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.
I do not think California's new law will change anything either. People will believe whatever they want to believe. They will find ways to get around the law in this one state. It doesn't affect any other state BUT California.
No, California's legislation will not spread to other states. Similar legislation is failing or not even be proposed in other states. The proposed Federal legislation to vaccinate all children in public schools across the country will go nowhere, starting with not even getting out of committee, let alone passing both Houses of Congress.
It will, and has died down, until the next "epidemic" the media creates. Should be interesting to see what the next epidemic will be. You can bet there will be another this year.
Same symptoms as polio and polio is an enterovirus. Causes paralysis... Not called polio but it's cousin and the rate of paralysis is the same. Semantics.
It's not semantics when it's caused by a different virus. It's a different disease. It's certainly not caused by the polio vaccine, either. But you might get a "sore spot"!
Isn't that the truth! The other thing they love to do, I have found, is play "divide and conquer". They love to play up minor differences in the posts of pro-vaxers.
Let's talk about the bold.
"On the one hand, we have a vaccine which carries a risk of acute thrombocytopenic purpura, which typically resolves within 6 months or less, in about 2-4 for every 100,000 doses administered. By contrast, each separate disease (measles, mumps and rubella) individually carry a higher risk of ATP, with similar outcomes as the vaccine. As an example, rubella occurs around 10 times more often following natural infection (~33 per 100,000 cases) than the rate from the vaccine." Harpocrates Speaks: Acute Thrombocytopenic Purpura, the MMR and Natural Infection
ok, you talked about the point in bold.
Now back to the question I asked several people who didn't care to answer my direct question and here it is again to you, using your specific example:
Let's say you have a child who was one of the 2-4 out of 100k doses who got thrombocytopenic purpura, or in my earlier example using the CDC data, your child was one of the 1 out of 30k who now has a temporary low platelet count/a bleeding disorder, was hospitalized for it, etc. as a result of the MMR vaccine. This can be a serious condition.
Question: Would you be willing to give your child, without question, another required vaccine, with the same risk profile with no questions/concerns? Or would you think seriously about perhaps not giving the next vaccine, with a similiar risk profile, to your child given the previous experience your child had with a vaccine? And if you decide not to give the next vaccine based on the bad experience of the previous, you feel CA has every right to ban your child from public school as a result because of your choice in this specific circumstance?
I do not think California's new law will change anything either. People will believe whatever they want to believe. They will find ways to get around the law in this one state. It doesn't affect any other state BUT California.
No, California's legislation will not spread to other states. Similar legislation is failing or not even be proposed in other states. The proposed Federal legislation to vaccinate all children in public schools across the country will go nowhere, starting with not even getting out of committee, let alone passing both Houses of Congress.
It will, and has died down, until the next "epidemic" the media creates. Should be interesting to see what the next epidemic will be. You can bet there will be another this year.
Smallpox? Accusing the anti-vaxxers of bringing it back?
Now back to the question I asked several people who didn't care to answer my direct question and here it is again to you, using your specific example:
Let's say you have a child who was one of the 2-4 out of 100k doses who got thrombocytopenic purpura, or in my earlier example using the CDC data, your child was one of the 1 out of 30k who now has a temporary low platelet count/a bleeding disorder, was hospitalized for it, etc. as a result of the MMR vaccine. This can be a serious condition.
Question: Would you be willing to give your child, without question, another required vaccine, with the same risk profile with no questions/concerns? Or would you think seriously about perhaps not giving the next vaccine, with a similiar risk profile, to your child given the previous experience your child had with a vaccine? And if you decide not to give the next vaccine based on the bad experience of the previous, you feel CA has every right to ban your child from public school as a result because of your choice in this specific circumstance?
Exactly the problem with the CA bill. If a child has a serious reaction to a vaccine, doctors are more likely to recommend a modified schedule than exempt them even though the vaccine insert says not to give it if a serious reaction to the vaccine OR it's ingredients occurred. So the child reacted badly as you said to the MMR but the doctor says it's fine to give them Tdap. Yet Tdap and MMR have similar ingredients (other than the viruses/bacterium). How can you know what ingredient caused the reaction? It could be specific to that vaccine or it could be a substance present in ALL vaccines. The doctor is clueless and as a parent, you don't have the right to choose.
Still your child would be banned from public schools, daycares, etc. because the doctor will not sign off on a medical waiver.
It's not semantics when it's caused by a different virus. It's a different disease. It's certainly not caused by the polio vaccine, either. But you might get a "sore spot"!
However, it's not a different virus. Polio is an enterovirus. Same virus different strain. In fact, strains that cause paralysis are: CV-A1, CV-A2, CV-A5, CV-A8, CV-A20a, CV-A21, CV-B5, PV1, PV2, PV3 (polio) as far as we know. The classification of enterovirus' came on and after 1962. Polio was discovered first and later classified under enterovirus in the family of Picornavirus. It's semantics.
Added: You know like different strains of the flu... still the flu.
Last edited by katjonjj; 07-09-2015 at 08:04 PM..
Reason: added info
Exactly the problem with the CA bill. If a child has a serious reaction to a vaccine, doctors are more likely to recommend a modified schedule than exempt them even though the vaccine insert says not to give it if a serious reaction to the vaccine OR it's ingredients occurred. So the child reacted badly as you said to the MMR but the doctor says it's fine to give them Tdap. Yet Tdap and MMR have similar ingredients (other than the viruses/bacterium). How can you know what ingredient caused the reaction? It could be specific to that vaccine or it could be a substance present in ALL vaccines. The doctor is clueless and as a parent, you don't have the right to choose.
Still your child would be banned from public schools, daycares, etc. because the doctor will not sign off on a medical waiver.
This is why personal exemptions are necessary.
Exactly and well stated.
Isn't it interesting how some of the ultra-pro CA vaccine bill people on this thread haven't been able to answer my question directly a few posts up when I try to put a face on the cold "1 in xxxx people" faceless CDC stats by asking what they'd do/feel if it were their own child in such a spot as being the "1 in xxxx" cases. Guessing they don't care to see even the slightest bit of gray as they don't want to appear "wrong". Isn't being "wrong", in a general view sense on this topic, better than seeing a child, perhaps their own, harmed for a 2nd time, perhaps even more serious than the 1st?
They are more than just different strains: they are part of the same family of viruses, but are different species altogether. They're also spread differently, too: polioviruses are primarily spread through fecal-oral route, while EV68 is primarily spread through respiratory secretions (actually, EV68 used to be classified as rhinovirus because it is genetically similar, and are of the same genus).
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
However, it's not a different virus. Polio is an enterovirus. Same virus different strain. In fact, strains that cause paralysis are: CV-A1, CV-A2, CV-A5, CV-A8, CV-A20a, CV-A21, CV-B5, PV1, PV2, PV3 (polio) as far as we know. The classification of enterovirus' came on and after 1962. Polio was discovered first and later classified under enterovirus in the family of Picornavirus. It's semantics.
Added: You know like different strains of the flu... still the flu.
Last edited by Ginge McFantaPants; 07-09-2015 at 08:28 PM..
Isn't it interesting how some of the ultra-pro CA vaccine bill people on this thread haven't been able to answer my question directly a few posts up when I try to put a face on the cold "1 in xxxx people" faceless CDC stats by asking what they'd do/feel if it were their own child in such a spot as being the "1 in xxxx" cases. Guessing they don't care to see even the slightest bit of gray as they don't want to appear "wrong". Isn't being "wrong", in a general view sense on this topic, better than seeing a child, perhaps their own, harmed for a 2nd time, perhaps even more serious than the 1st?
It's entitlement. They think that by following the vaccination schedule that they are entitled to more than those who do not. My kids have not had a reaction to vaccines (but I did wait until they were over 5 and spread them out) however, I can sympathize with my cousin whose child became unresponsive after his MMR shot. He was diagnosed as ASD a few months later. I am not saying the vaccine caused his ASD (I do entertain the idea that the reaction he had triggered the ASD) but his mother certainly does. I sympathize with her because she cannot get a medical exemption since his doctor still recommends other vaccines but his reaction was severe enough that there is no way she will take the chance again. So if such a bill were passed in WA, he would not be able to attend school.
While these pro-vaxers only see the black and white... they accuse perfectly rational parents of being anti-science, ignorant, followers, and irrational without ever considering themselves in a similar position.
They are more than just different strains: they are part of the same family of viruses, but are different species altogether. They're also spread differently, too: polioviruses are primarily spread through fecal-oral route, while EV68 is primarily spread through respiratory secretions (actually, EV68 used to be classified as rhinovirus because it is genetically similar).
No the family is Picornavirus. Enterovirus is the species. I listed the human sub-types. The way they are spread has nothing to do with it. They all can be spread by fecal or oral routes and each is associated with certain symptoms. It is just like strains of the flu. Polio is a strain of enterovirus.
Also, it has been noted that immunity is strain-dependent. Immunity to EV68 doesn't mean you are immune to EV71.
Just like with the flu there are types, sub-types, and strains but they are all enterovirus.
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.
