears are highly effective at detecting precancerous cervical cells, they cannot be done to detect and prevent the oral, penile, or anal cancers also caused by HPV. Oral HPV-acquired head and neck cancers are fast becoming a major concern; when my husband did his head-and-neck cancer rotation back in 2006, already about half the patients were tobacco users and half had oral HPV-acquired cancer. To say nothing of the idea that perhaps preventing HPV in the first place is more appealing than acquiring it and catching precancerous cells at one's annual pap smear - and continuing to spread it.

That twisting alone made me highly suspicious of the article and its author. That's why I want to share with you the exchange I had with him in the comments section.

Commenter A: When 97 scientists say these vaccines are better than no vaccines, and 3 scientists say no to vaccines, I don't think we need balanced reporting or respect for the no-side. They are simply wrong with potentially dangerous effects.
Mr. Solomon: Can you point me to the survey or study that indicates a 97%-3% split among scientists? Was the question as black and white as you suggest or could a scientist have answered that some vaccines help some populations but not others?
Me: Here's a study that shows that 97% of physicians vaccinate their own children: (This study shows that 95+% of pediatricians polled in Switzerland - which included a 95% response rate among pediatricians there - vaccinate their own children, and that physicians are more likely than non-physicians to vaccinate still more for other diseases not included on the schedule, like Lymes Disease).

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or.../e623.full.pdf


Mr. Solomon: Thank you very much for this 2004 study, which I had not seen. It shows that pediatricians in Switzerland generally follow the recommended schedule, but not slavishly. And other physicians (non-pediatricians) are less likely to do so.

In the case of vaccines that are not recommended by the authorities (the Swiss vaccinate much less than we do), the majority of pediatricians and non-pediatricians stay away from most of the vaccines.


Me: Actually, that is not true. We have one extra Hep B and one extra PCV, and we vaccinate for Hep A. But the Swiss show 2 more IPVs and 1 more MMR. Did you see a vaccine "not recommended by the authorities" in Switzerland that we do vaccinate for other than Hep A? I didn't.

Mr. Solomon: You'll find the World Health Organization's immunization schedules for every country here: WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2015 global summary

You'll see that the vaccination schedules for both Canada and the US are much longer than in Switzerland.


Me: This is a good example of why non-physicians and non-scientists have difficulty assessing the vaccine situation. The tables above are confusing because of overlap; if you look carefully you will see that the only diseases we vaccinate for that they do not vaccinate for are:

(1) Rotavirus and Hep A, which are a concern for nations including significant migrant and inner-city poor populations - a good example of how, far from mindless and unmonitored, each nation accounts for its population when its experts come out with their best schedule; and

(2) They don't recommend the flu vaccine until the age of 65. Surely though, the current news in the U.S. is enough support for our schedule here.

The other differences are minor differences I already listed above. The Swiss actually give two different meningococcal vaccines whereas we give 1. We give 1 extra HPV but are considering reducing to 2 as more evidence emerges that 2 is safe. We give one more pneumoccocal.

The point being that the study I provided shows that 95+% of pediatricians vaccinate their children. I don't know of a similar study done in the US but it seems anti-vaxxers are more likely to trust physicians of other nations anyway. Do you have a study showing anything otherwise? My father is nearing retirement as a physician/professor at UW-Madison and has seen tens of thousands of vaccinations. He has never once seen a dangerous reaction, and he hasn't seen HIB deaths since we started vaccinating for it.



So there you go. Perhaps the press shouldn't dismiss vaccine skeptics. But they should certainly do a better job of presenting their misleading, distorted, and in some cases simply false "information" as factual and objective. The above exchange shows the classic twisting of anti-vaxx logic. A study showing near unanimity in physicians supporting their nation's vaccine schedule that is nearly identical to ours - and is identical on the controversial vaccines - is made out to be a potential reason not to vaccinate. And the fact that physicians are more likely than non-physicians to add still more vaccines (like the Tick-Borne Encephalitis vaccine) is twisted to somehow say something alarming about our own vaccine schedule. It's almost amazing, really!
Married to Medicine: Why The Press Shouldn't Be Your Source For Medical Advice

 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,506 posts, read 5,470,317 times
Reputation: 4935
Whose got the tinfoil hat now?
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:17 PM
 
9,144 posts, read 9,222,378 times
Reputation: 28635
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
Hi Suzy, I have read and appreciated just about every post you've made in this massive thread. I've rep'd you, I've admired your knowledge on the topic, and I'm impressed that you have the patience to continue to post rationally and calmly.

I am very curious though, as to why you feel RI's HPV law is a good one. I'm not normally one to fear the proverbial slippery slope, but if states are allowed to make laws strictly "to protect individuals," outside the realm of public health, that greatly concerns me. There might be no end of governmental intrusion if citizens allow states to have that much power.

If someone truly believes that states should be in the business of "protecting individuals" (aka "saving us from our poor choices"), there would be hundreds of more dangerous concerns to start with than HPV. So I really am baffled as to how anyone can rationalize this law.

Unlike much of the dialogue I hear from anti-vaxxers this is a very reasonable question and deserves some commentary. The slippery slope is a legitimate concern. I am a vigorous supporter of vaccination, but for all those who think I give government a free pass all the time, I have written vociferously opposing measures such as the "Patriot Act". I do fully understand the argument. I think there are situations where the public should legitimately be concerned about government becoming too powerful. Some abuses go back to the 1960's and 1970's. Our FBI had something called "COINTELPRO" which was basically an effort by the FBI to spy on individuals and groups they deemed "dangerous" in this country. Many phones were tapped without warrants. Many hours of the time of public employees was used to spy on and harass people like Martin Luther King.

Public health is different though. It has not been scandalized the way the FBI, CIA, or some other government agencies have. For the most part, those agencies involved in regulating our health such as the CDC, FDA, and PHS have done their jobs and Americans are safer and healthier because of them. I grant these agencies a certain amount of deference simply because the long term experience with them has been pretty good.

The reality is that the CDC and other government agencies have been involved in "public health activities" that don't involve diseases that are spread in an airborne fashion for some time. The tetanus vaccine has been mentioned. Government, particularly on a local level, promotes fluoridation of the water supply to prevent tooth decay. Tooth decay is not an infectious disease. The Surgeon General and the Public Health Services have issued statements opposing cigarette smoking for a long time. Lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema are not contagious diseases. In short, fifty years or more ago, the concept of public health moved beyond the mere containment of infectious disease.

Most parents are concerned about their children engaging in sexual activity. Whether their reasoning is based on religious values, an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, or on a concern they will develop a sexually transmitted disease its difficult to say their concerns are unfounded. These are real problems faced daily by real people. I suppose some people are concerned that giving an HPV vaccination will convey some sort of message to young people that sexual activity at a young age is acceptable. I don't find this reasoning convincing. Yet, at the same time, I know enough about Americans and how certain groups view these problems to know that mandating the HPV vaccine is going to bring out a lot of angst. So, while I think this vaccination is a great idea, I also accept the reality that mandating it in most states is going to be problematic. Its too bad, because its a terrible shame.

I can make the following statements about the HPV vaccine:

1. The problems that the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer, warts, anal warts, anal cancers, and penile cancers are deadly serious problems There are 4,000 deaths annually from cervical cancer alone. There are 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer diagnosed every year.

2. Currently, despite a recommendation from the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that both girls and boys receive the HPV vaccine, only 33% of all girls have received the recommended three doses of the vaccine (50% have received 1 dose or more). The numbers for boys are much lower.

3. There is no evidence to suggest that any significant side effects are occurring from the vaccine and this is after years of usage.

4. The efficacy rate of the new nine-valent vaccine which has just been approved is overwhelming. The vaccine may be as much as 95% effective in preventing diseases caused by HPV.

5. It is important the vaccine be given at ages 11 to 12 before the onset of sexual activity for it to have vaccine effect.

6. There is no evidence that giving the HPV vaccine has altered sexual activity in adolescent girls or boys.

7. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Adolescent Health Care has just recently issued a letter pleading with its member physicians to spend more time educating patients about this vaccine. They emphasize the test results that show no side effects other than a sore arm and the fact that the CDC ACIP recommends the vaccine along with all the other standard childhood vaccines. Please note that ACOG is a private organization of physicians. It is not your government. Nor, is it a private company that manufactures vaccines.

This is quite a powerful statement and I recommend anyone interested in issues related to the HPV vaccine read it.


Human Papillomavirus Vaccination - ACOG


I have stated before that both my son and daughter are fully vaccinated for HPV. They suffered no side effects at all. I am happy as a parent to give my children all the protection that I can. I hope when they have children and we have even more vaccinations that those children will be fully protected as well.

When people oppose giving their children this vaccine, I seriously want to weep. There is a such of failure to understand science and a great scientific accomplishment. More importantly, there is what I will call a failure of imagination by such people as well. Such tools as this nine-valent vaccine give us reason to contemplate a world without cervical cancer and many of the other cancers and diseases caused by the HPV vaccine. The savings not only in human lives but in dollars that won't be spent for cancer treatment, hospitalizations, and unnecessary diagnostic tests are potentially huge. It is no exaggeration to say that widespread use of this vaccine can help us build a better and a safer world.

Essentially what this issue comes down to is the same argument that we make over and over again about vaccines. Vaccines should be mandated when the benefits of a vaccine outweigh the risks. The risks of this vaccine appear to be practically nonexistent. The benefits--spread throughout an entire population over time--are huge.

I am not certain that I am prepared at this point to mandate the vaccine, but I am appalled at parents who brush it aside with a cavalier attitude. I cannot blame Rhode Island for requiring it. I expect more states to gradually require it as time goes on.h

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyborgt800 View Post
So get your vaccinations and quit trying to play god with others...you and your's will be protected so there's no threat to you!
There is no point in trying to reason with you. A name like "Cyborg" is something of a tip off to me in and of itself. We have discussed literally ad nauseam the concept of herd immunity during the last 3000 posts. If you really want answer to your question than I suggest you take the time to read this lengthy thread. I am in no mood to explain herd immunity and how it works another time. Suffice it to say that all scientists recognize that it exists and it is critical in preventing the spread of infectious disease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
Regarding tetanus being mandated, isn't that simply because it is included with the diptheria and pertussis vaccine? If I'm wrong on that, and DP is indeed available without the T, then I would feel the same about tetanus vac mandate as I do about HPV vac.

And yes, I understand that people commonly have multiple sex partners prior to marriage, but I believe it is up to each individual to voluntarily protect him/herself from STDs. I don't want or need the government to do that for me.

I don't think most of us have "lost track of the fact that we give vaccines to protect the recipient of the vaccine." But since the original controversy discussed in this thread was about the mandate, we're talking a lot about herd immunity as it relates to public health. If there were no such thing as herd immunity, or if there were vaccines ONLY for diseases like tetanus and HPV (not airborne), then I would be completely opposed to any mandates. Vaccines would then be like any other aspect of health care: up to the individual.

I do not view RI as taking a "long view." I view it as an extreme overstep of the state's role. If one believes that the state should legislate matters of individual health, they should start with cigarettes, junk food, alcohol, sedentary jobs, on and on. If one believes that the state should legislate matters of sexually transmitted illnesses, oh my, what a Pandora's box. Make sex outside of marriage illegal? Sex without a condom illegal? Public registries for STDs?

Far better to simply stick with matters of actual public health.
I pretty much replied to you above. I would just emphasize again that the concept of public health has expanded and this began over 50 years ago. HPV may not be airborne, but is spread through intimate physical and sexual activity. In that sense, it is contagious and a public health problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psr13 View Post
According to the CA Constitution, every child has a right to an education. Are they going to amend the Constitution to say they are only have that right if the child has certain vaccinations? Are they going to amend it to say that they only have that right if the parents bow to every demand the state decides to make? No? Then they are 100% going against the state constitution.

Any right guaranteed by a state to citizens to a public education is conditional. States are free to impose reasonable conditions on the exercise of that right. States can mandate a dress code. They can mandate students not bring firearms to school. They can mandate immunizations--if the state has a compulsory vaccination law.

If you do file a lawsuit to have this law in CA declared unconstitutional, you will be thrown out on your ass.

I am confident such a suit will be filed and when it is decided against anti-vaxxers, I will cite that case as further precedent that these laws are constitutional.

Last edited by markg91359; 08-04-2015 at 05:34 PM..
 
Old 08-04-2015, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,510 posts, read 2,937,478 times
Reputation: 6379
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Calm down Juram. It's not law yet. Nobody's dropping dead all over California from Measles either.
We will see how it plays out.

I'm calm, its nice to see society embracing science and rationality and not giving in to a tiny minority of uber-paranoid loons and the snake-oil merchants profiting from them.


Idiocy and desperation sell in America, desperation is what leads an otherwise reasonable person to bathe their child in bleach or to give them a bleach enema to "cure the autism."


The Parents Who Give Their Children Bleach Enemas to 'Cure' Them of Autism | VICE | United States


Quote:
If Humble is the pater familias of this wolfpack of chicanery, a woman named
Kerri Rivera seems to be its den mother. A bishop in Humble's church, Rivera is the author of a book titled Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism, in which she recommends giving autistic children "hourly doses" of chlorine dioxide and advocates chlorine dioxide enemas as a way to "kill pathogens in the brain."
Her website, CDAustism.org, is—like Humble's website—careful to state that it does not actually sell MMS. Instead it promotes the idea that it will cure autism, sells supporting materials like her book, and offers expensive Skype consultations on administering the "treatment" that cost over $100 per hour.
In other words, while stopping short of selling MMS (likely for legal reasons), Humble and Rivera instead advocate it as a lifestyle, thereby promoting the damaging idea that the complex neurological condition known as autism is essentially a gut problem that you can somehow power-wash out of your body by pouring industrial bleach into both ends. And their followers believe them.



Idiocy is what leads an otherwise reasonable person to not vaccinate their child, leaving them exposed to any number of diseases despite the volumes of data indicating not only the safety but the efficacy of vaccination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top