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 06-04-2015, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,557,052 times
Reputation: 7421

Advertisements

LA Times

Well at least they've revamped it to allow homeschooling. Otherwise it would have been completely forced with no option to get an education because of Californias HS law which considers it a private school. The homeschooling option will remain for those who either don't vax, partially vax, or prefer to vax at on their own schedule. Otherwise, there's little choice in the matter.
They would like to add the religious exemption back in but they are still out on that one. We have a lot of alternative religions in California.

 
Old 06-04-2015, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,557,052 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
As I have stated many times, it is a freedom and legal issue for me. When the SC ruled on the ACA, they very wisely called it a TAX imposed on Americans. They did not rule that Americans must be forced to buy HEALTH Insurance by the Government. Why???? Because in our society citizens have the right to refuse HEALTH CARE (treatments). Saying Americans must have HEALTH Insurance would "open the door" to saying that government also had the right to force HEATH CARE on it's citizens. They very wisely avoided any mention of that.

I know many of the "health professionals" will start citing the case law from the early 1900's on the powers of government during "pandemics", but that one is hot potato, which we saw in 2009 when a (Flu) Pandemic actually was declared. Crickets, despite all the "panic" and White House Declaration. Look it up. The White House issued a statement on it. Government probably feared a public backlash (political?) far more than this pandemic.

Sorry, but you cannot escape the health issues without getting into the legal/political ones.
True, true. That's my concern as well. This is exactly why in America we don't have a non profit universal health care system. People don't want to be forced into what the government feels is best. They want the option open to disagree. That's why we have the constitution, so gun ownership isn't a history lesson.

If harming others was the only reason you needed, we'd have no right to own a gun, drive a car, sell food, practice medicine, I could list a hundred things freedom allows that could, might, and does harm others. Not vaccinating is just one of hundreds.
This mandate will set a tone in California that will probably lose a few senate seats.
 
Old 06-04-2015, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,557,052 times
Reputation: 7421
LA Times
Accidentally pasted wrong article. Here's the new one. No religious exemption so far. Some religious people don't want a mandate for shooting cells from aborted fetus into their kids.
 
Old 06-04-2015, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,020 posts, read 98,892,281 times
Reputation: 31456
Meanwhile, the students know better than some parents:
CU-Boulder student leaders urge use of new meningitis vaccines - Boulder Daily Camera
 
Old 06-04-2015, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,535 posts, read 26,155,710 times
Reputation: 26537
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
That is not what the Merck insert for the vaccine says: It says "Women of childbearing age should be advised not to become pregnant for 3 months after vaccination. The CDC website you've sited is different than the actual insert.
That surprised me. It's the same MMR.

Here is the reason for the discrepancy:

"What is the recommended length of time a woman should wait after receiving rubella (or MMR) vaccine before becoming pregnant?
Although the MMR package insert recommends a 3 month deferral of pregnancy after MMR vaccination ACIP recommends deferral of pregnancy for four weeks. For details on this issue see MMWR 2001;50(No. 49):1117."

The MMWR says:

"On October 18, 2001, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed data from several sources indicating that no cases of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) had been identified among infants born to women who were vaccinated inadvertently against rubella within 3 months or early in pregnancy. On the basis of these data, ACIP shortened its recommended period to avoid pregnancy after receipt of rubella-containing vaccine from 3 months to 28 days."

It looks as if the lawyers who wrote the package insert are erring on the side of unwarranted caution.


Quote:
It is not known whether measles or mumps vaccine virus is secreted in human milk. Recent studies
have shown that lactating postpartum women immunized with live attenuated rubella vaccine may secrete
the virus in breast milk and transmit it to breast-fed infants.{53} In the infants with serological evidence of
rubella infection, none exhibited severe disease; however, one exhibited mild clinical illness typical of
acquired rubella.{54,55} Caution should be exercised when M-M-R II is administered to a nursing
woman."
Obstetricians pretty much check every pregnant woman for evidence of immunity to rubella. Anyone who is not immune is offered the vaccine after she delivers, whether she is nursing or not. There is sufficient experience with doing that to be reassuring that there is no danger to the baby. The benefit in preventing congenital rubella infections, which are truly devastating to the baby, outweighs the tiny theoretical risk of the baby picking up the vaccine virus by nursing.

Quote:
I don't think people want to throw away vaccines, and the problem is they usually don't. They use them anyway. I'm concerned with a mandate on this large scale this will happen. Leaving gaps in the herd.

An investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General (HHS OIG) found that many providers of immunizations meant for low-income children don't store the vaccines at proper temperatures, potentially rendering them ineffective and placing children at risk for contracting serious diseases.
That is certainly a concern. Like I said, my friend actually does the continuous temperature monitoring, keeps the log, and has a back up generator in the event the building loses power. There's no harm in asking about how your doctor stores vaccines. I doubt anyone would want to take the legal risk of using expired or improperly stored vaccines. There is nothing preventing a parent from suing a doctor if it was discovered the doctor deliberately used a vaccine that he should not have.

Quote:
Also, mandating is a method of forced vaccination, what if there are contaminants that go un noticed in a batch. Mandates carry a different responsibility than a parental decision. Use of the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix in the US was temporarily suspended because the vaccine was found to be contaminated with porcine circovirus 1 DNA. Now, that might not or might have been an issue, but it shows that the potential is there.
We get back to the point that millions of doses of vaccine have been given. The probability of a serious complication not being identified with exposure of that magnitude is very small.

Also, since there is the potential for other viruses to make it into vaccines, it is something that is monitored carefully. Newer methods of identifying DNA and RNA are making that easier. That the monitoring works is evidenced by what happened with that rotavirus vaccine.

Quote:
Who will claim responsibility when something happens with a forced vaccine? The climate is very different. You are making someone do this for access to schools. Unless you shoot up you are prevented from public education and private education. What happens if there is an increase in vaccine injury? If vaccines were 100% effective and safe it would still be weird to force it but they aren't. Don't you think there are better ways of encouraging this then mandates?
There is no "forced" vaccine. If you do not want it, don't take it. If you do take it, you will be asked to indicate that you understand the risks and accept them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
If these parents (besides they themselves) choose not to send their "snowflakes" to public school, that will not protect you and your vaccinated children from coming into contact with them in society. Disney proves that one. Is Disney a Public School?

Your Final Solution to 100% compliance? Note, I use those words on purpose which I want you to think about.
If more people were vaccinated, the Disney outbreak would have been much smaller. Not everyone at Disney got sick. Most who did were not vaccinated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
My son has a terrible allergy to detergent like Tide, I can't let him sit on other people's beds or anything they've washed without a prompt shower. The first 3 doctors gave him steroids and said it was just a terrible case of eczema he'd have to live with, finally a good doctor looked at him and said it was a detergent allergy. A week later rewashing his clothing in water only it was completely gone.

This is my problem with forcing parents to get vaccines. Our medical professionals and drug companies don't exactly have a good record for knowing what they're talking about. They kill so many people a year trust is the last thought on your mind. Most of us just hope for the best, and hope we aren't a victim.
I realize most are trying their best but some are just careless.
It would be ideal if doctors always hit the correct diagnosis the first go around. Unfortunately, that is where the art of medicine comes in.

I have a lot of difficulty with the allegation that medicine is killing that many people. It turns out that a lot of those deaths are due to treatments that are properly prescribed and performed. To me that means that "medicine" is being blamed for deaths that were going to happen anyway. For example, a chemotherapy drug is prescribed for someone with cancer. Without the drug, the patient will die. Perhaps the patient has a fatal complication related to the chemo. That means the cause of the death is the adverse reaction; however, the patient would have died without treatment. The question is what errors are preventable. Dinging "medicine" for things that are beyond its control is underhanded.

The safety record of vaccines, based on millions of doses, is compelling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The average is about 10 years before one gets any compensation.
The GAO wrote a scathing report on the VCF.

Instead of suing big pharma you are suing the USG for compensation.
The VCF took over all risk from big pharma and it's not in their interest to pay out money.
Delays in adjudicating cases are most often due to the claimant not having paperwork in order. Valid claims in which the court gets the supporting material in a timely fashion usually are usually handled expeditiously.

The money does not come from the government. It comes from an excise tax on vaccines. That means it is paid for by people who use vaccines. It is the responsibility of the court to make sure that money goes to those who have a legitimate claim to it. The goal is to compensate people who are truly harmed by vaccines, which happens though there is no negligence in making the vaccine. The fact is that more injured people probably get more money through a no-fault system like the compensation program than they would going to court then giving 30 to 50% of an award to lawyers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Right, we are agreeing to mandate something you have little recourse in if an injury occurs, not to mention your complaint will fall on deaf ears and shuffled into a coincidence pile 90 percent of the time.
Thanks to the Vaccinations Act, it takes hell and high water to sue a drug company, none of which a regular parent will have access to. You pretty much take your chances, now their forcing the chance like Russian Roulette.
Nothing is "shoved into a coincidence pile". If conditions A and B tend to happen at the same ages, it is a mathematical certainty that a significant percentage of the time condition B will follow condition A. What you look for are those times when A follows B. If B follows A no more often than A follows B, it is unlikely that A causes B.

Suppose that your child is destined to have epilepsy. He will have it whether he is vaccinated or not. At some point, he will have his first seizure. Suppose that you have an appointment for him to get a vaccine on the exact day that seizure, which has nothing to do with vaccines, is ordained to happen. If the seizure happens in the waiting room while the child is waiting to be seen, obviously the vaccine could not be the cause. Have that seizure happen five minutes after the vaccine, and some parents will never be convinced the vaccine did not cause it - even though it did not.

If the point is to compensate people who are injured by vaccines, then why do you think the best way to do that is to sue the manufacturer? It can legitimately say that the injury is a known risk of the vaccine and happened without any negligence on the part of the company that made it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
What will happen to the snowflakes when they go to college ?
College is not K-12 and they don't all require proof.

K-12 is but a very small facet of living in society, especially one where many foreigners come here to live and work, legally and illegally.
Most colleges do require vaccines. People living in crowded conditions like dorms are more likely to pass infections to one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal View Post
Well, here's the thing. Vaccines are basically holistic medicine. ( using the body's own resources to fight disease) They are also the only medical treatment to have wiped out a scourge of a disease- smallpox.

Modern medicine can't "cure" cancer, a common cold, or herpes. But it turns out that maybe our own immune systems can fight them off, given the right environment.
"Holistic" is a buzzword without much substance. It pretty much means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

Obviously we fight off most infections without any treatment. The ones we have vaccines for have complication rates that are high enough to make developing vaccines for them worthwhile. They are not trivial.

Many cancers are curable by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
But, this thread is about mandating vaccines and legally making you get a shot or they will withhold your public and private education. We can argue if vaccines are good, or the VAERS reports are valid all day long but why mandate these vaccines? There is no pandemic.

Why not try other less hostile methods to encourage these choices instead of starting a war against the un vaccinated? And what mandates will follow if all others lack a 100% herd immunity in society?
We do not need 100%. For some diseases we need about 95%, and if 2-3% of the population has a true medical contraindication, that leaves only about a 2% margin for people who just do not want to vaccinate. Schools where 70% of the kids are not vaccinate are disasters waiting to happen.

There is no argument about the VAERS reports. Some of them are asinine. The anti-vax community abuses the VAERS system unmercifully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Well at least they've revamped it to allow homeschooling. Otherwise it would have been completely forced with no option to get an education because of Californias HS law which considers it a private school. The homeschooling option will remain for those who either don't vax, partially vax, or prefer to vax at on their own schedule. Otherwise, there's little choice in the matter.
They would like to add the religious exemption back in but they are still out on that one. We have a lot of alternative religions in California.
Anyone who is using an alternative schedule should just make sure the kid gets the mandated vaccines. Want to take the kid to the doctor every week, fine. Just get them all in before he's five years old and hope he does not get sick in the meantime.

Religion is being used as an excuse for people who just do not want to vaccinate. Lying about religion to get an exemption is what is prompting the demise of the religious exemption. The fact is that none of the major religions have objections to vaccination.

When people make choices that hurt other people, their choices get restricted.
 
Old 06-05-2015, 05:15 AM
 
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,367 posts, read 1,525,771 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
That surprised me. It's the same MMR.

Here is the reason for the discrepancy:

"What is the recommended length of time a woman should wait after receiving rubella (or MMR) vaccine before becoming pregnant?
Although the MMR package insert recommends a 3 month deferral of pregnancy after MMR vaccination ACIP recommends deferral of pregnancy for four weeks. For details on this issue see MMWR 2001;50(No. 49):1117."

The MMWR says:

"On October 18, 2001, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed data from several sources indicating that no cases of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) had been identified among infants born to women who were vaccinated inadvertently against rubella within 3 months or early in pregnancy. On the basis of these data, ACIP shortened its recommended period to avoid pregnancy after receipt of rubella-containing vaccine from 3 months to 28 days."

It looks as if the lawyers who wrote the package insert are erring on the side of unwarranted caution.




Obstetricians pretty much check every pregnant woman for evidence of immunity to rubella. Anyone who is not immune is offered the vaccine after she delivers, whether she is nursing or not. There is sufficient experience with doing that to be reassuring that there is no danger to the baby. The benefit in preventing congenital rubella infections, which are truly devastating to the baby, outweighs the tiny theoretical risk of the baby picking up the vaccine virus by nursing.



That is certainly a concern. Like I said, my friend actually does the continuous temperature monitoring, keeps the log, and has a back up generator in the event the building loses power. There's no harm in asking about how your doctor stores vaccines. I doubt anyone would want to take the legal risk of using expired or improperly stored vaccines. There is nothing preventing a parent from suing a doctor if it was discovered the doctor deliberately used a vaccine that he should not have.



We get back to the point that millions of doses of vaccine have been given. The probability of a serious complication not being identified with exposure of that magnitude is very small.

Also, since there is the potential for other viruses to make it into vaccines, it is something that is monitored carefully. Newer methods of identifying DNA and RNA are making that easier. That the monitoring works is evidenced by what happened with that rotavirus vaccine.



There is no "forced" vaccine. If you do not want it, don't take it. If you do take it, you will be asked to indicate that you understand the risks and accept them.



If more people were vaccinated, the Disney outbreak would have been much smaller. Not everyone at Disney got sick. Most who did were not vaccinated.



It would be ideal if doctors always hit the correct diagnosis the first go around. Unfortunately, that is where the art of medicine comes in.

I have a lot of difficulty with the allegation that medicine is killing that many people. It turns out that a lot of those deaths are due to treatments that are properly prescribed and performed. To me that means that "medicine" is being blamed for deaths that were going to happen anyway. For example, a chemotherapy drug is prescribed for someone with cancer. Without the drug, the patient will die. Perhaps the patient has a fatal complication related to the chemo. That means the cause of the death is the adverse reaction; however, the patient would have died without treatment. The question is what errors are preventable. Dinging "medicine" for things that are beyond its control is underhanded.

The safety record of vaccines, based on millions of doses, is compelling.



Delays in adjudicating cases are most often due to the claimant not having paperwork in order. Valid claims in which the court gets the supporting material in a timely fashion usually are usually handled expeditiously.

The money does not come from the government. It comes from an excise tax on vaccines. That means it is paid for by people who use vaccines. It is the responsibility of the court to make sure that money goes to those who have a legitimate claim to it. The goal is to compensate people who are truly harmed by vaccines, which happens though there is no negligence in making the vaccine. The fact is that more injured people probably get more money through a no-fault system like the compensation program than they would going to court then giving 30 to 50% of an award to lawyers.




Nothing is "shoved into a coincidence pile". If conditions A and B tend to happen at the same ages, it is a mathematical certainty that a significant percentage of the time condition B will follow condition A. What you look for are those times when A follows B. If B follows A no more often than A follows B, it is unlikely that A causes B.

Suppose that your child is destined to have epilepsy. He will have it whether he is vaccinated or not. At some point, he will have his first seizure. Suppose that you have an appointment for him to get a vaccine on the exact day that seizure, which has nothing to do with vaccines, is ordained to happen. If the seizure happens in the waiting room while the child is waiting to be seen, obviously the vaccine could not be the cause. Have that seizure happen five minutes after the vaccine, and some parents will never be convinced the vaccine did not cause it - even though it did not.

If the point is to compensate people who are injured by vaccines, then why do you think the best way to do that is to sue the manufacturer? It can legitimately say that the injury is a known risk of the vaccine and happened without any negligence on the part of the company that made it.



Most colleges do require vaccines. People living in crowded conditions like dorms are more likely to pass infections to one another.



"Holistic" is a buzzword without much substance. It pretty much means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

Obviously we fight off most infections without any treatment. The ones we have vaccines for have complication rates that are high enough to make developing vaccines for them worthwhile. They are not trivial.

Many cancers are curable by the way.



We do not need 100%. For some diseases we need about 95%, and if 2-3% of the population has a true medical contraindication, that leaves only about a 2% margin for people who just do not want to vaccinate. Schools where 70% of the kids are not vaccinate are disasters waiting to happen.

There is no argument about the VAERS reports. Some of them are asinine. The anti-vax community abuses the VAERS system unmercifully.



Anyone who is using an alternative schedule should just make sure the kid gets the mandated vaccines. Want to take the kid to the doctor every week, fine. Just get them all in before he's five years old and hope he does not get sick in the meantime.

Religion is being used as an excuse for people who just do not want to vaccinate. Lying about religion to get an exemption is what is prompting the demise of the religious exemption. The fact is that none of the major religions have objections to vaccination.

When people make choices that hurt other people, their choices get restricted.
wow you say so much that I could respond to.

Let me go for religion. I am religious, I dont prostyletize and I dont regularly attend church as part of a congregation, but I exercize my spirituality daily, and feel I have a personal relationship with God. How does one come to the point they can matter-of-factly say I am lying?

How does one reach a conclusion about and prove what I truely believe? How does one become so god-like themselves to make the charge my religion is a lie?

Even if you came to my house and found Satanic symbols spraypainted everywhere and an alter to Hecate in my living room with the Necronomicon on my coffee table, it would be reasonable to determine I am a Satanist - a worshiper and follower of Lucifer. Still a religion.

If you came to my house found a Torah, a Bible, a Quran, and a Book of Mormon - would that signify I am confused or simply researching the tenents of my faith from differing perspectives?

Let's say I kill someone because God told me to. Okay, Im crazy - but Im still religous. Of course a truely religous person would never lie cheat or steal or break any of the 10 commandments, but none of us are God; we are just people.

We can relate religion to medicine, in a different way - for those that dont believe in religion at all. Let's say I , and although nothing can be found diagnositcly to signify the source of my pain, I believe something is wrong nonetheless, and need treatment and pain medication. Can a doctor tell me I am lying, and not in pain if I say I am? No, he really cant. If the doctor sees me slowly limping in the door with a cane, then sprint from his office to catch a bus, he has a reasonable idea that there is a good chance I am lying, but like arthritis, pains can come and go.

Chemotherapy: Its attacks everything in the body, good cells and bad. The prognosis is that it will leave enough of the good cells that the patient will recover from that damage, while all the bad cells are destroyed. Wonderful if that is the outcome.

But, I personally know people that have been going through chemotherapy - in and out of remission - for 2/3rds of their lives. If someone makes the choice to say, I dont want to go through that, and would rather enjoy some quality of life before the cancer overtakes me, how can anyone say that is a bad choice? Doctors can make an educated guess on how long I live, but plenty of people manage to surpass their guess, as well as die sooner. If I dont respond well at all to the chemotherapy, and it kills me before the cancer gets the opportunity - why would anyone say I made the 'right' choice after all is said and done?

My father-in-law was diagnosed with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia back in the early 80s. He went for every possible experimental chemotherapy treatment offered in an attempt to beat the disease. *I* am not saying it was experimental, to his credit - his doctor did. If the shoes were on my feet, I would have done the same thing at the time.

From my perspective, looking at him on his deathbed, he was burned alive from the inside out by the chemotherapy. His eyelids were literally peeling off, and that is just 1 thing that I noticed, not everything. His doctor still wanted to give him more experimental chemotherapy knowing he was dying. The family feels the chemotherapy actually cut short what little time he had left. Isnt there something to be said for quality of life over quantity of life? Shouldnt it be an individual choice over whether I want to face a nasty and dibilitating treatment to last for decades, or simply let nature take its course?

Hep C had manufacturers claiming the interfuron/ribavirin, and the peg-interfuron/ribavirin treatment was 45-50% successful. But, patients were reporting amongst themselves that the success rate was closer to 20%. Having that treatment was pretty much a shot in dark, but many did. Im not saying they were wrong to do so, it was their choice. Now, with the new drugs that are reporting success rates as high as 97% in patients that had no previous treatment, they have a tougher time needing to still use INF/Riba, along with the new drugs and their success rate with the new treatments is reduced by 10% to 88%. Still a good shot at a cure, but not as good as if they could have waited, and still as dibilitating as the original treatment.

Interesting enough, patients that research the disease have noticed that in the US and a few other countries, we are calling it "a cure"; while still more countries are referring to this success as 'remission'.
I guess the data is not there yet to say its truely a proven cure for some scientists.

I will say I can see a good reason for vaccination in that the use of antibiotics has proven to not be infinate.

The only reason to restrict a choice like homeschooling, is to try to force someone to conform. And, until medical stormtroopers roam the Earth, rich or poor, people can always completely expatriate in a worst case scenario.

In the future, add campaigns should put forth something to make us want to voluntarily conform. For many, probably including yourself, scare tactics and force are rather off-putting.

Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 06-05-2015 at 06:15 AM..
 
Old 06-05-2015, 05:53 AM
 
5,654 posts, read 3,204,284 times
Reputation: 6636
Suzy, you cannot see the forest for the trees. You can pass all the legislation you want to keep unvaccinated children out of public schools, but that will not keep them OUT OF SOCIETY, like Disney. It is also true for unvaccinated adults, maybe even more so.

PLUS you have no way of knowing WHO out there in the world is vaccinated or not. That was the point I was trying to make and only giving Disney as an example of that. I could just as easily said Publix Supermarkets instead. Do you understand what I am saying?
 
Old 06-05-2015, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,020 posts, read 98,892,281 times
Reputation: 31456
Quote:
I don't think people want to throw away vaccines, and the problem is they usually don't. They use them anyway. I'm concerned with a mandate on this large scale this will happen. Leaving gaps in the herd.

An investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General (HHS OIG) found that many providers of immunizations meant for low-income children don't store the vaccines at proper temperatures, potentially rendering them ineffective and placing children at risk for contracting serious diseases.
I have been an immunization provider for decades. Since the VICP, we have been required to document the lot number and expiration date of every vaccine given that is covered under the law, basically all of them. No one is using outdated vaccines.

I'm a little surprised at this Office of the Inspector General study. We are required to monitor refrigerator temps twice a day and keep a long. In all the years I've done that, no one has ever shown up asking for the logs.
 
Old 06-05-2015, 07:35 AM
 
8,315 posts, read 8,596,327 times
Reputation: 25964
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post

Delays in adjudicating cases are most often due to the claimant not having paperwork in order. Valid claims in which the court gets the supporting material in a timely fashion usually are usually handled expeditiously.

The money does not come from the government. It comes from an excise tax on vaccines. That means it is paid for by people who use vaccines. It is the responsibility of the court to make sure that money goes to those who have a legitimate claim to it. The goal is to compensate people who are truly harmed by vaccines, which happens though there is no negligence in making the vaccine. The fact is that more injured people probably get more money through a no-fault system like the compensation program than they would going to court then giving 30 to 50% of an award to lawyers.




Nothing is "shoved into a coincidence pile". If conditions A and B tend to happen at the same ages, it is a mathematical certainty that a significant percentage of the time condition B will follow condition A. What you look for are those times when A follows B. If B follows A no more often than A follows B, it is unlikely that A causes B.

Suppose that your child is destined to have epilepsy. He will have it whether he is vaccinated or not. At some point, he will have his first seizure. Suppose that you have an appointment for him to get a vaccine on the exact day that seizure, which has nothing to do with vaccines, is ordained to happen. If the seizure happens in the waiting room while the child is waiting to be seen, obviously the vaccine could not be the cause. Have that seizure happen five minutes after the vaccine, and some parents will never be convinced the vaccine did not cause it - even though it did not.

If the point is to compensate people who are injured by vaccines, then why do you think the best way to do that is to sue the manufacturer? It can legitimately say that the injury is a known risk of the vaccine and happened without any negligence on the part of the company that made it.


.
I couldn't find Poppy's original post in which he made a number of claims about the VCF.

I think its fair to say that the VCF is an improvement over what predated it. Until this discussion began on vaccines, I had very little idea exactly how the VCF functioned. Its been interesting to study it a bit.

According to the GAO about 49% of all claims made are resolved in five years or less. This sounds like a long time, but the tort system wasn't much more prompt. Fifty one percent of the cases filed with the VCF remain "pending" after five years.

In the real world, there can be a myriad of problems that prevent prompt and final adjudication of a serious bodily injury claim. Evidence has to be obtained of all the injuries the victim suffered and the effects these injuries have had on the victim's life. In any case, involving side effects from a medication (vaccine or otherwise) this can be particularly challenging. Often it is the claimant and their attorney who wish to delay final resolution of the case. The motivation is simple. Under our system, an injured party generally isn't allowed to come back multiple times and seek additional compensation if the initial award doesn't make them whole. In short, many of the delays can't be blamed on the VCF.

The VCF eliminates many complicated issues of proving causation by simply listing a number of diseases and medical conditions that it presumes are linked to taking a vaccine. If the claimant can prove that the condition occurred within a short time of taking the faccine than causation is considered established. For claimants, this is a vast improvement over having to call expert witnesses and use them to try to establish causation. Although this is still necessary if a medical condition or disease does not appear on a table established by the VCF.

The VCF functions differently in a number of ways than the tort system does. I looked at how attorneys are compensated and based on that, its probably something I would stay out of. Attorneys are limited to charging by the hour and must bill in increments down to one-tenth of an hour (six minutes). The Master in charge of the program must approve all fee petitions and I imagine this is a slow process. On the bright side, attorney fees can and are awarded even when a lawyer loses a case, so long as the Master judges it was brought in "good faith". The hourly rate that can be charged by attorneys varies. The Master must determine it in each case and the rate is higher for an attorney practicing in New York City or Washington, D.C. than it is for an attorney in the Mid West. In a practical sense, it might be difficult to convince many attorneys to take on a claim under the VCF. Although, that would have been true of a product liability suit against a vaccine manufacturer under the tort system.

I am generally not a proponent of alternative compensation systems. However, the VCF was necessary and no one should forget the background in which it was created. At the time the legislation was proposed, the pharmaceutical industry was reluctant to produce vaccines. They were never the "high profit" item that so many anti-vaccinators contend they were. The cost of defending lawsuits and the uncertainties about potential verdicts, as well as the possibility of future class action lawsuits, caused the pharmaceutical industry to shy away from making vaccines. I think everyone who posts here at least agrees that one ought to "have a choice" to take a vaccine. We had literally reached a point where the choice to take a vaccine would be gone because there would be no vaccines. If it accomplished nothing else, the creation of the VCF, keeps manufacturers producing vaccines. That may be its greatest achievement.


U.S. GAO - Vaccine Injury Compensation: Most Claims Took Multiple Years and Many Were Settled through Negotiation
 
Old 06-05-2015, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,557,052 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
That surprised me. It's the same MMR.

Here is the reason for the discrepancy:

"What is the recommended length of time a woman should wait after receiving rubella (or MMR) vaccine before becoming pregnant?
Although the MMR package insert recommends a 3 month deferral of pregnancy after MMR vaccination ACIP recommends deferral of pregnancy for four weeks. For details on this issue see MMWR 2001;50(No. 49):1117."

The MMWR says:

"On October 18, 2001, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed data from several sources indicating that no cases of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) had been identified among infants born to women who were vaccinated inadvertently against rubella within 3 months or early in pregnancy. On the basis of these data, ACIP shortened its recommended period to avoid pregnancy after receipt of rubella-containing vaccine from 3 months to 28 days."

It looks as if the lawyers who wrote the package insert are erring on the side of unwarranted caution.




Obstetricians pretty much check every pregnant woman for evidence of immunity to rubella. Anyone who is not immune is offered the vaccine after she delivers, whether she is nursing or not. There is sufficient experience with doing that to be reassuring that there is no danger to the baby. The benefit in preventing congenital rubella infections, which are truly devastating to the baby, outweighs the tiny theoretical risk of the baby picking up the vaccine virus by nursing.



That is certainly a concern. Like I said, my friend actually does the continuous temperature monitoring, keeps the log, and has a back up generator in the event the building loses power. There's no harm in asking about how your doctor stores vaccines. I doubt anyone would want to take the legal risk of using expired or improperly stored vaccines. There is nothing preventing a parent from suing a doctor if it was discovered the doctor deliberately used a vaccine that he should not have.



We get back to the point that millions of doses of vaccine have been given. The probability of a serious complication not being identified with exposure of that magnitude is very small.

Also, since there is the potential for other viruses to make it into vaccines, it is something that is monitored carefully. Newer methods of identifying DNA and RNA are making that easier. That the monitoring works is evidenced by what happened with that rotavirus vaccine.



There is no "forced" vaccine. If you do not want it, don't take it. If you do take it, you will be asked to indicate that you understand the risks and accept them.



If more people were vaccinated, the Disney outbreak would have been much smaller. Not everyone at Disney got sick. Most who did were not vaccinated.



It would be ideal if doctors always hit the correct diagnosis the first go around. Unfortunately, that is where the art of medicine comes in.

I have a lot of difficulty with the allegation that medicine is killing that many people. It turns out that a lot of those deaths are due to treatments that are properly prescribed and performed. To me that means that "medicine" is being blamed for deaths that were going to happen anyway. For example, a chemotherapy drug is prescribed for someone with cancer. Without the drug, the patient will die. Perhaps the patient has a fatal complication related to the chemo. That means the cause of the death is the adverse reaction; however, the patient would have died without treatment. The question is what errors are preventable. Dinging "medicine" for things that are beyond its control is underhanded.

The safety record of vaccines, based on millions of doses, is compelling.



Delays in adjudicating cases are most often due to the claimant not having paperwork in order. Valid claims in which the court gets the supporting material in a timely fashion usually are usually handled expeditiously.

The money does not come from the government. It comes from an excise tax on vaccines. That means it is paid for by people who use vaccines. It is the responsibility of the court to make sure that money goes to those who have a legitimate claim to it. The goal is to compensate people who are truly harmed by vaccines, which happens though there is no negligence in making the vaccine. The fact is that more injured people probably get more money through a no-fault system like the compensation program than they would going to court then giving 30 to 50% of an award to lawyers.




Nothing is "shoved into a coincidence pile". If conditions A and B tend to happen at the same ages, it is a mathematical certainty that a significant percentage of the time condition B will follow condition A. What you look for are those times when A follows B. If B follows A no more often than A follows B, it is unlikely that A causes B.

Suppose that your child is destined to have epilepsy. He will have it whether he is vaccinated or not. At some point, he will have his first seizure. Suppose that you have an appointment for him to get a vaccine on the exact day that seizure, which has nothing to do with vaccines, is ordained to happen. If the seizure happens in the waiting room while the child is waiting to be seen, obviously the vaccine could not be the cause. Have that seizure happen five minutes after the vaccine, and some parents will never be convinced the vaccine did not cause it - even though it did not.

If the point is to compensate people who are injured by vaccines, then why do you think the best way to do that is to sue the manufacturer? It can legitimately say that the injury is a known risk of the vaccine and happened without any negligence on the part of the company that made it.



Most colleges do require vaccines. People living in crowded conditions like dorms are more likely to pass infections to one another.



"Holistic" is a buzzword without much substance. It pretty much means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

Obviously we fight off most infections without any treatment. The ones we have vaccines for have complication rates that are high enough to make developing vaccines for them worthwhile. They are not trivial.

Many cancers are curable by the way.



We do not need 100%. For some diseases we need about 95%, and if 2-3% of the population has a true medical contraindication, that leaves only about a 2% margin for people who just do not want to vaccinate. Schools where 70% of the kids are not vaccinate are disasters waiting to happen.

There is no argument about the VAERS reports. Some of them are asinine. The anti-vax community abuses the VAERS system unmercifully.



Anyone who is using an alternative schedule should just make sure the kid gets the mandated vaccines. Want to take the kid to the doctor every week, fine. Just get them all in before he's five years old and hope he does not get sick in the meantime.

Religion is being used as an excuse for people who just do not want to vaccinate. Lying about religion to get an exemption is what is prompting the demise of the religious exemption. The fact is that none of the major religions have objections to vaccination.

When people make choices that hurt other people, their choices get restricted.
Your posts are so difficult to respond to when you add everyone in there Suzy, it's as if you can't address one person about their topic then leave me out of there plz. (IMO only). The only legitimate use of that quote feature to me is if you are saying the same thing to multiple people. "Where's the store", "is there a store around here", " good stores in this town", multi quote, yes, the stores are located here.
On my end, quoting you, there is no indication of who's post you grabbed. I have to go back and forth to the original page. Sometimes I don't reply because truthfully, it's not worth the effort. You know how I feel, I was clear, I don't feel like fishing through your multi quote party lectures, sorry.

This thread is about the mandates in CA. Why do you want them? That's really all you have to answer, which you have yet to do actually.

I for one can understand why people don't want mandates. I didn't say vaccines, I said M A N D A T E S for vaccines.
Which is what this thread is about. It's not about vaccine this, vaccine that. Please address the topic. Or we have nothing to talk about. Mandating vaccines is more about politics, and government involvement in our lives, big business and not about how good or bad the product is.

How can we mandate a drug in a for profit healthcare system? America pays more for their drugs than countries with a non profit system, we already make up for their loss. I don't think mandates on top of it is a good idea. Not all people will be happy to trust in mandates in a for profit system.

Americans also have faster access to new drugs than patients in many other countries. Thatís in part because the U.S. has always been a very attractive market for pharmaceutical companies: Itís big, accounting for 34 percent of the world market, has low levels of price regulation, and offers few barriers to market entry once FDA approval has been secured. By contrast, in some other countries there may be a time lag between clinical approval of a drug and the point when it is added to official lists of reimbursable drugs.

The result is that companies often choose the U.S. to launch new products. And, because the US market is so big and profitable, investments in research and development have long been steered towards meeting its clinical needs.
Why do Americans spend so much on pharmaceuticals?

Our healthcare system is not only for profit but it's reputation for safety and cleanliness is not the greatest.
Even if you say most all the reports are just misunderstandings, coincidence (again) etc... It's so large a number it would be bad cut in half. Just like the VAERS reports. It seems you just excuse medicine for it's faults yet are willing to hunt down parents for theirs. It's transparent that you feel the medical community can do no wrong, how realistic is that?
The medical system is only wrong at guessing someone would die naturally anyway? Really? This is sounding like a repeat from your VAERS excuse.

I can see why mandates don't worry you, but not everyone feels the same. You have no respect, IMO. Why?
Let's get to the real topic of this thread.
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.


Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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