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.
And that's exactly what will happen. There is no way a manufacturer spends money developing a vaccine unless it's gonna be mandatory in some way through employment (flu) or education (everything else).
Are there ANY vaccines that don't fall into either category?
Already well answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie
Purely speculation (as any of our comments on the topic are at this point,) since I don't think there is an HIV vaccine just around the corner. That said, a sincere answer to your question, though my impression is you likely intended sarcasm for your entire post:
In my opinion, groups of people at high risk for becoming infected with HIV will be the targets for immunization against HIV. So yes, that would include people in sub-Saharan Africa, and other areas where the disease is known to be rampant.
But no, I don't see the HIV vaccine being part of the recommended vaccine schedules for individuals at low risk for getting the disease, they wouldn't need it. So IMO it won't be on pediatricians' list of must have vaccines for your average everyday kid, though it might be available as an option on a case by case basis.
And I do think it would be offered to people at high risk in the US, perhaps "gently offered" ( as is the preventative Truvada to HIV negative partners of HIV positive individuals), insured or no.
And I don't believe it will ever be mandatory, or necessarily make vast fortunes for the manufacturers.
The areas that need a vaccine the most are also poor; any vaccine will have to be affordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkhmini
$$$$$$$$$
No matter what the cost of the vaccine, it would cost a whole lot more to treat someone with an HIV infection.
Why shouldn't the companies that make vaccines make a profit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Easy. Talk about the risks with getting a vaccine. Talk about how everyone should decide for themselves. Talk about how it's OK to have a different opinion.
I don't care if anyone WANTS to go get a vaccine. Get 100 of them a day. I really do not care.
But stop telling other people how if they don't want a vaccine that they are anti-science morons.
Choice. Provaccine side cannot/will not allow for ... choice. Medical freedom.
That's why. And until that changes? Lather rinse repeat.
What vaccines have you or anyone in your family been forced to take?
It's OK to have an opinion, but if that opinion is based on anti-vax myths, it is not an informed opinion.
What you cannot allow for is that your decision not to vaccinate affects other people, not just you.
The risks of vaccines are described in the Vaccine Information Statement dispensed with every dose of every vaccine. The only way not to know the risks is to refuse to read the VIS. The VIS is science based and does not include "injuries" for which there is no supporting scientific evidence that those are caused by vaccines. That includes autism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostnip
This is really basic information, and I'm trying to figure out how if you don't know this, you feel qualified to make decisive statements about vaccines and vaccine-related policy in general. Here are some vaccines that are readily available, but aren't routinely used by the general population of the US:
Anthrax
Cholera
Encephalitis (Japanese)
Encephalitis (Tick-Borne)
Rabies
Smallpox
Tuberculosis
Typhoid Fever
Yellow Fever
HIV-related medications are extremely lucrative. A vaccine would actually cut in on those profits.
^^^
Beat me to it.
Also, the countries in Africa with high HIV rates cannot afford the medications.
Yes. I just wanted to point out their mandatory nature for some people's employment. (I've heard that it's basically impossible to get an exemption to these and other medical products for military personnel. So keep that in mind if you're thinking of joining up.)
Nahhhh, they wouldn't take me, unless they have a geriatric granny batallion around, LOL.
Somehow, though, I don't think there's too much involving the military that isn't mandatory for the personnel. But if I were in their shoes, and being deployed to areas in which those diseases are endemic, I think I'd prefer being vaccinated to taking my chances with getting one or more of the diseases.
Nahhhh, they wouldn't take me, unless they have a geriatric granny batallion around, LOL.
Quote:
Somehow, though, I don't think there's too much involving the military that isn't mandatory for the personnel. But if I were in their shoes, and being deployed to areas in which those diseases are endemic, I think I'd prefer being vaccinated to taking my chances with getting one or more of the diseases.
I used to think that way too. Black and white. But in the past decade, my thinking about a lot of these medical products is more gray. Even with anthrax, especially after reading information by anthrax vaccine specialist Dr. Meryl Nass.
I used to think that way too. Black and white. But in the past decade, my thinking about a lot of these medical products is more gray. Even with anthrax, especially after reading information by anthrax vaccine specialist Dr. Meryl Nass.
Response to Nass, who is an internist in private practice, not an "anthrax vaccine specialist".
That's not much of a response; it's more like variations of "Safe and effective! Safe and effective!" parroted over and over again.
It doesn't even begin to address some of the specific issues brought up.
Never mind the fact that in a year later, in 2003, the Pentagon halted mandatory anthrax vaccination of U.S. troops after a judge ordered the military to stop treating its personnel like “guinea pigs.”
Quote:
To date, evidence that the vaccine is linked to possible health risks ranging from sterility to cardiac arrest to immune disorders has been scanty. But lawyers representing soldiers who are refusing the inoculations say the shots have sickened hundreds and caused a handful of deaths. And the FDA has acknowledged that at least five service members have become ill after taking the vaccine.
In his 33-page opinion, Sullivan ruled that the anthrax vaccinations violate a law passed by Congress following fears that similar inoculations may have led to illnesses among veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War that have come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome.
The law prohibits the administration of new drugs or those unapproved for their intended use to service members without their informed consent. The consent requirement may be waived only by the president.
Here's Nass' response to the response above. A couple of notable snippets:
Quote:
This second IOM report completely ignored the significant body of evidence relating anthrax vaccine to chronic diseases.3 Three additional 2002 papers have linked anthrax vaccine to optic neuritis,4 joint problems,5 and Gulf War syndrome.6 Research suggesting increased birth defects postvaccination was ignored as well.7
Far from turning over every stone, the IOM committee performed a review remarkable only for its bias.8 For example, the IOM compared “immediate onset” reaction rates from a patient-initiated survey at Dover Air Force Base9 with the results of an Army study, and found them comparable in number and type, validating the Dover study. The IOM report, however, omitted the chronic illness rate following vaccination in the Dover study: over 29%.
That's not much of a response; it's more like variations of "Safe and effective! Safe and effective!" parroted over and over again.
It doesn't even begin to address some of the specific issues brought up.
Never mind the fact that in a year later, in 2003, the Pentagon halted mandatory anthrax vaccination of U.S. troops after a judge ordered the military to stop treating its personnel like “guinea pigs.”
"The immunization is required for deployment to U.S. Central Command and the Korean Peninsula, as well as for designated NORTHCOM personnel, emergency response and other units. It is given in a five-dose series at 0, 4 weeks, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months, with yearly boosters to maintain immunity."
What does any of this have to do with an HIV vaccine? We get it. You are desperate to paint all vaccines as evil.
Meanwhile, an effective HIV vaccine will save lives.
Says it all what? Can you be a little more specific?
Quote:
Her position on anthrax vaccine has been refuted.
The military does use the vaccine.
So as usual when it comes to medical products, it's buyer beware! Weigh the risks and benefits, and make an informed decision. Preferably, before joining the military.
Quote:
What does any of this have to do with an HIV vaccine? We get it. You are desperate to paint all vaccines as evil.
I only had to do a little painting in this case; the news stories, studies and lawsuits did most of the heavy lifting.
Quote:
Meanwhile, an effective HIV vaccine will save lives.
Perhaps, someday. Judging by the article, not soon.
Says it all what? Can you be a little more specific?
So as usual when it comes to medical products, it's buyer beware! Weigh the risks and benefits, and make an informed decision. Preferably, before joining the military.
I only had to do a little painting in this case; the news stories, studies and lawsuits did most of the heavy lifting.
Perhaps, someday. Judging by the article, not soon.
She is anti-vaccine, period.
Despite your attempts at deflections with lawsuits and anthrax, vaccines still keep millions of people from getting sick, some from dying, and if the researchers are closer to an HIV vaccine that is a Good Thing.
That's my fear. I don't want to be railroaded into taking this medical product, or want my relatives' kids be forced to take this medical product in order to go to school.
I'd also like to hear an honest appraisal of this medical product's pros and cons, preferably NOT from people who sound like they work in sales or public relations. (However it looks like it's still too early to get this evaluation.)
On the bright side, according to the article:
It's interesting...take this perspective....for decades now, smokers have been railroaded into quitting by paying exorbitant taxes, being "quarantined", and basically spat upon. And some of this was even before the reasoning of second-hand smoke. They are supposed to take that and learn from it.
Oh I know, the case against smoking is so much stronger than the effectiveness of vaccines.
We all want to do what we want to do - smokers too. Drinkers, too. You're not really being railroaded so please calm down. And I doubt you would take anything as evidence if it did not support your own view - because you've heard a lot here on c-d and basically denounced them. Don't you know yourself better than that?
Not sure where you'd take the topic for an intelligent debate/discussion that wouldn't be invaded by ill-informed anti-medical establishment/antivaxxers.
And .... again. With this attitude? There will never be a rational discussion. Why? because this poster is looking to argue PEOPLE ... not clinical trial data, not evidence. Not social policy.
They just want to yell insults and derogatory remarks for a giggle, for a self-perception of a "win." They aren't interested in having a conversation about anything
It's pretty typical.
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.
