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.
1. I told you what it was. I recieved every vaccine that I was slated to have from a baby until about almost a teenager. My mother was very strick about following the pediatricians advice. My grandmother questioned him one day on a routine visit. She wanted to know what the point of vaccination was if Im going to come down with the diseases anyway. Not an unreasonable question. His answer was simular to others here - if I got sick, it was a milder case than it would have been without the vaccine.
Did I not say I did not get polio, lol? I would add to that I did not get Diptheria either.
4. Surely, you know everyone reacts to medications, treatments, and vaccines differently. It's called Physiology, I think.
6. In your opinion. Mine is obviously different. Learn to deal.
I have an open mind. Im not against anyone seeking vaccination recieving it. I would never tell someone they should not be vaccinated, however, I cant see random vaccines for something as mundane as the flu that we all have been exposed to for every single year of our lives shoved down anyone's throat either. Its my body - I should have a reasonable choice over what I want going into it.
I have an elderly family member. They have never been vaccinated for the flu. Imagine living to be almost 90 without a flu vaccine - how is it even possible?
What is wrong with natural immunity? It keeps doctors in business too.
People speak of propaganda - you dont look at the posters using photos of dead people lined up in the street from a time where people did not have reasonable access to orange juice, aspirin, and pennicillin to push a vaccine as propaganda? No?
Im also kinda intelligent. Not smarter than the average bear, but I still have a rather 'human-oriented' thought process -
Granny emphasized, "I am OLD" You dont need a PhD to figure out what she is saying. She isnt worried - she has lived a life. What's a disease going to do - cut it short? Nope, impossible.
I had read in the past that Bree Walker's mother had taken the morning sickness drug. Please forgive me for having invalid information. However, there were numerous lawsuits over it, and it was taken off the market. Companies dont just trash a drug when their is no evidence behind the complaints. They spend too much on R&D for that. It was a fact then, suddenly 30+ years later it is no longer a fact. The correlation is its a foreign substance that has no need to exist. Sure, some women have a hard time with pregnancy, but some women dont mind eating crackers either. We have no historical evidence that eating crackers ever caused or was linked to birth defects, lol.
As for Public School, they have right to require what they will. As for Hospitals, they have a right to require what they will from any new hires.
What happens to those cancer patients once they get on public transportation to go home? Are they not vaccinated too? Is it not said that people with compromised immune systems are a priority for vaccination?
Im not sure there is anyone on the planet that wouldnt get in line for an Ebola Vaccine should we see a substancial outbreak where we live. Last I checked, no one can simply run to the pharmacy and pick up a pack of "TamaEbola".
At any rate, are we supposed to live forever?
How would the planet support us living forever, and the new lives that follow us too?
y
Thank you, from an old person. I agree with everything you said. My generation managed to survived all these horrific childhood diseases. There would not be any Baby Boomers, or your generation, if we didn't. Why do they always talk about small pox, polio, or the PLAGUE (????) in the same breathe? I was 4 year old by the time that Salk vaccine ever came out. Survived and so did my parents who never vaccinated THEMSELVES for polio.
BTW, I was born and raised in NYC (Manhattan). 8 Million people living in close proximity to each other. Packed in subway cars like sardines. SPREADING diseases if unvaccinated? Hey, try just the Flu or Common Cold. You cannot be a disease FANATIC and choose to live like that. People just accept it. Hello, Health Care Professionals?
BTW, I would not run out for an Ebola vaccination. When you reach a certain age SOMETHING is going to kill you sooner rather than later. Medicine tries to promote QUILT. Even if you don't care about dying yourself, you are SELFISH if you don't care about "killing" other people. That is there Advertising on how to sell vaccinations, whatever your age.
1. I told you what it was. I recieved every vaccine that I was slated to have from a baby until about almost a teenager. My mother was very strick about following the pediatricians advice. My grandmother questioned him one day on a routine visit. She wanted to know what the point of vaccination was if Im going to come down with the diseases anyway. Not an unreasonable question. His answer was simular to others here - if I got sick, it was a milder case than it would have been without the vaccine.
The point of vaccination is not "if I got sick, it was a milder case than it would have beeen without the vaccine." That is often true, but the point of the vaccine is that the odds are high you will not get sick at all. Then you will also not spread the disease, because you never had it. Your body eliminated the infecting organisms before they could make you sick or multiply to a point that it could be spread from you to someone else.
Quote:
Did I not say I did not get polio, lol? I would add to that I did not get Diptheria either.
No, your statement as written was not clear. What vaccines did you actually take, and what diseases have you actually had? Did you catch anything you had been vaccinated for?
Quote:
4. Surely, you know everyone reacts to medications, treatments, and vaccines differently. It's called Physiology, I think.
People react differently to infections, too. Some live, but a few become permanently damaged or die. You are far more likely to become permanently damaged or die from a vaccine preventable disease than the vaccine against that disease.
Some people are genetically resistant to certain diseases. My husband and I have had DNA testing with 23AndMe. He is resistant to norovirus; I am not. There are people who are resistant to HIV and Ebola.
It would be nice to have a test that would tell us whether someone would have an adverse reaction to a vaccine, but such a test does not exist. Until it does, the odds that anyone will have a serious reaction to a vaccine are so low that they are difficult to calculate. That means that the benefit of the vaccine greatly outweighs that risk.
Quote:
6. In your opinion. Mine is obviously different. Learn to deal.
I have an open mind. Im not against anyone seeking vaccination recieving it. I would never tell someone they should not be vaccinated, however, I cant see random vaccines for something as mundane as the flu that we all have been exposed to for every single year of our lives shoved down anyone's throat either. Its my body - I should have a reasonable choice over what I want going into it.
I have an elderly family member. They have never been vaccinated for the flu. Imagine living to be almost 90 without a flu vaccine - how is it even possible?
Science is not based on opinion. It is a fallacy that the opinion that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits should be given equal weight with the opinion that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. The opinion that the risks of vaccines outweigh the risks of preventable diseases is not supported by any evidence at all. None.
Not everyone catches the flu, even if not vaccinated. Each season anywhere from 5 to 20% of the population does catch it. The fact that a single individual never had the flu does not mean that no one ever got it. During the 2013 season, 90% of the kids who died from flu were unvaccinated. If you talk to an infectious disease expert (I have), he will tell you the people who end up in the ICU and die from flu are almost universally unvaccinated. It is not a "mundane" disease.
Quote:
What is wrong with natural immunity? It keeps doctors in business too.
The biggest problem is that you get sick to some degree or another to get that immunity. Some people have milder illness than others. Some get critically ill. A few die. With vaccines, you have a high chance of not getting sick at all and often a much milder illness if you do.
In addition, natural immunity is not all the ant-vax crowd makes it to be. You can get some diseases more than once, including chickenpox and whooping cough. "Natural" immunity to measles damages the immune system for two to three years, increasing the risk of getting other infections. It can also lead to a fatal delayed complication called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. Chickenpox creates the risk of shingles later in life, with the vaccine having a much lower risk of causing shingles. Many vaccine preventable diseases can cause long term disability, including blindness, deafness, and mental handicaps. Mumps can cause infertility. Don't forget paralysis with polio and the debilitation survivors with post-poilo syndrome have.
Quote:
People speak of propaganda - you dont look at the posters using photos of dead people lined up in the street from a time where people did not have reasonable access to orange juice, aspirin, and pennicillin to push a vaccine as propaganda? No?
Unless you think those photos are fabricated, you are looking at real people who died from real diseases. The problem is that few people alive today knew any of those folks in the photos. Those who do not know the effects of vaccine preventable disease have to be shown what they can do.
Quote:
Granny emphasized, "I am OLD" You dont need a PhD to figure out what she is saying. She isnt worried - she has lived a life. What's a disease going to do - cut it short? Nope, impossible.
What? An infant dying from whooping cough is not a life "cut short"? Granny may be willing to die from a vaccine preventable disease. Is she willing for her six month old great grandchild to do so?
Quote:
I had read in the past that Bree Walker's mother had taken the morning sickness drug. Please forgive me for having invalid information. However, there were numerous lawsuits over it, and it was taken off the market. Companies dont just trash a drug when their is no evidence behind the complaints. They spend too much on R&D for that. It was a fact then, suddenly 30+ years later it is no longer a fact. The correlation is its a foreign substance that has no need to exist. Sure, some women have a hard time with pregnancy, but some women dont mind eating crackers either. We have no historical evidence that eating crackers ever caused or was linked to birth defects, lol.
If you do not think a drug company will not trash a drug if the cost of defending lawsuits exceeds the profit from the drug, you really need to consider reading a basic book on economics.
Quote:
As for Public School, they have right to require what they will. As for Hospitals, they have a right to require what they will from any new hires.
What happens to those cancer patients once they get on public transportation to go home? Are they not vaccinated too? Is it not said that people with compromised immune systems are a priority for vaccination?
People with compromised immune systems are advised to avoid crowds. That does not protect them from what their families might bring home to them. They often cannot be given vaccines themselves because the vaccine might not take, and live virus vaccines are contraindicated because the patient may not be able to handle even the weakened organisms in them. If the immune suppression is due to some types of chemo or a bone marrow transplant, the patient may even have to be completely revaccinated after recovering from treatment.
Quote:
Im not sure there is anyone on the planet that wouldnt get in line for an Ebola Vaccine should we see a substancial outbreak where we live. Last I checked, no one can simply run to the pharmacy and pick up a pack of "TamaEbola".
Why does it have to be Ebola to convince someone to get a vaccine? The risks of vaccine preventable diseases are real.
Quote:
At any rate, are we supposed to live forever?
How would the planet support us living forever, and the new lives that follow us too?
Who has ever said vaccines are intended to make anyone live forever? Does anyone really want to die prematurely from something that could be prevented? Is that not why we have smoke alarms and carbon monoxide monitors and seat belts and air bags in motor vehicles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram
Opinion has nothing to do with it. Science doesn't work based on opinion but on testing a hypothesis and then testing and re-testing it, applying rigorous standards to determine whether something is effective or not. We're not discussing whether or not a particular movie is any good as that can be very subjective. Science should always endeavor to be as objective as possible. If your research comes to a particular conclusion, someone thousands of miles away, using the same parameters, should be able to replicate that and arrive at the exact same conclusion. There is no room for opinion without being backed up by hard data and real world studies.
An interesting take on the issue of opinion and science denialism:
Thank you, from an old person. I agree with everything you said. My generation managed to survived all these horrific childhood diseases. There would not be any Baby Boomers, or your generation, if we didn't. Why do they always talk about small pox, polio, or the PLAGUE (????) in the same breathe? I was 4 year old by the time that Salk vaccine ever came out. Survived and so did my parents who never vaccinated THEMSELVES for polio.
All of your generation did not survive childhood diseases. During the 1950s an average of 500 people per year died just from measles alone. The ones who died before they were old enough to reproduce left no descendants. In the generation before yours, there was a pandemic of influenza that wiped out a good chunk of it, including young, otherwise healthy folks who never got to have children. Without those deaths there would have been a lot more Baby Boomers.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,148,847 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram
To an extent yet, but not to such a wide degree as you seem to be implying. Research is designed to be applicable to the vast majority of the population and it also accounts for non-responders and those individuals for whom treatment would be less than optimal. It all gets figured in. We know there's a certain percentage of people that won't respond to certain vaccines, but you don't first develop treatments for the exceptions rather than the rule. You develop an effective treatment for the bulk of the population and then you go back and look at tweaking it to find ways to make it more effective for the small part of the population that it isn't as effective in.
So no, not "everyone reacts to medications, treatments and vaccines differently", the vast majority of the population will react exactly the same.
Opinion has nothing to do with it. Science doesn't work based on opinion but on testing a hypothesis and then testing and re-testing it, applying rigorous standards to determine whether something is effective or not. We're not discussing whether or not a particular movie is any good as that can be very subjective. Science should always endeavor to be as objective as possible. If your research comes to a particular conclusion, someone thousands of miles away, using the same parameters, should be able to replicate that and arrive at the exact same conclusion. There is no room for opinion without being backed up by hard data and real world studies.
That is such BS. Back in the 80-90's studies were done, hypothesis were tested, and re-tested and we recieved Vioxx. It was a godsend for those who suffered from arthritis and couldnt use previously availavle drugs. The next thing you know, doctors, learned professionals, were touting it as a cure for altzheimers. It was a wonder drug according to any expert opinion you sought.
It turned out to be a wonder arthritis drug that was possibly a cure for altzheimer's that definately caused strokes in numerous patients before it was taken off the market.
We had diet theories - dont eat fat, you wont gain weight. We had street drug theories in the 70s that were tested and retested - cocaine is not addictive. All garbage.
We have people right now getting kicked off drugs they sorely need for a condition that ais cost prohibitive, but if they present a symptom they are kicked off the study group - no more meds for you!
Live in your fairytale world if you like - but opinion has a heck of alot to do with it. Pure science using ethics is good science. Science with a dollar attached to it is sadly a whole 'nother animal.
A book, a song, a case study - its all only as good as the person/people writing it.
We used to test things for something like 20 years before it was put on the market, but I think the advent of HIV changed that. Early HIV patients wanted any new therapies as quickly as they could get them - and you cant blame them for that.
But at what point did that dire need become the rule of thumb for everything that was to follow?
To eliminate any negative reaction from a study is not and has NEVER been good science. Opinion has everything to with it these days.
Medicine has made many advances recently no doubt. I am currently undergoing a treatment myself. I have researched the treatments ever since I found out I had the problem over 20 years ago. People today tell me I made the right choice to wait. Back then, they told me I was fool to wait.
What didnt change? What wasnt an opinion? Then or now?
What school kid doesnt know statistics and data are easy to manipulate and slant if one wants too?
Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 05-31-2015 at 06:37 PM..
That is such BS. Back in the 80-90's studies were done, hypothesis were tested, and re-tested and we recieved Vioxx. It was a godsend for those who suffered from arthritis and couldnt use previously availavle drugs. The next thing you know, doctors, learned professionals, were touting it as a cure for altzheimers. It was a wonder drug according to any expert opinion you sought.
It turned out to be a wonder arthritis drug that was possibly a cure for altzheimer's that definately caused strokes in numerous patients before it was taken off the market.
We had diet theories - dont eat fat, you wont gain weight. We had street drug theories in the 70s that were tested and retested - cocaine is not addictive. All garbage.
Live in your fairytale world if you like - but opinion has a heck of alot to do with it. Pure science using ethics is good science. Science with a dollar attached to it is sadly a whole 'nother animal.
A book, a song, a case study - its all only as good as the person/people writing it.
We used to test things for something like 20 years before it was put on the market, but I think the advent of HIV changed that. Early HIV patients wanted any new therapies as quickly as they could get them - and you cant blame them for that.
But at what point did that dire need become the rule of thumb for everything that was to follow?
To eliminate any negative reaction from a study is not and has NEVER been good science. Opinion has everything to with it these days.
Medicine has made many advances recently no doubt. I am currently undergoing a treatment myself. I have researched the treatments ever since I found out I had the problem over 20 years ago. People today tell me I made the right choice to wait. Back then, they told me I was fool to wait.
What didnt change? What wasnt an opinion? Then or now?
What school kid doesnt know statistics and data are easy to manipulate and slant if one wants too?
None of that has anything to do with vaccines, which we have been using since Jenner. Millions and millions of doses of vaccines have been given. As problems with them have been identified, they have been improved. Vaccines are under continuous surveillance, which is the reason the intussusception problem with the original rotavirus vaccine was discovered, the vaccine withdrawn, and improved vaccines developed.
Good science is not taking internet "stories" about unconfirmed adverse reactions to vaccines as the gospel truth and proof that vaccines actually did cause any reaction at all. Science is not based on anyone's opinion. It is based on facts. As new facts become available, they are synthesized into a body of evidence. That body of evidence for vaccines supports that vaccines are safe and effective. There is no body of scientific evidence to the contrary, only opinions based on woo and pseudoscience. Medicine changes as technology improves and new methods of diagnosis become available, and those changes are not due to simple changes in opinion.
Quote:
We have people right now getting kicked off drugs they sorely need for a condition that ais cost prohibitive, but if they present a symptom they are kicked off the study group - no more meds for you!
People in drug studies do not normally pay for their treatment, so this statement suggests you do not understand how drug studies work.
Someone who has an adverse reaction to the study drug would have to stop taking it, but people are not arbitrarily kicked out of a study because they "present a symptom".
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,148,847 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
None of that has anything to do with vaccines, which we have been using since Jenner. Millions and millions of doses of vaccines have been given. As problems with them have been identified, they have been improved. Vaccines are under continuous surveillance, which is the reason the intussusception problem with the original rotavirus vaccine was discovered, the vaccine withdrawn, and improved vaccines developed.
Good science is not taking internet "stories" about unconfirmed adverse reactions to vaccines as the gospel truth and proof that vaccines actually did cause any reaction at all. Science is not based on anyone's opinion. It is based on facts. As new facts become available, they are synthesized into a body of evidence. That body of evidence for vaccines supports that vaccines are safe and effective. There is no body of scientific evidence to the contrary, only opinions based on woo and pseudoscience. Medicine changes as technology improves and new methods of diagnosis become available, and those changes are not due to simple changes in opinion.
People in drug studies do not normally pay for their treatment, so this statement suggests you do not understand how drug studies work.
Someone who has an adverse reaction to the study drug would have to stop taking it, but people are not arbitrarily kicked out of a study because they "present a symptom".
Do you hear yourself?
As problems are identified? Shouldnt problems be identified before they are put on the market?
Dr Gary Null testified about the development of the flu vaccine in NYS. He read specificly from the guidelines of the studies in his testimony. The instructions were - if a pregnant woman has a tempature spike of 100 or more, she is to be illiminated from the study. Well, you cant suck the vaccine back out of her, can you?
Good science would report that woman and her spike, and good scientists would work on a vaccine that did not come with instructions that already predicted a temp spike was possible, and how to handle it.
Good medicine does not start someone on a treatment in a study, and then drop them from that treatment, especially if the symptom reported is NOT life-threatening, especially when to do so is harmful to any future treatment of the patient.
You are very full of yourself for someone who is so very brainwashed apparently.
I'll leave you to convince yourself you never heard a professor or doctor say -
Science used to believe...we used to believe that...
Keyword is believe - as in *think*, but dont know.
As problems are identified? Shouldnt problems be identified before they are put on the market?
Dr Gary Null testified about the development of the flu vaccine in NYS. He read specificly from the guidelines of the studies in his testimony. The instructions were - if a pregnant woman has a tempature spike of 100 or more, she is to be illiminated from the study. Well, you cant suck the vaccine back out of her, can you?
Good science would report that woman and her spike, and good scientists would work on a vaccine that did not come with instructions that already predicted a temp spike was possible, and how to handle it.
Good medicine does not start someone on a treatment in a study, and then drop them from that treatment, especially if the symptom reported is NOT life-threatening, especially when to do so is harmful to any future treatment of the patient.
You are very full of yourself for someone who is so very brainwashed apparently.
I'll leave you to convince yourself you never heard a professor or doctor say -
Science used to believe...we used to believe that...
Keyword is believe - as in *think*, but dont know.
Have a nice night.
It is impossible to do studies with large enough numbers of participants to detect rare complications. The cost of the studies would be prohibitive and the the resulting cost of the drug or vaccine unaffordable. It is unreasonable to expect absolute 100% safety from any drug, including a vaccine.
Could you provide a link to the study Null was referring to, please? It is difficult for me to comment on such a vague third hand allegation.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,148,847 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
It is impossible to do studies with large enough numbers of participants to detect rare complications. The cost of the studies would be prohibitive and the the resulting cost of the drug or vaccine unaffordable. It is unreasonable to expect absolute 100% safety from any drug, including a vaccine.
Could you provide a link to the study Null was referring to, please? It is difficult for me to comment on such a vague third hand allegation.
I know who he is. He has PhD. Hmmm, a smear campaign after his testimony. Who ever heard of such a thing?
There are tapes of the proceedings. You cant look them up yourself?
He is such an 'invalid' person that not only was his testimony allowed (as in, they let him give testimony) no healthcare professional was forced to take a flu shot that year. That's who he is, lol.
But by all means, please make sure you take yours. That way if you encounter an illegal alien or anyone who has not been vacinated, you dont have to worry about them.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,148,847 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
y
Thank you, from an old person. I agree with everything you said. My generation managed to survived all these horrific childhood diseases. There would not be any Baby Boomers, or your generation, if we didn't. Why do they always talk about small pox, polio, or the PLAGUE (????) in the same breathe? I was 4 year old by the time that Salk vaccine ever came out. Survived and so did my parents who never vaccinated THEMSELVES for polio.
BTW, I was born and raised in NYC (Manhattan). 8 Million people living in close proximity to each other. Packed in subway cars like sardines. SPREADING diseases if unvaccinated? Hey, try just the Flu or Common Cold. You cannot be a disease FANATIC and choose to live like that. People just accept it. Hello, Health Care Professionals?
BTW, I would not run out for an Ebola vaccination. When you reach a certain age SOMETHING is going to kill you sooner rather than later. Medicine tries to promote QUILT. Even if you don't care about dying yourself, you are SELFISH if you don't care about "killing" other people. That is there Advertising on how to sell vaccinations, whatever your age.
You are very welcome. And, I support your right to NOT take an Ebola vaccine if you deside not too.
I know who he is. He has PhD. Hmmm, a smear campaign after his testimony. Who ever heard of such a thing?
There are tapes of the proceedings. You cant look them up yourself?
He is such an 'invalid' person that not only was his testimony allowed (as in, they let him give testimony) no healthcare professional was forced to take a flu shot that year. That's who he is, lol.
But by all means, please make sure you take yours. That way if you encounter an illegal alien or anyone who has not been vacinated, you dont have to worry about them.
Did you read how he got his PhD? Essentially he awarded it to himself.
I stopped listening to the video when he mentioned the word autism.
Lots of people "give testimony". That does not mean the "testimony" is worth hearing.
Null's "testimony" had nothing to do with stopping healthcare workers' flu vacccinations. They ran out of vaccine.
I am not worried about "illegal aliens". They've been vaccinated.
LMAO, you sound like God. Okay God, then your whole thing here is bogus. You already know that every person on the planet has been vaccinated. Cool!
No one has anything to worry about.
Um, no - the NYSNA was fighting this new non-contractual obligation. They may have eventually run out of vaccine, but they didnt have to take it as the mandate went under review.
Its also amazingly good science and research to say you stopped listening based on a personal buzzword. I guess its everyone else that needs an 'open mind' - not God SuzyQ. *shrugs*
Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 06-01-2015 at 05:06 AM..
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.
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.
