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.
What I cannot understand is how people get so furious about refusing a vaccination for a disease that is not even contagious, and will only affect the individual person. Tetanus? HPV? Shingles? Come on. Your concept of Herd Immunity won't work with those. So why do you even CARE? MUST do whatever doctors say to do? As Poppysead said, there are people on here who DID vaccinate our own kids. So we are anti-vaxxers too? I suppose they cannot understand this. We are coming at this from choice, not coercion and force.
How far do you want medicine to take this coercion? Vaccination now, but what in the future? A woman I know told me her doctor said that mammograms were REQUIRED under the law. What??????? Doctor said if she refused her mammogram he would drop her as a patient. How about a PATIENT dropping that Bully Doctor? First vaccinations. Now mammograms too?
Tetanus is a serious disease, even today it has a high death rate, and it's horrible. Furthermore, it only comes "bundled" with the diptheria and pertussis vaccines. Tehre is no single-antigen tetanus vaccine available in this country. I don't understand the anti-vaxers latest beef with tetanus simply b/c it isn't communicable person to person.
Only DC, Rhode Island and Virginia mandate HPV vaccine. HPV is communicable person to person, though not in the classroom setting. Shingles is certainly not on any state's required vaccine list; it is not required for anyone anywhere, so why bring it up. Shingles can transmit chickenpox.
The woman you talked to misunderstood what her doctor said, or in a rare instance, the doctor was not being truthful. I vote with the former. Please quit fear mongering.
Threats and coercion is your idea of choice? That sheds some light and is telling of the pro vax crowd. Resorting to threats won't aid in promoting vaccines, won't help stop disease, it will only create more problems. There are better ways of promoting childhood vaccines. This fight is just the latest fad. I would hope this country could do better. As long as we have a for profit healthcare system this type of coercion and false promotion will occur. There is no epidemic, promoting vaccines in a diplomatic way would be a far better avenue in my opinion.
Vaccine safety is questionable for certain people, and should not be advised as a whole but on an individual basis. We aren't cattle, we are human beings. We are more than just a herd. Every year children and adults are severely injured and killed by vaccine injuries. It needs to be a choice made by the parent, not the governments idea of what's good for a herd of humans.
Threats and coercion? In what way? Every decision we make has consequences. Every one. Some decisions we make provide consequences we do not like. And this is not a fad. This is reckless behavior that actually puts others at risk. It is not a matter of ignoring it until it goes away! Look, vaccines themselves will not provide 100% protection. So when the percentage of children getting vaccines goes down, the higher the likelihood a preventable disease will spread. Schools are a very likely place for that to happen. Then, it is more likely to spread to vulnerable populations--the very young and old, those with compromised immunity. It is an irresponsible decision to expose the population to disease needlessly. In the interest of public health, a decision will have to be made--if I choose not to vaccinate my child and have no legitimate reason (as defined by the law), I cannot send that child to a public school physically. Alternatives are available. I may not like it, but that is my choice.
Excellent post! And no, PoppySead, this isn't "revenge on the anti-vaxers". This is a call for honesty from them.
"Who's this "they"?
You know good and well, because VAERS says it on their site (VAERS being otherwise known as the big, bad, evil US government): "Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event. VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines."
I'm sure you've heard by now of the flu researcher who reported to VAERS that the flu vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk. Had he not asked VAERS, when they contacted him, to remove that report, it would still be in there for all to see, e.g. "X people had a fever; Y had sore arms; one turned into the Hulk". People would believe it, and these charlatans the anti-vaxers support philosophically and with money, e.g. Wakefield, Mercola, Mike Adams, etc, would be making videos of people transforming into the Hulk right before your eyes. CD posters would be posting them as "evidence" for all the rest of us to see.
Interestingly, in most matters of immunization, the government, e.g. the CDC is considered by the anit-vaxers corrupt and untrustworthy, but when it comes to this raw VAERS data, that's the inerrant word of God! Anti-vaxers who tell us in one breath that parents are irresponsible, etc tell us in the next that no parent would falsely report anything to VAERS in the hopes of getting money.
Your "30,000 a year" refers to reports, as you well know. This includes reports of deaths from auto accidents, homicides, suicides, and other accidents (I know of one regarding a child falling into a well, choking on a bean), cancer, heart disease and other medical causes in the time frame allowed by VAERS for a vaccine injury.
Now lets talk about suing. Yes, drug companies can be sued. They just can't sued for what you might call "design defects" in vaccines without first going through the NVICP. If unsatisfied with the VAERS award, people can sue, and a VAERS award can also be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. You might take a look at this article: Why anti-vaxers hate the NVICP (and just what is it, anyway?). –by Colin McRoberts – Violent metaphors "Instead of having to sue the vaccine makers, which is an incredibly expensive, difficult, and time-consuming process, those plaintiffs get fast-tracked through a non-adversarial system. That means that instead of making them fight with the vaccine makers’ lawyers, the government pays for the plaintiffs’ counsel and works with them to determine whether compensation is appropriate. Plaintiffs in the NVICP win their cases much more often than plaintiffs in the normal product-liability courts, and even if they lose they don’t have to pay for their own lawyers." That's my allowable three sentences. You'll have to read the rest yourself.
Drug companies can certainly be sued for manufacturing errors and the like.
You might be interested to know that most first-world companies have such programs. They work a little differently in each, but in all, the evidence needed is far less than what is needed in a court of law.
Here is an article about the US program. Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs — History of Vaccines " In some cases (Germany and Switzerland) the state, rather than the national government, administers the program. And in countries with national health plans, vaccine injury compensation is a secondary source of support, as basic health care is provided at no or very little cost. In general, developing nations have not established compensation systems for vaccine injuries"
First sentence: "The public health benefits of vaccination are clear."
That is the issue the anti-vaxers disagree with.
Here's more: "Without evidence of clear negligence, it is difficult to obtain compensation through traditional legal mechanisms. Recognizing this, several countries have implemented vaccine-injury compensation programmes.3"
It's true these injuries are hard to prove. That's why there is a table of presumed injuries to various vaccines and a time-table for each. The awards are decided on a no-fault basis.
Keep telling us we're all a bunch of killers. That's a way to develop trust. Not accessing health care kills too, in far greater numbers.
MMR vaccine complication ITP: Vaccines save lives despite rare side effects.
There are real injuries from vaccines, and despite them people still willingly vaccinate. You give such little credit to others and are so angry it's difficult to communicate with you. It's like conversing with a robot reading the CDC website armed and ready for the anti vaxed. I already am aware what they say, and quite frankly they are more honest than you are about vaccine injuries.
The lady in this article is a sane, logical parent. She made good choices and her child suffered a real vaccine injury that does in real life happen. You can read the inserts from vaccines and see that real side effects are suffered. It depends on the individual who receives the vaccine. Doctors differ on opinion about this as well, it's not one size fits all. It certainly isn't all a lie like you paint it, which gets you so little respect from me when trying to discuss real issues parents have.
Compensation is very low, and has to meet outlined criteria. They claim no fault regardless of pay out. They claim to pay out without holding the vaccine responsible. This is how it is but, this doesn't address parents who's child was fine before the vaccine which they willingly received and not fine after. These people are in a tough spot, it's difficult to agree to vaccinate again after a sever event because of a mandate that's one size fits all that they feel a previous vaccine caused. You have such little compassion I hope no vaccine injuries ever happen in your practice as I would feel for your patient. I doubt they'd get much understanding from you. They'd probably get the riot act and refused to be seen.
Are you a parent? Do you make choices for your child? Do you understand how hard some of these choices are? I wonder. This isn't a fight between the pro vax angels and the no vax devils. But yet it seems to be for you.
Carry on your fight, you seem to enjoy the fighting more than the subject at hand which makes it extremely difficult to communicate with you. The article I posted would do far more to help promote vaccines than your bully attitude ever will. You do more harm than good, in my opinion toward educating the public about vaccines and their benefits. You guys come out shooting before you even know who your target is. It's so immature there's no way to get through your fits. This thread is best left untouched and hopefully it just dies out. I feel sorry for the victims who stumble upon it unknowingly thinking they'll be able to have an adult conversation. They're in for a surprise assault and a group that pokes fun at their concerns instead of actually helping them understand where you come from. You just seem angry at any parent who doesn't take your "side" because after all you're fighting a war. Many of us are stuck in the middle of it and it's unpleasant. No, don't worry, I got it. "You don't care. Vaccines are safe. You are the anti vaxed, prepare for attack." That's clear enough, trust me. Good luck with that.
You know as well as I that it can only be reported. They can't be sued in a court of law and proven to be at fault and they've set up a committee to pay people off after they sign an agreement not to blame them. What's not to trust?
I can tell you that their are an average of 30,000 reports a year by consumers and healthcare personnel who report to VAERS about injury and death they believe were caused by vaccines. You of course already know this. There are doctors that recommend certain kids shouldn't get them, those doctors don't get considered by the CDC as legitimate because they go against the CDC's advice.
Who would take what you say and actually think you had their best interest at heart? You could just as well be that nurse who made fun of that poor guy during his colonoscopy. It's anyone's guess who's who out there. We just do our best and try to figure it out. We rely on our own research when things look off. Some people might not agree with you or the CDC. They have their reasons.
But, for the most part people vaccinate. There are other ways, such as transparency, and taking peoples complaints seriously that would help encourage them to vaccinate more. Brushing aside injury and death healthcare workers and the public report isn't going to cut it. Some aren't going to understand that. There might be a few coincidences but I doubt there is 30,000 of them a year. That's fishy.
Last week you would have given a patient with high blood pressure an Advil every 6 hours for a hurt leg until their pain was gone. This week that would be bad advice wouldn't it. Healthcare fails. Healthcare kills. Science is not a religion. It can and has been wrong for a multitude of reasons. Therefore, people need to make their own choices.
I don't know how a drug company can improve on vaccines if they are infallible.
Yes to vaccines, no to mandating them.
Why do you continue to insist that every VAERS report is confirmation of a vaccine injury when it has been demonstrated to you that is not true over and over again? A tiny fraction of those reports are confirmed to be actual adverse effects of vaccines. Injuries and deaths reported to VAERS are investigated. Determining that they are not due to vaccines is not "brushing them aside." That is science in action.
Basing choices on the belief that every VAERS report is proof of an adverse reaction is irrational, yet that is what you advocate.
Doctors who determine that a child should not receive vaccines for medical reasons are indeed taken seriously. Medical exemptions for vaccines exist in every state, including California under its new law. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Medicine changes as new scientific evidence becomes available. That is a strength of medicine and science, not a weakness.
Katarina pointed out (again) that the no fault approach to vaccine injuries is better for the injured party than a traditional tort approach. Mark, who is a lawyer, concurs, as he has explained in his posts here. The reason is that injuries due to vaccines are not due to negligence on the part of the manufacturer. More people get compensation through the no fault system than would get money through the tort system - and awards are substantial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
What I cannot understand is how people get so furious about refusing a vaccination for a disease that is not even contagious, and will only affect the individual person. Tetanus? HPV? Shingles? Come on. Your concept of Herd Immunity won't work with those. So why do you even CARE? MUST do whatever doctors say to do? As Poppysead said, there are people on here who DID vaccinate our own kids. So we are anti-vaxxers too? I suppose they cannot understand this. We are coming at this from choice, not coercion and force.
How far do you want medicine to take this coercion? Vaccination now, but what in the future? A woman I know told me her doctor said that mammograms were REQUIRED under the law. What??????? Doctor said if she refused her mammogram he would drop her as a patient. How about a PATIENT dropping that Bully Doctor? First vaccinations. Now mammograms too?
HPV is contagious, and it is possible for herd immunity to be achieved if enough people vaccinate.
"6 years after the initiation of the Australian HPV vaccination programme, we have detected a substantial fall in vaccine-targeted HPV genotypes in vaccinated women; a lower prevalence of vaccine-targeted types in unvaccinated women, suggesting herd immunity ... "
"In comparing pre- and post-vaccination HPV prevalence rates, the researchers found that the prevalence of vaccine-type HPV decreased 58 per cent overall, from 31.7 per cent to 13.4 per cent.
The decrease was high among vaccinated participants (69 per cent), but also was substantial for those who were unvaccinated (49 per cent)."
The decrease in unvaccinated participants demonstrates herd immunity.
Your story about mammograms is interesting. You have now perpetuated a falsehood on the internet, just as people pass on secondhand falsehoods about vaccines, even reporting them to VAERS. VAERS is full of reports that start with "a person I know told me someone died after receiving a vaccine". Perhaps you might want to consider verifying information before you repeat it as fact. There are no laws mandating mammograms. If the woman you know who refused a mammogram was told her doctor would drop her if she did not have one, it is likely that he does not want a patient who will come back later and accuse him of missing her breast cancer - because he did not insist she have the mammogram she refused.
MMR vaccine complication ITP: Vaccines save lives despite rare side effects.
There are real injuries from vaccines, and despite them people still willingly vaccinate. You give such little credit to others and are so angry it's difficult to communicate with you. It's like conversing with a robot reading the CDC website armed and ready for the anti vaxed. I already am aware what they say, and quite frankly they are more honest than you are about vaccine injuries.
The lady in this article is a sane, logical parent. She made good choices and her child suffered a real vaccine injury that does in real life happen. You can read the inserts from vaccines and see that real side effects are suffered. It depends on the individual who receives the vaccine. Doctors differ on opinion about this as well, it's not one size fits all. It certainly isn't all a lie like you paint it, which gets you so little respect from me when trying to discuss real issues parents have.
Compensation is very low, and has to meet outlined criteria. They claim no fault regardless of pay out. They claim to pay out without holding the vaccine responsible. This is how it is but, this doesn't address parents who's child was fine before the vaccine which they willingly received and not fine after. These people are in a tough spot, it's difficult to agree to vaccinate again after a sever event because of a mandate that's one size fits all that they feel a previous vaccine caused. You have such little compassion I hope no vaccine injuries ever happen in your practice as I would feel for your patient. I doubt they'd get much understanding from you. They'd probably get the riot act and refused to be seen.
Are you a parent? Do you make choices for your child? Do you understand how hard some of these choices are? I wonder. This isn't a fight between the pro vax angels and the no vax devils. But yet it seems to be for you.
Carry on your fight, you seem to enjoy the fighting more than the subject at hand which makes it extremely difficult to communicate with you. The article I posted would do far more to help promote vaccines than your bully attitude ever will. You do more harm than good, in my opinion toward educating the public about vaccines and their benefits. You guys come out shooting before you even know who your target is. It's so immature there's no way to get through your fits. This thread is best left untouched and hopefully it just dies out. I feel sorry for the victims who stumble upon it unknowingly thinking they'll be able to have an adult conversation. They're in for a surprise assault and a group that pokes fun at their concerns instead of actually helping them understand where you come from. You just seem angry at any parent who doesn't take your "side" because after all you're fighting a war. Many of us are stuck in the middle of it and it's unpleasant. No, don't worry, I got it. "You don't care. Vaccines are safe. You are the anti vaxed, prepare for attack." That's clear enough, trust me. Good luck with that.
I'm not at my regular computer right now; I'm on my phone so I can't look up a bunch of links. Maybe later. However, you should be aware that ITP is also a side effect of measles DISEASE! In fact, it occurs far more frequently than after vaccination. If the child had caught will measles, the same thing would likely have happened, superimposed on measles disease, eg, high fever, rash, feeling like crap, maybe having other complications as well, since measles can affect every organ system in the body.
Compensation is low? That's why you AVers harp on about the billions paid out in compensation over the years, right?
You could knock off the personal attacks and armchair psycho -analysis while you're at it.
Why do you continue to insist that every VAERS report is confirmation of a vaccine injury when it has been demonstrated to you that is not true over and over again? A tiny fraction of those reports are confirmed to be actual adverse effects of vaccines. Injuries and deaths reported to VAERS are investigated. Determining that they are not due to vaccines is not "brushing them aside." That is science in action.
Basing choices on the belief that every VAERS report is proof of an adverse reaction is irrational, yet that is what you advocate.
Doctors who determine that a child should not receive vaccines for medical reasons are indeed taken seriously. Medical exemptions for vaccines exist in every state, including California under its new law. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Medicine changes as new scientific evidence becomes available. That is a strength of medicine and science, not a weakness.
Katarina pointed out (again) that the no fault approach to vaccine injuries is better for the injured party than a traditional tort approach. Mark, who is a lawyer, concurs, as he has explained in his posts here. The reason is that injuries due to vaccines are not due to negligence on the part of the manufacturer. More people get compensation through the no fault system than would get money through the tort system - and awards are substantial.
HPV is contagious, and it is possible for herd immunity to be achieved if enough people vaccinate.
"6 years after the initiation of the Australian HPV vaccination programme, we have detected a substantial fall in vaccine-targeted HPV genotypes in vaccinated women; a lower prevalence of vaccine-targeted types in unvaccinated women, suggesting herd immunity ... "
"In comparing pre- and post-vaccination HPV prevalence rates, the researchers found that the prevalence of vaccine-type HPV decreased 58 per cent overall, from 31.7 per cent to 13.4 per cent.
The decrease was high among vaccinated participants (69 per cent), but also was substantial for those who were unvaccinated (49 per cent)."
The decrease in unvaccinated participants demonstrates herd immunity.
Your story about mammograms is interesting. You have now perpetuated a falsehood on the internet, just as people pass on secondhand falsehoods about vaccines, even reporting them to VAERS. VAERS is full of reports that start with "a person I know told me someone died after receiving a vaccine". Perhaps you might want to consider verifying information before you repeat it as fact. There are no laws mandating mammograms. If the woman you know who refused a mammogram was told her doctor would drop her if she did not have one, it is likely that he does not want a patient who will come back later and accuse him of missing her breast cancer - because he did not insist she have the mammogram she refused.
She could sign a waiver refusing the mammogram and holding him not responsible if she got cancer. The same as she could do for refusal to be vaccinated. Again, why she would continue seeing that doctor? Find another one, which this woman said she did.
Threats and coercion? In what way? Every decision we make has consequences. Every one. Some decisions we make provide consequences we do not like. And this is not a fad. This is reckless behavior that actually puts others at risk. It is not a matter of ignoring it until it goes away! Look, vaccines themselves will not provide 100% protection. So when the percentage of children getting vaccines goes down, the higher the likelihood a preventable disease will spread. Schools are a very likely place for that to happen. Then, it is more likely to spread to vulnerable populations--the very young and old, those with compromised immunity. It is an irresponsible decision to expose the population to disease needlessly. In the interest of public health, a decision will have to be made--if I choose not to vaccinate my child and have no legitimate reason (as defined by the law), I cannot send that child to a public school physically. Alternatives are available. I may not like it, but that is my choice.
Soft campaigns are not working.
"If you clean your room you will not get a spanking". Is that an example of a parent giving their children choices and allowing them to make decisions? I don't think so. It's a false choice and it's very coercive. It's very much like the false choice of, "if you get all of the vaccines that we say you must get, you can go to public school". It's not a real choice.
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.
Whens snake time?
What's not to trust? 