Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 07-21-2015, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,961 posts, read 40,898,119 times
Reputation: 44884

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
What did you not understand? They do not give HPV vaccination to women over 26 years old. Actually, doctors are now starting to not recommend Pap tests for women over 65. This is not a matter of one size fits all women.

I am going to assume that you are not old enough to be on Medicare. If you aren't, then I will not be driving up YOUR rates since I only have Original Medicare; no supplemental insurance. Government pays Medicare bills, not private insurance companies.

Stop giving "pat answers" which are irrelevant to what I posted. Enough. Anyone YOUNG ENOUGH to get a HPV vaccination can choose to do so. If they don't want it for their children or themselves, that should be their business too.

Every working person who has Medicare tax withdrawn from his salary is paying for your medical care. "Government" does not pay Medicare bills. I know, you never go to the doctor. Have you instructed your family not to take you to the doctor if you get sick or have an accident?

"Anyone YOUNG ENOUGH to get a HPV vaccination can choose to do so"? It needs to be given to preteens in order for it to work before they start experimenting with sex. Preteens do not get to make medical decisions for themselves.

My prediction is that more than a few who do not get the HPV vaccine because their parents would not allow it are going to regret it later on.

 
Old 07-21-2015, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 10,463,016 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
It appears your figures, for which you never provided a source, have been based on "Dr. Bob" Sears' analysis in his book on vaccines.

Here is why "Dr. Bob" is wrong about aluminum (among all the other things he is wrong about).

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...r-of-dr-sears/

"... he goes on to distort what we do know about aluminum toxicity into a rationale to fear our current vaccine supply and schedule. For instance, we know that aluminum has been blamed for producing neurotoxicity in some patients with renal failure on long-term dialysis, and in some extremely premature infants given prolonged courses of aluminum-containing intravenous nutritional solutions. But this is not comparable to the exposure of healthy infants to adjuvant-containing vaccines given intramuscularly on a few, discrete occurrences over a period of months. Similar to the way the safety data for methylmercury is often incorrectly applied to the ethylmercury in thimerosal (and incorrect inferences of toxicity made), Dr. Sears uses safety limits set for something else, and incorrectly applies them to the aluminum in vaccine adjuvants.

Dr. Sears uses the FDA’s maximum permissible level (MPL) of aluminum for large volume bags of intravenous fluids given chronically to premature infants (25 µg/L), and extrapolates it to adjuvant-containing vaccines. He also uses the number 5 µg/kg/day as the amount of aluminum found to cause toxicity in some premature infants receiving intravenous feeding solutions that contain aluminum. What he doesn’t mention is that the 25 µg/L number comes from studies showing that this concentration produces no tissue aluminum loading, and that it was chosen to allow room for other exposures. In fact, it is estimated that the aluminum in these intravenous feeding solutions accounts for only 10-15% of the total parenteral aluminum intake per kg body weight that premature infants receive in a given day while in intensive care. The number was set low to leave room for the other sources of parenteral aluminum these infants receive. Still, Dr. Sears uses this number as his standard against which he compares the aluminum content of vaccines. This is misleading for a number of reasons. First, the 25 µg/L MPL for parenteral feeding bags says nothing about the maximum amount of aluminum that can be safely injected. This is obvious as the number is expressed as a concentration, not as an absolute amount of aluminum. The average premature infant would likely receive 100 ml/kg/day of solution, and therefore roughly 2.5-5 µg per day of aluminum from this source. Again, accounting for only about 10-15% of the parenteral aluminum the infant would receive in a given day. Dr. Sears does acknowledge that the number isn’t a maximum permissible amount of aluminum for injection, but he uses it anyway stating, in essence, that it’s all we’ve got. "

"But his use of the FDA limits for intravenous feeding solutions is misleading also because it ignores the difference between intravenous and intramuscular or subcutaneous injection of aluminum, as in the case of vaccines. In fact there is evidence, which Dr. Sears must have missed in his exhaustive review of the literature, that the aluminum from vaccines behaves differently than intravenously administered aluminum, and that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines is not so concerning when placed in the context of the background body burden of aluminum."

A detailed discussion of Dr. Bob's factual inaccuracies about aluminum is at the link.
I got it from an FDA warning letter about the Vitamin K shot. I didn't cite because the discussion was not about the Vitamin K shot. Here's the letter: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/g.../ucm054384.pdf

Whatever Dr. Sears says is not relevant.

The fact is that 5 grams of total aluminum given over a few years COULD cause tissue load in normal babies and most certainly in babies with low kidney function. Then those same kids get 1.5 grams more in HPV shots. These are just estimates from adding up the vaccine insert numbers on the schedule but it is a valid concern for parents.
 
Old 07-21-2015, 11:48 AM
 
10,180 posts, read 6,225,190 times
Reputation: 11258
Free Preventive Care is what is driving up your insurance costs. Nothing is free. Doctors, technicians, etc., are getting paid for all this testing. Free vaccinations are a part of it all. The health insurance companies are simply passing these costs on to consumers with higher and higher premiums.

Not every woman will get breast (or cervical) cancer in her lifetime. Most won't. Yet, mammograms are given to all after a certain age. Think of the costs of that. Early detection of something that isn't there, or never develops? That is all money out the door for nothing.

Getting back to vaccinations. Take Tetanus. Not contagious. No Herd Immunity. Recommended every 10 years for life. For what? Unless you work in certain occupations (farming?), what are you chance of getting lockjaw from cutting yourself on your kitchen knife washed in a dishwasher? Dirt? Horses????? Pointless.

Whatever. You have never heard of adults refusing medical treatment even if that refusal will kill them? Refusing chemo? Refusing surgery? Do you believe they have the right to choose that for themselves? I don't want to get OT with this, but it all ties in to the subject of vaccinations. Refusing medical treatment is and must continue to be a right for all adults. Quality of life versus quantity of life. Medicine and science by their very nature are only concerned with the quantity of life. "If we can PREVENT even one death".
 
Old 07-21-2015, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,316 posts, read 738,717 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
So you picket fast food places too? After all, good chance you are going to need more medical care from eating that crap. I think the unvaccinated few are the least of your health care worries.
I think certain lifestyle choices should have consequences, but that's a discussion for another time. It's a complicated issue, so why try to make it even moreso?

My points about healthcare and insurance costs are directly related to healthcare and insurance.

If my taxes help pay for others' medical care & insurance, I am concerned. If my insurance premiums help pay for others' medical care & insurance, I am concerned. If my out-of-pocket medical expenses help pay for others' medical care & insurance, I am concerned. I didn't initially bring up costs. But the point about a free market economy was made, and this is the consequence of a free-market, capitalistic society--if what you do or don't do affects what I pay, I am concerned and will have an opinion about it. Shouldn't I? If the preventative is cheaper in the long run, and is the more economically efficient way to deal with potential illness, why wouldn't I consider it in my best interest for others to participate? So, now we have something in the best interest of public health, and economically. Win-win.
 
Old 07-21-2015, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,316 posts, read 738,717 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
Free Preventive Care is what is driving up your insurance costs. Nothing is free. Doctors, technicians, etc., are getting paid for all this testing. Free vaccinations are a part of it all. The health insurance companies are simply passing these costs on to consumers with higher and higher premiums.

Not every woman will get breast (or cervical) cancer in her lifetime. Most won't. Yet, mammograms are given to all after a certain age. Think of the costs of that. Early detection of something that isn't there, or never develops? That is all money out the door for nothing.

Getting back to vaccinations. Take Tetanus. Not contagious. No Herd Immunity. Recommended every 10 years for life. For what? Unless you work in certain occupations (farming?), what are you chance of getting lockjaw from cutting yourself on your kitchen knife washed in a dishwasher? Dirt? Horses????? Pointless.

Whatever. You have never heard of adults refusing medical treatment even if that refusal will kill them? Refusing chemo? Refusing surgery? Do you believe they have the right to choose that for themselves? I don't want to get OT with this, but it all ties in to the subject of vaccinations. Refusing medical treatment is and must continue to be a right for all adults. Quality of life versus quantity of life. Medicine and science by their very nature are only concerned with the quantity of life. "If we can PREVENT even one death".
The average cost of a mammogram is $100. The average breast cancer treatment can cost $20K-$100K a year, depending on what specific needs are. So, if mammogram can catch some cancer in early stages to keep costs low (oh, and potentially save even one life), it does make sense, economically.

The philosophical argument against treatment, especially in cases where the treatment vs. quality of life argument needs to be made is wholly different. A person who gets pancreatic cancer at 89 and decides to refuse any treatment other than palliative care certainly has the right to do so, and nobody here is suggesting otherwise--so ease your mind that I am not proposing a one-size-fits-all idea that precludes that. I would not come close to suggesting anything of the sort. I'm betting you already know that, though.
 
Old 07-21-2015, 01:04 PM
 
10,180 posts, read 6,225,190 times
Reputation: 11258
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi View Post
The average cost of a mammogram is $100. The average breast cancer treatment can cost $20K-$100K a year, depending on what specific needs are. So, if mammogram can catch some cancer in early stages to keep costs low (oh, and potentially save even one life), it does make sense, economically.

The philosophical argument against treatment, especially in cases where the treatment vs. quality of life argument needs to be made is wholly different. A person who gets pancreatic cancer at 89 and decides to refuse any treatment other than palliative care certainly has the right to do so, and nobody here is suggesting otherwise--so ease your mind that I am not proposing a one-size-fits-all idea that precludes that. I would not come close to suggesting anything of the sort. I'm betting you already know that, though.
This purely depends on age. Do you agree with that? You mentioned 89 years old. Since I am in late 60's, does that meet your criteria? Still too young to choose only palliative care? That is what I choose for myself. My Uncle decided to do just this when he was only a year older than I am today. This where quality versus quality comes into play.

I won't be making your insurance rates go up,, if I choose not to be "cured". Negative quality of life for me personally would be constantly seeing doctors, tests, medications, hospital stays, etc. Just ease the pain, and let me go in peace, even if it is something medicine says is curable.

Sorry, to get OT, that is why I would refuse vaccinations at my age also. Let OTHERS get a Flu, Shingles, etc., vaccination if they want to protect themselves. I just want medicine to leave me alone. Choice by adults for their own medical treatment, which includes vaccinations.
 
Old 07-21-2015, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,961 posts, read 40,898,119 times
Reputation: 44884
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
I got it from an FDA warning letter about the Vitamin K shot. I didn't cite because the discussion was not about the Vitamin K shot. Here's the letter: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/g.../ucm054384.pdf

Whatever Dr. Sears says is not relevant.

The fact is that 5 grams of total aluminum given over a few years COULD cause tissue load in normal babies and most certainly in babies with low kidney function. Then those same kids get 1.5 grams more in HPV shots. These are just estimates from adding up the vaccine insert numbers on the schedule but it is a valid concern for parents.
You just proved my point. You do not understand that the figure quoted in that letter applies to parenteral - given intravenously - nutrition products, not vaccines.

You continue to insist aluminum from vaccines accumulates. I have shown you repeatedly that it does not. The amount of aluminum in food and water is so much greater than that in vaccines that the amount in vaccines is trivial.

If what Sears says is irrelevant, then so is what you say, because you are making the same error he did about aluminum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
Free Preventive Care is what is driving up your insurance costs. Nothing is free. Doctors, technicians, etc., are getting paid for all this testing. Free vaccinations are a part of it all. The health insurance companies are simply passing these costs on to consumers with higher and higher premiums.

Not every woman will get breast (or cervical) cancer in her lifetime. Most won't. Yet, mammograms are given to all after a certain age. Think of the costs of that. Early detection of something that isn't there, or never develops? That is all money out the door for nothing.

Getting back to vaccinations. Take Tetanus. Not contagious. No Herd Immunity. Recommended every 10 years for life. For what? Unless you work in certain occupations (farming?), what are you chance of getting lockjaw from cutting yourself on your kitchen knife washed in a dishwasher? Dirt? Horses????? Pointless.

Whatever. You have never heard of adults refusing medical treatment even if that refusal will kill them? Refusing chemo? Refusing surgery? Do you believe they have the right to choose that for themselves? I don't want to get OT with this, but it all ties in to the subject of vaccinations. Refusing medical treatment is and must continue to be a right for all adults. Quality of life versus quantity of life. Medicine and science by their very nature are only concerned with the quantity of life. "If we can PREVENT even one death".
If you want to risk getting tetanus, go right ahead. If you are in a car crash and get nasty wounds or broken bones poking through your skin, just do not go to the hospital and let nature take its course.

Diagnostic tests are done to find the folks who do have problems so they can be treated early. So sorry that easy point is too hard for you to understand. If you are always going to let nature take its course and would not treat any abnormalities found, it makes no sense to ever do any test.

For those of us who do not want to die early, finding and treating things that can lead to a premature death is a no-brainer. I'll fight nature to the bitter end. Had my mammogram today!

By the way, vaccines save money. It costs way more to pay to treat vaccine preventable diseases and trace contacts to try to control outbreaks and prevent epidemics.
 
Old 07-21-2015, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,961 posts, read 40,898,119 times
Reputation: 44884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
This purely depends on age. Do you agree with that? You mentioned 89 years old. Since I am in late 60's, does that meet your criteria? Still too young to choose only palliative care? That is what I choose for myself. My Uncle decided to do just this when he was only a year older than I am today. This where quality versus quality comes into play.

I won't be making your insurance rates go up,, if I choose not to be "cured". Negative quality of life for me personally would be constantly seeing doctors, tests, medications, hospital stays, etc. Just ease the pain, and let me go in peace, even if it is something medicine says is curable.

Sorry, to get OT, that is why I would refuse vaccinations at my age also. Let OTHERS get a Flu, Shingles, etc., vaccination if they want to protect themselves. I just want medicine to leave me alone. Choice by adults for their own medical treatment, which includes vaccinations.
Would you refuse treatment for a kidney stone? The pain is often compared to that of childbirth. If you had a stone too big to pass, would you decide not to treat it, just take narcotics until you got an overwhelming infection from the stone, just die of sepsis - knowing if you were treated you would return to whatever state of good health you enjoyed prior to the stone?

The difference is that allowing nature to take its course only affects you if you have a kidney stone. Your refusal to vaccinate yourself potentially affects others. Someone else could become very ill or die because of your refusal, perhaps the young pregnant woman in line next to you at the checkout at the supermarket when you are shedding flu virus before you have any flu symptoms. Does that possibility not bother you at all?
 
Old 07-21-2015, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,316 posts, read 738,717 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
This purely depends on age. Do you agree with that? You mentioned 89 years old. Since I am in late 60's, does that meet your criteria? Still too young to choose only palliative care? That is what I choose for myself. My Uncle decided to do just this when he was only a year older than I am today. This where quality versus quality comes into play.

I won't be making your insurance rates go up,, if I choose not to be "cured". Negative quality of life for me personally would be constantly seeing doctors, tests, medications, hospital stays, etc. Just ease the pain, and let me go in peace, even if it is something medicine says is curable.

Sorry, to get OT, that is why I would refuse vaccinations at my age also. Let OTHERS get a Flu, Shingles, etc., vaccination if they want to protect themselves. I just want medicine to leave me alone. Choice by adults for their own medical treatment, which includes vaccinations.
I am not suggesting criteria. That was actually the story of my Uncle Jim. I used it as an example. I believe I said I'm speaking in general terms. I am not making policy for end-of-life care, which can come at any age. But that is not anywhere near the same as preventing communicable diseases in the general population. You want to die from pneumonia? Fine. Just cough downwind and wash your hands. And stay away from people. Because what you decide for yourself can affect me. And my loved ones. And aquaintences. And people I don't know. When you make that choice, as for others who make that choice, it is not in a vacuum. Even if you want it to be.
 
Old 07-21-2015, 06:13 PM
 
10,180 posts, read 6,225,190 times
Reputation: 11258
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi View Post
I am not suggesting criteria. That was actually the story of my Uncle Jim. I used it as an example. I believe I said I'm speaking in general terms. I am not making policy for end-of-life care, which can come at any age. But that is not anywhere near the same as preventing communicable diseases in the general population. You want to die from pneumonia? Fine. Just cough downwind and wash your hands. And stay away from people. Because what you decide for yourself can affect me. And my loved ones. And aquaintences. And people I don't know. When you make that choice, as for others who make that choice, it is not in a vacuum. Even if you want it to be.
Ah, but you see you think other people, whatever they have ,it is contagious to YOU. You are sneezing from a POLLEN ALLERGY around others? You have a contagious disease. You MUST take something for that so WE will not think you have a contagious disease you can give to US. We saw that paranoia with Ebola last year.

I was friends with a girl growing up back in the 50's who had Michael Jackson's condition. She had patches of lighter spots on her skin. I worked with a child in public school a few years ago who also had that. They were SHUNNED by you people who are so paranoid of catching some deadly disease from other people even when it is not contagious. Do you want others to wear signs, "My allergy/skin condition is not contagious TO YOU! Pitiful. The "perfect human" who does not want to be around the dirty, diseased infected other humans.

There is a video on You Tube you need to see. A man wore a sign saying "I am HIV positive".
"Will you give me a HUG?". The response to that would bring tears to SOME people's eyes. The best was a little girl who went over and gave him a great, big hug. Take that child away from her parents for letting her hug a diseased person. That is YOUR attitude.

Go live on a desert island with the rest of the people who think the way you do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

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


Closed Thread


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

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top