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 04-10-2019, 12:41 PM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,376,891 times
Reputation: 12736

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
If my doctor told me that she would not issue a waiver for a medical exemption, I would respect her decision and she would still be my doctor. I can however still refuse to get a vaccine. I don’t see the conflict in that.

This thread isn’t about me by the way.

You didn’t answer my questions.
In other words you trust her when her recommendations align with your beliefs. At least where vaccines are concerned.

 
Old 04-10-2019, 12:48 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,584 posts, read 2,111,496 times
Reputation: 15726
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
15,520 deaths due to just one disease in one year! Outbreaks like this can be avoided only if the vast majority of people are vaccinated. So count me in the group that is in favor of vaccinations in order to fully participate in society. If someone chooses to live as a recluse, I don't care if they skip vaccinations. But other than a legitimate medical exemption, I am in favor of schools requiring vaccinations. I support doctors who refuse to accept patients who refuse vaccinations. I support hospitals (or any employer actually) who refuse to employ people who are unvaccinated (I worked in many hospitals, and had to stay current on their vax schedule).

I don't understand how anyone can be so non-chalant about what will happen if the vax rates continue to fall.
Believe it or not; I worry about this too. However, the potentiality for this to occur, is not due to those you call Antivaccine: It's due to the zero-tolerance for considerations from the WHO & the CDC. They are not responding to the concerns from the people whose health they are charged to protect.

It's not just slamming the door in the face of their charges; they are stirring the pot. The Antivaccine phenomena is their creation. It is their studies that called for "public ridicule" of parents of dead & disabled children. This has created legions of enemies who have lost their objectivity. Immunizations are an incredible advantage afforded us & our current vaccines are safer than ever before ... for many. The population for whom they are not safe, seems to be much larger than anticipated. Too large to accept. The scores of "acceptable losses" have tipped the scales & the response has been outrageously shameful.

Just by offering a science-based alternative schedule, they could add hundreds of thousands to the ranks of the fully-vaxxed. Other countries with less child mortality than us use widely varied schedules with superior results but our CDC actively resists any questioning & doctors who are on their own, trying to immunize children with alternative schedules are being disciplined by medical boards. This feels like defensiveness. Something is wrong.

" ... But there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause SIDS, Autism, etc ..."

This is mostly correct. The epidemiological studies used to form a consensus for U.S. policy conclude that vaccines are safe for all but 1 in 1 Million people. Here is where they go wrong: Healthy-User Bias.

When studying health outcomes in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, the two groups must be “matched”, as to similar health & lifestyles. Matching groups is only possible if the researchers have control over who gets a vaccine and who doesn’t.

Consider those studies performed with “administrative data” (health data collected by insurance companies or government agencies). They are invalid. Their "groups", the vaccinated & unvaccinated; are not matched.

The Unvaccinated: Will include all children for whom vaccines are contraindicated. Immunocompromised, cancer, HIV, history of anaphylaxis, seizure disorders, premature, etc ... It will also include children of parents who are vaccine-hesitant due to death or disability of a sibling following vaccination. Given the emerging evidence for genetic determination of susceptibility, this skews assumptions of health status. This will also include children of low socioeconomic status with poor access to, or concern for, healthcare.

The Vaccinated: More likely to be healthy, full-term & from higher-income, health-seeking families.

Do you see where this is headed? Who will statistically have less adverse health outcomes at the conclusion of a study? In order to accurately evaluate vaccine safety, the studies have to be done in low-income, third-world settings with high infant & child mortality rates & they have to evaluate the "ground-zero" indicator: Mortality. None of those studies have been used to form U.S. consensus. Presumably, because they are not representative of our population. Except that they are. They closely resemble the "unvaccinated" group. This is how those studies conclude:

Quote:
CONCLUSION: Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6-35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29616207

Quote:
CONCLUSION: This is the first randomised trial of the non-specific effects of DTP and supports that these effects may be sex-differential and of clinical and anthropometric importance. Combined vaccination with DTP+MV+OPV may be detrimental for girls.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21093496

Note that these are not actually antivaccine studies:

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: We found indications of strong beneficial non-specific effects of receiving measles vaccine during the 2012 campaign, especially for girls and children with previous routine measles vaccination. Measles vaccination campaigns may be an effective way of improving child survival.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27890397

Quote:
DISCUSSION: The marked reduction in mortality in the days after BCG vaccination in boys emphasizes the importance of providing BCG soon after birth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29216358

They are science-based, pro-vaccine studies, showing different determinants of outcomes based on age, gender, schedule, etc ... That's science everybody can trust. But our CDC just continues to adhere to their position: "Our way or the highway; science be damned, let's poke a stick at the stupid anti-vaxxers!"
 
Old 04-10-2019, 01:22 PM
 
8,969 posts, read 5,579,539 times
Reputation: 9373
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
In other words you trust her when her recommendations align with your beliefs. At least where vaccines are concerned.
Nope. Sorry you’re not understanding. I’m not going to continue to engage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi View Post
Believe it or not; I worry about this too. However, the potentiality for this to occur, is not due to those you call Antivaccine: It's due to the zero-tolerance for considerations from the WHO & the CDC. They are not responding to the concerns from the people whose health they are charged to protect.

It's not just slamming the door in the face of their charges; they are stirring the pot. The Antivaccine phenomena is their creation. It is their studies that called for "public ridicule" of parents of dead & disabled children. This has created legions of enemies who have lost their objectivity. Immunizations are an incredible advantage afforded us & our current vaccines are safer than ever before ... for many. The population for whom they are not safe, seems to be much larger than anticipated. Too large to accept. The scores of "acceptable losses" have tipped the scales & the response has been outrageously shameful.

Just by offering a science-based alternative schedule, they could add hundreds of thousands to the ranks of the fully-vaxxed. Other countries with less child mortality than us use widely varied schedules with superior results but our CDC actively resists any questioning & doctors who are on their own, trying to immunize children with alternative schedules are being disciplined by medical boards. This feels like defensiveness. Something is wrong.

" ... But there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause SIDS, Autism, etc ..."

This is mostly correct. The epidemiological studies used to form a consensus for U.S. policy conclude that vaccines are safe for all but 1 in 1 Million people. Here is where they go wrong: Healthy-User Bias.

When studying health outcomes in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, the two groups must be “matched”, as to similar health & lifestyles. Matching groups is only possible if the researchers have control over who gets a vaccine and who doesn’t.

Consider those studies performed with “administrative data” (health data collected by insurance companies or government agencies). They are invalid. Their "groups", the vaccinated & unvaccinated; are not matched.

The Unvaccinated: Will include all children for whom vaccines are contraindicated. Immunocompromised, cancer, HIV, history of anaphylaxis, seizure disorders, premature, etc ... It will also include children of parents who are vaccine-hesitant due to death or disability of a sibling following vaccination. Given the emerging evidence for genetic determination of susceptibility, this skews assumptions of health status. This will also include children of low socioeconomic status with poor access to, or concern for, healthcare.

The Vaccinated: More likely to be healthy, full-term & from higher-income, health-seeking families.

Do you see where this is headed? Who will statistically have less adverse health outcomes at the conclusion of a study? In order to accurately evaluate vaccine safety, the studies have to be done in low-income, third-world settings with high infant & child mortality rates & they have to evaluate the "ground-zero" indicator: Mortality. None of those studies have been used to form U.S. consensus. Presumably, because they are not representative of our population. Except that they are. They closely resemble the "unvaccinated" group. This is how those studies conclude:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29616207

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21093496

Note that these are not actually antivaccine studies:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27890397

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29216358

They are science-based, pro-vaccine studies, showing different determinants of outcomes based on age, gender, schedule, etc ... That's science everybody can trust. But our CDC just continues to adhere to their position: "Our way or the highway; science be damned, let's poke a stick at the stupid anti-vaxxers!"
Well said. It’s a complex issue.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 01:45 PM
 
6,005 posts, read 3,439,489 times
Reputation: 7046
Miss Terri, it is pointless arguing with Suzy Q. All she knows are her statistics. She definitely has a problem with reading comprehension, and knowledge of Big City life, mass transit, and other Religions as her husband's Office Manager in his practice.

If you have young children, it is a definite problem. I can understand that. As an elderly person, my solution is to not have or go to doctors. Make me! So nobody will ever know what vaccines I had, or am up to date on. "My doctor" will never report me for refusing a Tdap, flu, pneumonia, or shingles vaccination. My vaccination/medical records will never be in any database. Understand this Suzy Q in Georgia? My OB in 1984 was my last personal doctor. I formed my own views on medicine long before there ever was an Internet, Dr. Jenny or Dr. Wakefield.

Again, Miss Terri, don't argue with her and just do what you need to do for YOU and YOUR'S.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 01:49 PM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,376,891 times
Reputation: 12736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Nope. Sorry you’re not understanding. I’m not going to continue to engage.
I understand perfectly. To sum up:

You think medical waivers should be decided by doctors and patients with no guidelines whatsoever imposed. If a doctor says it’s waiverable, even if it’s total BS, you are accepting of their decision. If however, they refuse a waiver, then they can just be ignored. And if ignored, the unvaccinated kid should still be allowed in daycare, public school and college. Laws to protect public health are unnecessary and unjust in your view.

You’re not going to get vaccinated regardless of what your doctor recommends or what any law says. So why do you even care that the laws are changing? It wouldn’t be because it’ll be harder to find a doctor willing to game the system would it? Nah, couldn’t possibly be that.

Not going to engage. LOL. When the going gets tough, the anti va...., sorry pro-choice people take their ball and go home.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 02:05 PM
Status: "Spring has Sprung!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,346 posts, read 101,350,397 times
Reputation: 32752
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
The simple reasons measles is being singled out are 1) It's extremely transmissible.
I think the big reason measles is being singled out (poor widda measles virus!) is that measles is the disease that is at outbreak level, because of 1).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Kids can be absolutely denied medical exemptions if the reaction does not meet a narrow set of circumstances. She absolutely could be denied that exemption.
We don't even know what state Kara lives in, do we? I thought I asked a while back but never go an answer. Considering the DD is now in her 30s, unless they lived at the time in Mississippi, which removed its religious exemption in 1979, or maybe West Virginia (I can't find a date for their removal of all but medical, but I found one article that said the 1800s), it's irrelevant whether she could get a medical exemption or not!
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...tion-religion/
https://theweek.com/articles/828989/...vaccine-policy

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
And whose fault is that? If it hadn't been for anti-vaxxers abusing the medical and religious exemptions and not getting their kids vaccinated in the first place, Kara's daughter wouldn't have a thing to worry about.
Kara's daughter has no worries about school exemptions. She's in her 30s. She may get a job some time that requires her to be vaccinated. She'll have to make a decision then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
It’s no one’s fault. Kara said that her daughter did not qualify for a medical exemption. I guess you’d label her an “anti-vaxxer”? There are a lot people you’d call “anti-vaxxers” who were “pro-vaxxers’” up until their kid had a bad reaction to a vaccine.
Most anti-vaxxers form their opinions even before pregnancy. It's a bunch of hooey that there are all these "vaccine injured" kids out there.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1023083719.htm
 
Old 04-10-2019, 02:12 PM
 
6,005 posts, read 3,439,489 times
Reputation: 7046
I have an adult 35 year old immmune compromised daughter. I am PROUD of the fact that she does not DEMAND all of those around her be fully vaccinated to protect her. She is not selfish and believes in choice for others to have the right as to what they inject into their own bodies. My former coworker with Lupus felt the same. I also applaud her as well.

My daughter would never demand that all her relatives get all their vaccinations to protect her. She has young children. Demand that all children around her vaccinated sons be vaccinated so SHE doesn't catch a disease? She just decided this year after having flu in September, December, and pneumonia in January that she is going to get a flu shot herself. Guess she hasn't gotten the message that unless Grandparents, Sister, Neighbors, Friends get their vax that she could DIE? Better work on educating immune compromised people about this, Suzy Q, Katarina, et all. No, people, I am not going to any doctor, period, for any reason and not for my own daughter. She understands my choice. You DON'T.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,482 posts, read 23,263,422 times
Reputation: 34584
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Not everyone believes that the best way to take care of one’s health is to inject themselves with a checmical cocktail in an attempt to try to avoid getting sick with one particular illness or another. Many people believe that taking care of one’s immune system (which doesn’t include bombarding it with said checmical cocktail) so that they can fight illnessif they get sick is their preferred path to good health. That might mean that they pick and choose which vaccines to get and which to forgo or maybe they choose to get all or none. Maybe they also do things like breastfeed longer then average and stay home with their kids when they are little and their immune systems are not fully formed rather then increasing their risk of things like rotavirus in the daycare setting, etc. Whether you agree or not, people should have the right to make these decisions for themselves.

Vaccines are very much a for profit industry. The more vaccines that get added to the schedule and the more boosters that are needed all add to that profit margin. The more they can eliminate exemptions, the more the profits will rise.

This isn’t so much a debate about vaccines but a debate about choice and the freedom to decide to forgo a medical intervention or not.
Really, this shows how unaware you are of the nature of autoimmune diseases. Many people like myself are born with compromised immune systems. All the "taking care of" in the world is not going to fix that.

Everyone has the right to forego whatever medical procedure they choose but they should not endanger the health of others. If parents choose not to immunize their kids from various illnesses, fine, but keep them away from others who don't have that choice.

My fear is next there could be outbreaks of Polio due to the fact that the disease will spring up again in the absence of people getting their kids immunized.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 02:47 PM
 
8,969 posts, read 5,579,539 times
Reputation: 9373
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
I understand perfectly. To sum up:

You think medical waivers should be decided by doctors and patients with no guidelines whatsoever imposed. If a doctor says it’s waiverable, even if it’s total BS, you are accepting of their decision. If however, they refuse a waiver, then they can just be ignored. And if ignored, the unvaccinated kid should still be allowed in daycare, public school and college. Laws to protect public health are unnecessary and unjust in your view.

You’re not going to get vaccinated regardless of what your doctor recommends or what any law says. So why do you even care that the laws are changing? It wouldn’t be because it’ll be harder to find a doctor willing to game the system would it? Nah, couldn’t possibly be that.

Not going to engage. LOL. When the going gets tough, the anti va...., sorry pro-choice people take their ball and go home.
Again. Not accurate. You’re being totally disingenuous and twisting my words. That is why I will no longer engage with you. You’re not interested in understanding. You’re just trying to find a “gotcha”.

My doctor is very pro-vaccine by the way and my kids don’t have medical exemptions. Not even sure how you came up with some of things you’ve said here. “Gaming the system”? Refusing all vaccines?
 
Old 04-10-2019, 02:48 PM
Status: "Spring has Sprung!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,346 posts, read 101,350,397 times
Reputation: 32752
https://abcnews.go.com/US/uc-davis-m...ry?id=62197434
"A California hospital sent a warning to 200 people who may have been exposed to measles in the waiting room of its emergency department. . . The patient diagnosed with measles was an unvaccinated child from Calaveras County, California, who developed the disease after returning from international travel, according to the Calaveras Health and Human Services Agency, Public Health Division."

How are you going to protect yourself from stuff like that?
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top