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.
"We" is the entire community with which we have a social compact as part of living in the community.
"Mandate" in the context of vaccines is a requirement to take the vaccine in order to participate in certain aspects of society, like attending public school.
No one in this country is "forced" to vaccinate.
The fact is that fatal complications of vaccines are so rare as to be virtually uncountable. The idea otherwise is a fabrication from the anti-vaccinationists.
Then we are more on the same page than not.
I think people have a fundamental right to body autonomy, I also think they have the right to face the societal consequence of those choice. What I am opposed to, and many (but clearly not you) think should happen is that the government should be forcing any and all vaccinations on people.
I will quibble with the state about "virtually uncountable". People have serious or fatal allergic reactions to vaccines. They are exceedingly rare, but as a population that numbers in the billions gets vaccinated for more and more diseases, it is an overstatement to say it is uncountable. Even the CDC says serious reactions are 1 in a million. When you have 7 billion people, that is thousands of serious or fatal reactions for just one type of vaccine. That is not what I would call "virtually uncountable". Both "sides" need to avoid overstatement and exaggeration. It also gives weight to the notion that people on the "pro" side lie. Because many people (myself included) know someone who has had serious complications from vaccination. Now, most people in this thread see that factual statement and assume I am anti-vaccine. I am not, proved by the fact that myself and my children are vaccinated for most things. Medicine is complicated, especially as an individual, everyone should get actively involved in their own health, pretending there is one correct stance is a mistake. Many medical professionals overprescribe, some even act like the CDC preaches gospel. That is as unscientific a stance as those whackadoodles who think vaccines cause autism.
Why did you feel the need to put invention in quotation marks? Yes, Dr. Offit made a lot of money. What is wrong with that? If you came up with a great "invention" would you give it away or would you expect to make money from it?
The risk of intussusception with the two newer versions of the rotavirus vaccine is lower than with the original one. As I previously showed you, the risk of death (since deaths are the only thing meaningful to you) from intussusception after the vaccine is about 2 in 43 million.
It's mystifying that you seem so fixated on the number of deaths from rotavirus. It does kill, whether you want to admit or not, even in the US.
Worldwide, Dr. Ofitt's vaccine has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and will eventually save millions as the years go by.
Have you ever done anything to save a life?
It's not that hard a concept to understand. If the disease kills between 20 and 60 people per year and you cut the incidence in half, then you reduce the number of deaths proportionately. Lives saved in the US since the vaccine came out are in the hundreds; lives saved worldwide are in the hundreds of thousands.
If they have the disease, the antibodies did not do much good. Perhaps mom was not making very many of them.
My preference is for the child to not be sick at all, rather than proving how good a mom I am by nursing a severely ill baby 24 hours per day. Then there is the issue of whether mom can make enough milk to keep up with increasing demands.
The problem you seem to be demonstrating here is the well established tactic of bombarding people with lofty statistics and questionable claims, which come from highly biased sources. But the most obvious problem is the severe mathematical challenge you suffer!
You claim 20-60 US deaths annually from the disease .... if we were to assume the worst ... 60 deaths, and assume the best, 60 lives saved (100% effectiveness) .... and assume that he deaths worldwide is 100 times that of the US ... it would take 1000 YEARS to save hundreds of thousands of lives.
THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE of the nonsensical claims being tossed about, regarding just one vaccine and one disease. Applying this to all vaccines and all medical miracles constantly promoted, humanity would have long ago ceased to exist before Jenner ever concocted that cockamamie coxpox hoax that gave birth to this assault on human health!
State governments and the federal government do not have general vaccination laws.
However, your point apparently is that they lack the power to compel vaccination. You could not be more mistaken.
The Supreme Court decided Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905) and Zucht v. King, 260 US 174 (1922). The two cases make it clear that state governments could mandate compulsory vaccination for their citizens under the police powers they possess to regulate the health, welfare, and safety of citizens within the community.
In Jacobson, an adult was ordered to obtain a small pox vaccination to help stop the spread of small pox in his community. He refused and was fined for not doing so. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. Zucht v. King dealt with the right of a state or city to exercise this power when a disease epidemic was not present.
States tend to shy away from such laws because most preventable diseases are best prevented by immunizing school age children. However, nothing prevents them from requiring the same from an adult population.
I sometimes ponder why some people get their minds wrapped around the mistaken idea that our system and Constitution allow people to do anything they want under the claim of "freedom". The Constitution and our laws are not about giving everyone freedom to do anything that they want. Its about striking a balance between freedom and the needs of society to protect its health, welfare, and safety. The courts have recognized that in a long series of decisions that actual predate the founding of the United States of America.
Do you have any case law in the last 50 years let alone the 100?
Anyway, what did not happen was no one forced him to get vaccinated. He was fined. Ok I can live with that.
By the way, your willingness to give up body autonomy for some small measure of safety is not enshrined in the constitution. Please show otherwise.
"In Jacobson, an adult was ordered to obtain a small pox vaccination to help stop the spread of small pox in his community. He refused and was fined for not doing so. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. Zucht v. King dealt with the right of a state or city to exercise this power when a disease epidemic was not present."
Fascinating. Thank you. I did not know the penalty imposed under Jacobson was monetary, and not physical penalties (forced vaccination, jail, quarantine, etc.). So Jacobson v. Ma. ruled that fines can be imposed on citizens who refuse vaccinations. Much like the individual mandate under ACA for non-compliance. Pay a fine. Basically, then, Jacobson has no teeth to physically force vaccinations on the general public. No wonder President Obama, who officially declared a State of National Emergency during the 2009 Flu Pandemic, did not enforce Jacobson.
What was the ruling in Zucht v. King? Fines also? I do not have the time right now to go on FindLaw.com. Tell this ruling to the Health Professionals on here who like to always cite Jacobson. Monetary fines for vaccination refusal.
Do you have any case law in the last 50 years let alone the 100?
Anyway, what did not happen was no one forced him to get vaccinated. He was fined. Ok I can live with that.
By the way, your willingness to give up body autonomy for some small measure of safety is not enshrined in the constitution. Please show otherwise.
Glad you saw the ruling too. I am sure a lot of wealthy people even back then just paid the fine. I read that Jacobson was cited for forced vaccination for CHILDREN (under protection of Minors), but when was it cited for Adults or the Genera Public at large? It might be an incentive for vaccinations, but it would not force vaccinations.
Four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine. § 3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
Wow, this may not point to wrongdoing of Paul Offit but it sure does show the insane conflicts of interest that exist in abundance among those who make decisions on what vaccines go onto the schedule and which vaccines go onto the schedule.
Quote:
It's not that hard a concept to understand. If the disease kills between 20 and 60 people per year and you cut the incidence in half, then you reduce the number of deaths proportionately. Lives saved in the US since the vaccine came out are in the hundreds; lives saved worldwide are in the hundreds of thousands.
There is no evidence of any reduction in deaths in the US. You're the one stretching to make the narrative of your choosing fit without any evidence.
Quote:
If they have the disease, the antibodies did not do much good. Perhaps mom was not making very many of them.
They will help reduce the severity of the illness in babies 3 months old and younger.
Quote:
My preference is for the child to not be sick at all, rather than proving how good a mom I am by nursing a severely ill baby 24 hours per day. Then there is the issue of whether mom can make enough milk to keep up with increasing demands.
My preference is to keep my children healthy for life and that includes keeping medical interventions such as antibiotics, medications, vaccines on the "as needed" only basis. Vaccinating for rotavirus is not necessary. You obviously did not breastfeed. Milk supply keeps up with demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You just do not get it. Rotavirus can cause severe illness even if it is not fatal.
By severe illness you mean, dehydration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Breastfeeding and rotavirus disease:
[i]"Prospective cohort studies conducted in Canada6 and the United States7 showed no difference in the incidence of rotavirus gastroenteritis between infants up to 2 years of age who were breastfed and those who were not. Although differences were not found between either the incidence or the duration of rotavirus infections, these studies showed a significant decrease in the frequency of vomiting among breastfed infants. . . . Another US study showed that risk for rotavirus infection did not differ for infants who were exclusively breastfed, partially breastfed, or exclusively formula-fed.10 However, the breastfed infants were more likely to have milder symptoms."[/I] http://www.mdedge.com/jfponline/arti...tions-children
If you think I proved your point, you need to read it again. Breastfeeding does NOTHING for the incidence of rotavirus disease. It's not protective.
As far as reducing deaths, here you go:
"Rotavirus activity has been monitored through data on routine testing for rotavirus performed at a set of clinical laboratories across the country. Rotavirus activity in the United States decreased significantly after introduction of rotavirus vaccine in 2006." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/rota.html
It is ridiculous, that is, worthy of ridicule, to think that deaths did not decrease as well.
Brazil: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0419205519.htm "In the three years following the introduction of rotavirus vaccination, diarrhea-related mortality rates and admissions among children aged under five years were, respectively, 22% and 17% lower than expected, with a cumulative total of 1,500 fewer diarrhea deaths and 130,000 fewer hospital admissions."
Do you have any case law in the last 50 years let alone the 100?
Anyway, what did not happen was no one forced him to get vaccinated. He was fined. Ok I can live with that.
By the way, your willingness to give up body autonomy for some small measure of safety is not enshrined in the constitution. Please show otherwise.
You misunderstand the way judicial precedent works. I don't need any new law because its been decided. If the cases had been overruled we'd have a problem. If you contend I have cited the cases incorrectly or left out other precedents, you need to show me case or statutory law that holds differently or explain why I have interpreted the cases incorrectly.
Monetary fines and jail sentences are generally the consequence for breaking laws. I suspect Jacobson was subject to a jail sentence as well, but it was not imposed.
You fail to understand the notion that Constitution doesn't enshrine freedom as much as it strikes a balance between individual rights (freedom) and the power of the authorities to act on behalf of the community to further the interests of health, safety, and welfare. I could cite a hundred cases that did exactly that.
If you think I proved your point, you need to read it again. Breastfeeding does NOTHING for the incidence of rotavirus disease. It's not protective.
It is protective against when it comes to severity and duration. I never said that it reduces incidence.
Quote:
As far as reducing deaths, here you go:
"Rotavirus activity has been monitored through data on routine testing for rotavirus performed at a set of clinical laboratories across the country. Rotavirus activity in the United States decreased significantly after introduction of rotavirus vaccine in 2006." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/rota.html
So many people don't even go to the doctor for rotavirus. Maybe the reduction in hospitalizations has more to do with better knowledge and practices concerning dealing with dehydration before it becomes a problem. No one knows. If they really wanted to know if deaths had decreased they would have done the same monitoring post vaccine as they did pre-vaccine.
Quote:
It is ridiculous, that is, worthy of ridicule, to think that deaths did not decrease as well.
Brazil: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0419205519.htm "In the three years following the introduction of rotavirus vaccination, diarrhea-related mortality rates and admissions among children aged under five years were, respectively, 22% and 17% lower than expected, with a cumulative total of 1,500 fewer diarrhea deaths and 130,000 fewer hospital admissions."
Brazil is not the US. In the US, deaths were already extremely minimal. We don't know if they decreased post vaccination because no one has bothered to keep track. Wouldn't they want to know if they were "saving lives" with their vaccine? Deaths were already at such a low rate and one that didn't warrant the need for routine vaccination before the vaccine was introduced.
Now, most people in this thread see that factual statement and assume I am anti-vaccine. I am not, proved by the fact that myself and my children are vaccinated for most things. Medicine is complicated, especially as an individual, everyone should get actively involved in their own health, pretending there is one correct stance is a mistake. Many medical professionals overprescribe, some even act like the CDC preaches gospel. That is as unscientific a stance as those whackadoodles who think vaccines cause autism.
I'm sorry lkb but that is all it takes to earn yourself the label of "anti-vaccine" for the people you are talking to on this thread who are on the "pro" side. Vaccinated for most things but not all gives you the label of "anti-vaxxer". Saying that we should be able to make choices for ourselves is also enough as is questioning any vaccine.
How far would you go in your support of mandates? Eliminating exemptions like CA recently did? Not being able to get a job? Not being able to get a driver's license? Where's the limit and when do mandates just become forced vaccines?
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.
I read that Jacobson was cited for forced vaccination for CHILDREN (under protection of Minors), but when was it cited for Adults or the Genera Public at large? It might be an incentive for vaccinations, but it would not force vaccinations.
