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.
The problems they are running into with most vaccines like lets take the Chicken Pox. It's new, hot topic, so, you get all kids vaccinated for Chicken Pox. Great, fewer and fewer cases. What's the problem? Well, they didn't get enough of the virus to ward off Shingles for one. Two, it doesn't work forever, so now we will have adults walking around who've never had the Chicken Pox, lot's of them in fact. What happens when there is an outbreak in the adult community of Chicken Pox? More people die because it's worse when you are an adult.
So, with that in mind, we have a long way to go. Vaccines are effective to some degree but not an exact science and there is a lot of work to do in the future.
Kids who get vaccinated are at lower risk to get shingles, as the study of children with leukemia has shown. It appears the vaccine works for at least twenty years. We cannot predict beyond that because the vaccine has not been around for a lifetime yet. If immunity does turn out to fall below a protective level, we can give boosters, just like we do with tetanus and whooping cough.
Grown ups can be vaccinated, too. If you think you have never had chickenpox, ask to be tested to see if you have antibodies. If not, take the vaccine.
"All adults who have never had chickenpox or received the vaccination should be vaccinated against it. Two doses of the vaccine should be given at least four weeks apart."
There is no reason to have adults walking around who are not immune to chickenpox.
No vaccine is 100% effective (though the HPV vaccine is close), but most are highly effective. That's the reason we no longer vaccinate for smallpox in the US, and most of the vaccine preventable diseases seen in this country are imported (where they flourish in communities with low immunization rates.)
I am in the elderly catagory and resent you pushing these vaccines on me. My immune system is functioning just fine, because I make efforts to keep it so. I also think jabbing healthy newborns with chemicals and virus's is insane.
Comparing infant mortality rates from country to country is difficult. The US counts as live births infants born with a heartbeat and gasping that are too immature to survive. Many countries do not do that. Unless everyone follows the same rules, the results are pretty much meaningless.
"In the United States, however, we count any infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size of the fetus. In other European countries, they define the month of gestation and the size of the fetus before they count it as a live birth. For example, in France, Czech Republic, Ireland, Netherlands and Poland, the fetus must be at least 22 weeks and/or weigh 500 grams, if not, it is not a live birth and not counted as a part of the infant mortality rate. Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of prenatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths."
Note that four countries on the list in the link are tiny. Andorra has a population of about 86,000. The county I live in has a population of 96,000. I suspect we could find a few counties in the US with comparable infant mortality rates to the countries higher on the list in your link.
Since the data used for infant mortality are suspect, the "study" in the link is worthless.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 01-14-2013 at 07:24 PM..
By attempting a prevention that doesn't allow one's own healthy immune system to develop its own antibodies. That may be necessary for the infirm, newborn & elderly, but not for everyone else.
But I would rather not get sick, thankyouverymuch.
I'm somewhere in the middle ground. I'm not 100% convinced that getting all these vaccinations is good. There could be problems with chemicals in the vaccines, with getting so many vaccinations that your body is overly challenged all at once, and the fact that I THINK (don't know) that when you are allowed to be exposed to illnesses as a child, you do build up some of your own immunity anyway.
But I would definitely get vaccinated for serious illnesses like whooping cough, diptheria, tetanus, polio, smallpox, maybe measles and mumps. Most of the serious diseases had been eradicated but apparently we have people coming to this country who have not been vaccinated. Every immigrant to this country is legally required to be immunized before being allowed to come here. That's why the diseases have disappeared and until now I have never heard of adults needing to get re-vaccinated for the serious diseases like whooping cough.
Elderly people should probably get the flu vaccine. I don't understand why the flu vaccine is pushed so much on non-elderly people though. People always used to get the flu, it was part of life. You got sick and you got well again. Same with chicken pox. You were stronger for having had it. So I guess I'm out on a limb, not totally convinced that we really need ALL these vaccinations, just the important ones.
1. If you are aged between 2 and 49 years, are otherwise healthy and are not pregnant, then it is very likely that the flu vaccine you will be given will come in a nasal spray.
2. Your body doesn't build the antibodies in your nose. It builds them in your blood.
Given that neither 'big Pharma' 'your doctor' or 'the government' are interested in operating in the most inefficient manner possible, do you think that perhaps they hand out multiple vaccinations because it's more cost-effective to do so and because - unless there are specific contra-indications in certain groups of patients - there is no clinical reason why people should not have multiple vaccinations at the same time?
If you are happy to pay more for your shot, then can you not pay somebody to vaccinate you with each individually? - Given that no health care system has unlimited funds, is it so surprising that they would wish to save money? Should they not be required to get 'best value for money'?
Can you cite some evidence in support of your claim?
How do you know it's not possible?
When I was 21 I received a batch of vaccinations.
One in the left arm
One in the right
One in the left
One in the right
One in the left
One in the right
And a sugar lump. (Polio)
The person doing the vaccinations was none too gentle and I did have a sore arm afterwards, but that was about it. I was young, healthy and multiple shots was not a problem
Perhaps you'd care to tell that to people who had family members who died during the recent Mexican Flu pandemic. Some of them may disagree with you.
Can you give one - just one - example of CDC 'making up' a Pandemic?
AFAIK; CDC do not declare Pandemics - that'S not within their remit. Pandemics are declared by the World Health Organisation and the Rules for what constitutes a Pandemic are very clear.
Which two organisations? There isn't an organisation called 'Big Pharma'. - There are, however, a number of (highly competitive) pharmaceutical companies.
Are you seriously suggesting that modern medicines (including vaccines) are worthless and that recovery rates from disease and people's life expectancies were better 50 or 100 or more years ago?
Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
If you feel that the products of the pharmaceutical companies are comparable to 'Snake Oil' then you are quite entitled to reject them, but if you're going to make wild claims about the (lack of) efficacy it might be an idea to provide evidence in support of your argument.
On what do you base that claim? People with weakened immune systems may take longer to develop antibodies and they may need more than a single exposure to a vaccine to encourage the development of sufficient antibodies, but that's hardly the same as: "people with weak immune systems do not benefit from vaccines and never will."
And you are, of course, quite entitled to that opinion.
Proof? Okay. Here's my proof.
1. Pandemics are fake. (can be manufactured by "Big Pharma" which is an umbrella term for large pharmaceutical manufacturers).
4. The way the vaccine is delivered directly to the bloodstream can have adverse side effects. Explained here.
I could find more websites via the anti-vaccine movement to support my beliefs which I may add to this thread later. For now, these websites support the claims in my previous post on this thread.
I'm somewhere in the middle ground. I'm not 100% convinced that getting all these vaccinations is good. There could be problems with chemicals in the vaccines, with getting so many vaccinations that your body is overly challenged all at once, and the fact that I THINK (don't know) that when you are allowed to be exposed to illnesses as a child, you do build up some of your own immunity anyway.
But I would definitely get vaccinated for serious illnesses like whooping cough, diptheria, tetanus, polio, smallpox, maybe measles and mumps. Most of the serious diseases had been eradicated but apparently we have people coming to this country who have not been vaccinated. Every immigrant to this country is legally required to be immunized before being allowed to come here. That's why the diseases have disappeared and until now I have never heard of adults needing to get re-vaccinated for the serious diseases like whooping cough.
Elderly people should probably get the flu vaccine. I don't understand why the flu vaccine is pushed so much on non-elderly people though. People always used to get the flu, it was part of life. You got sick and you got well again. Same with chicken pox. You were stronger for having had it. So I guess I'm out on a limb, not totally convinced that we really need ALL these vaccinations, just the important ones.
One of the things that people who develop vaccines look at is the risk of the disease itself compared to the risk of the vaccine.
All of the vaccines we have are for important illnesses that can kill or cause permanent disability.
There would be no point in developing a vaccine for an illness that did not have potential serious consequences.
Measles and chickenpox can kill or cause brain damage. Rubella can cause serious birth defects.
Serious complications from vaccines are extremely rare, and the risks of vaccines are far lower than the risks of the illnesses they prevent.
Do you and Anonchick get to work out of the same office?
Don't worry, your secret is safe with me, wink wink. You're just making yourself way to obvious.
4. The way the vaccine is delivered directly to the bloodstream can have adverse side effects. Explained here.
I could find more websites via the anti-vaccine movement to support my beliefs which I may add to this thread later. For now, these websites support the claims in my previous post on this thread.
Ah, the ultimate weapon of the anti-vaccine movement: vaccines are just a big conspiracy to make money for drug companies.
That would make for a pretty poor conspiracy, in my opinion. By preventing illness and hospitalization, vaccines save money. If I were designing a conspiracy, I would do something to sabotage the production of vaccines (keeping enough for myself, family, and friends, of course) and rake in the dough.
Just think of all the expensive drugs that could be used! Money, money, money! Wahoo!
How much money do vaccines save? Just forget for a moment that they save about 3 million lives annually worldwide - half of them children. ( Home )You have to consider not only the medical expense of treating the disease itself, which can range from acetominophen and chicken soup to an extended ICU stay, but also lost time from work, both for sick employees and for employees who have to stay home with sick children.
MMR saves $21 for every $1 spent, just in direct medical costs. $100 million dollars was spent on the 1989 to 1991 measles outbreak.
DTPa saves $24 for every $1 spent. Without DTP vaccines, the direct and indirect costs would be about $23.6 billion.
For hemophilus influenzae B vaccine, $1 spent saves you $2. Not much, but it saves $5 billion in direct costs and $12 billion in indirect costs.
The article is ten years old. Convert that to today's dollars and the savings are even bigger.
The argument that vaccines exist only to make money fails big time. You pay the money for the vaccines or you pay much more to treat the illness. And people who get sick sometimes are disabled or die.
The "natural news" link is absurd. The reason a new flu vaccine is used each year is not because it "wears off." It is because the most common strains during a flu season vary from year to year. The flu vaccine is unique in that decisions must be made as to which strains to include must be made yearly and the vaccine produced in a short length of time.
The author of the article in the second link under #2 actually admits that the title of the article is wrong. The title says the flu vaccine doesn't work. The author then says, "The CDC study didn't say that the vaccine didn't work."
What the article said essentially is that the vaccine will not prevent all flu like illnesses. Duh. No, it won't. It only works on the strains in the vaccine.
The allegation in #3 is that vaccines do not work because more cases of mumps occurred in vaccinated than unvaccinated people.
What we do not know is how many people were exposed and did not get sick.
"Let’s say that an outbreak occurs among 1,000 people and that 950 of these 1,000 people have received 2 doses of the vaccine and 50 are unvaccinated (i.e., vaccine coverage = 95%). If there is a 30% attack rate among people who haven’t been vaccinated, 15 unvaccinated people would get the disease. Among the 950 vaccinated people, the attack rate would be 3%, so 29 vaccinated people would get the disease. Therefore, of the 44 people who got sick during the outbreak, the majority (29, or 66%) would have been vaccinated. This doesn’t imply that the vaccine didn’t work—in fact, the people who hadn’t been vaccinated were 10 times more likely to get sick as those who had been vaccinated, it’s just that there were a lot fewer unvaccinated people at risk. Furthermore, if none of the 1,000 people had been vaccinated, the outbreak would have resulted in 300 cases rather than only 44. In this scenario, we would say that the vaccine is 90% effective in preventing the disease after 2 doses, which is the same as saying that the attack rate in the unvaccinated group is 10 times higher than the attack rate among people who have received 2 doses of vaccine. The formula to calculate vaccine effectiveness is (attack rate in unvaccinated group minus attack rate in vaccinated group) divided by attack rate in unvaccinated group, or (ARU-ARV)/ARU."
Of the people who get sick, more have been vaccinated because there are more people who have been vaccinated! Another duh!
And #4 has no basis in biology. No matter how bacteria or viruses end up in the body, ultimately they are engaged by the immune system. It does not matter whether you snort them up your nose, gulp them with your dinner, scrape your knee, or have a vaccine injected. It makes no difference whatsoever.
Hey suzyQ, are you still pretending to just be a common housewife and mother with a sick kid?
Read my profile. It's public.
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.
