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 didn't vote in your poll, because it didn't include the most logical option.
If you remember, it was in the 1980s, I believe 1986, when Congress passed a law that said States would be cut-off from Medicaid if they did not enact laws for religious exemptions.
That means people could refuse medical treatment, and also they could refuse medical treatment for their children, if it violated their religious beliefs.
Yeah, many children have died, because their parents refused treatment on religious grounds.
I would grant religious exemptions, so long as the Yahweh-Jesus-Holy Ghosty-thing comes down and signs a form stating he authorizes it.
Just as soon as the Yahweh-Jesus-Holy Ghosty-thing does that, they can be exempted.
Me neither. There was no "Nobody else's business what I do" choice. That pesky thing call freedom to choose what medical treatments I want.
Me neither. There was no "Nobody else's business what I do" choice. That pesky thing call freedom to choose what medical treatments I want.
It's not that simple. Your stance of choosing to forego vaccination against a communicable disease is ALSO you choosing to potentially expose other people to said disease. You aren't a hermit living on a deserted island. You are a modern human being who comes into direct and indirect contact with dozens of strangers every day.
Where are all the masses that are refusing them? Show some evidence that vaccinations rates have dropped substantially.
Hint: They haven't. It's a boogieman argument meant to terrify people who don't bother to look the stats up themselves.
Hint: Here in the Pacific Northwest we're having a issue because rates in the area where this is occurring are substantially below whats needed to stop the spread of it. 95%+ vaccination rates are required to do that, and for Washington their vccination rate is 85-90%. Its not the overall stat thats concerning, it the statistic in areas. And it turns out that this occurs when a anti-vax group focuses on a particular group and convinces then to not vaccinate, or when a local Dr decides to advise people to no vaccinate, or when the local religious nutjobs decide that anti-vacination is the will of "God". But Washington and Oregon allow non medical and non religious exemptions from vaccination, and now we are seeing the result. Its not a "boogieman" argument, its simple science and facts.
I think it horrible that people listen to people like Jenny McCarthy and make ill-informed decisions.
I was born in 1955, and had friends that survived polio; you could often tell by their having at least one weakened limb (thinking of you, Bud, wherever you are, and your pronounced limp). When I worked for Social Security (disability) we still had occasional cases of older adults developing 'post-polio syndrome', which, as the name implies, affected those that previously had polio.
I recall when measles was declared eradicated from the United States of America. How was this achieved? By mandating that all children receive the vaccine. I do not mean that measles became 'extinct', but instead of up to four million children being infected each year, the number went down to the hundreds:
However, back in the 1960s people tended to trust science. Now, with the internet and social media, people who wish to believe something, can readily find any number of blogs or such confirming their opinion, all without worrying about 'science'.
The internet gave stupid, uninformed people, the courage to proclaim their stupidness, and to endanger their children.
What people don't realize is that religious is sometimes the only exemption available.
Which means 'gee those stoopit religious people' when in actuality not everyone who chooses religious exemption even belongs to a church.
So they are liars, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
You have to ask permission not to get them if you want kids to go to public school. This shouldn't be happening. Parental choice for medical intervention should trump the schools demand. It doesn't. And vaccines are mandatory for public schools in California.
And there are jobs where if you do not get them? You will be fired. Ask my neighbor. She'll tell you all about it. She was told get it or you're fired. She works at a govt facility.
What "should" happen is not what is "actually" happening.
You do have a choice: choose not to vaccinate and accept the consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
A person not getting a vaccine does not put anyone in danger.
[In fact, it's been shown that whooping cough resurgence has been caused through shedding of the vaccine itself, and the vaccine is contributing to people getting sick, not saving them being sick.]
No one has the right to tell you what to do with your own body. That's called slavery.
And actually if you want to drive 100 mph you can. No one is stopping you from doing so. I see people driving 100 mph on the interstate all the time.
A person not getting a vaccine does put others in danger, if he gets sick and infects other people. The unvaccinated person who gets infected first may recover. The people he infects might not.
No one in the US is forced to vaccinate, so there is no "slavery".
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
“The second generation of vaccine turned out to have an unanticipated limitation, and that has been probably the main engine driving the resurgence,” says Gill, who is lead author on a review article on the resurrection of whooping cough. Gill and his colleagues suspect that the vaccine, while preventing symptoms from pertussis infections for some time, has little impact on preventing people from becoming “colonized” with the bacteria, meaning they are asymptomatic carriers of the disease and are still capable of infecting others. The work pulls together several lines of research and suggests the need for a new vaccine that can prevent both symptoms and infections.
The solution is simple. Since the vaccine prevents symptoms, take the vaccine. The goal is, after all, to not get sick.
All of us are colonized with germs that could make us sick but do not, including staph, strep, and e.coli.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Asymptomatic carriers that can infect others... As in people who are vaccinated are INFECTING other people with whooping cough ... so vaccination contributing to cases of whooping cough
Take the vaccine, then if you get colonized you are at less risk to get sick. Unvaccinated people who catch pertussis infect other people, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Not being vaccinated doesn't put anyone at risk.
You can repeat that all you want. It is still not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
So 30% of the entire population had a severe complication from measles> blind, deaf, and brain damaged?
That is not what she said. She said a complication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G
Have any of you looked into the effectiveness of each childhood vaccine? The public health fear is a two part threat which we have seen in these situations.
1. People overestimate the effectiveness of several common vaccines. Some are amazing (polio), some are less effective, MMR and Mumps are 70% effective at prevention of disease.
2. Unvaccinated residents and travelers (Americans always forget about this group, Disney park breakouts) can be infected and shedding the virus without symptoms. Coming into contact with those vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Some viruses shedd for 1-2 weeks before symptoms appear.
So parents believe their child will be ok with herd immunity only and no personal protection . The public thinks their vaccinated kids are ok so it’s no big deal. Then kids get sick, both unvaccinated and vaccinated parents want to sue the schools and public health departments because someone has to pay for their child’s illness. And the will all say on television “I’m pissed because i thought vaccinated kids was 100% immune and I was lied too by xxx.
So school systems (both public and private with only a few exceptions, mainly religion) require vaccine records to ensure they are up to date, and force you to opt out and acknowledge that the parent declined vaccination. I have had parents tell me I didn’t mention a vaccine was due and I remember the conversation about t and even put it in they assessment/plan that they get a copy of at the end of the visit. And I do all of that so I don’t get sued.
Just to nitpick a little, the MMR is three vaccines.
"Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps. One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella."
That way, their immune system will be strong enough to the point to where they won't require a vaccination.
If you are not immune to measles and you are exposed there is a better than 90% chance you will catch it, no matter how great your immune system is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster
Appeal to authority fallacy.
It's not a fallacy if the authority truly has knowledge and expertise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Pure luck being able to reach the age of 70 without any disabilities from all these diseases at such a young age?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster
Modern medical history has no relevance to this discussion.
This is about trust. You assume that what you are getting is healthy, but in reality how do you know? How many times has something turned out to be different than advertised?
There is little doubt that if eat broccoli, I am generally benefiting my health. I can eat broccoli every single day for the rest of my life and probably benefit from it, ceteris paribus.
I can not be assured the same with a vaccination. I can only trust myself and my own knowledge of what I put into my body. I just don't have the same ability to trust entities that have not only lied to the general public, but have done things to cover up those lies at detriment to the public.
Wouldn't it be a superior method to instead make the body more resilient through natural means such as things that we all can agree on that are healthy for us, such as eating broccoli for example? I'll even go beyond that and say, not only should we be eating broccoli, but we should set up a society where we can be sure to the best of our forecasting ability, that our grandchildren's, grandchildren will be eating broccoli every day.
Then outbreaks would be rare. We would probably find through scientific studies that pollution is making the earth uninhabitable and that by cleaning up the earth, we would become much healthier and nature would perhaps, go through a revival.
When outbreaks occur, we would just have to be responsive enough to quarantine those affected before it spreads too far. It doesn't mean research would stop. It just means that you would only use the results of that research in an emergency situation.
I assume you never ride in an automobile or fly in an airplane. You never cross bridges because that requires trusting the people who designed and built them. You trust your broccoli without knowing the conditions under which it was grown. You eat other foods trusting that they will not make you ill - though they sometimes do. You drink water, trusting that the source is not contaminated.
YOU wrote that 30% of people who got the measles were made blind, deaf and/or brain damaged.
Standing by that stat?
Show the evidence for that stat for those SPECIFIC complications, not 'one or more." Don't do fuzzy math and lump together 10,000 people with diarrhea and 1 person with deafness and pretend measles has 30% SERIOUS complications.
There would be no human race if that stat were true.
No, she did not say that. She said that 30% of people with measles had a complication, not that all of those complications resulted in permanent disability or death.
"How serious is measles?
Measles can be a serious disease, with 30% of reported cases experiencing one or more complications. Death from measles occurs in 2 to 3 per 1,000 reported cases in the United States. Complications from measles are more common among very young children (younger than five years) and adults (older than 20 years)."
It's not that simple. Your stance of choosing to forego vaccination against a communicable disease is ALSO you choosing to potentially expose other people to said disease. You aren't a hermit living on a deserted island. You are a modern human being who comes into direct and indirect contact with dozens of strangers every day.
No, other people do not get to choose what medical treatments I receive.
No, she did not say that. She said that 30% of people with measles had a complication, not that all of those complications resulted in permanent disability or death.
"How serious is measles?
Measles can be a serious disease, with 30% of reported cases experiencing one or more complications. Death from measles occurs in 2 to 3 per 1,000 reported cases in the United States. Complications from measles are more common among very young children (younger than five years) and adults (older than 20 years)."
From post #83 30% of measles cases get at least one complication. When everyone got measles, that was 30% of everyone. Some of those complications include loss of vision (permanent), loss of hearing (permanent), loss of intellectual capacity from encephalitis (permanent). Also diarrhea causing dehydration, pneumonia (the most common cause of death from measles). 30% of everybody.
What percent of people with measles had the following complications : deafness, blindness and brain damage?
Stats and evidence, please. Show your work.
It's pretty clear what she means, just by reading exactly what she wrote. Tries to make the case that 30% of people had dire complications.
Not even CLOSE To being true. Would parents have had measles parties if it meant making their children deaf, blind and brain damaged?
I assume you never ride in an automobile or fly in an airplane. You never cross bridges because that requires trusting the people who designed and built them. You trust your broccoli without knowing the conditions under which it was grown. You eat other foods trusting that they will not make you ill - though they sometimes do. You drink water, trusting that the source is not contaminated.
Oops!
Yes, but there also isn't some untrustworthy entity and its herd of sheep telling me that I shall buy a certain car or fly in a certain plane by a particular manufacturer. Additionally, there are substitutes for planes and automobiles such as walking or riding a bike for example. Furthermore, much of the systems that create these products do so in a mechanized automated manner as many of the functions are automated and those that are not, are optimized in such a way to increase efficiency and responsiveness to any issues that may arise in the supply chain.
Bridges, automobiles, etc are also built on fundamental principles based on math which can be quantified and have stood the test of time. I also am not the type of consumer to jump on a product before it has been on the market for some time, although we still don't know the affects of cell phones, nor do we fully understand how 5g will affect the environment.
Medicine isn't based on the same science as physics for example. It can't really be quantified in the same way.
As for food, you are right, depending on where I am in the supply chain. If I grow my own food, I am the source, so I know the source of my food and can test the soil and have some confidence that I can put it in my body. When I purchase food, you are right that it may have become contaminated during some point from point of origin to destination, or the subject of perhaps some sort of unethical behavior. However, I also understand that my body is very resilient because I have developed it to be like that, so I do not fear a bacterial infection and have overcome food poisoning in, but a few hours at one point and slept well that night, waking up, feeling refreshed.
Why? Because I don't believe everything I read from an industry that values profit over truth. Why is it that pro athletes use prolotherapy, but for us commoners, it is uninsured and mostly out of reach for only those who or either affluent or able to identify a provider at a value. Even then, it requires research and education to even know that something like that exists.
There are so many lies in the medical industry and so many unhealthy people all around us.
You act as if I am naive for not trusting the government?
Harvard Study: Big Pharma, US Gov. Behind Opioid Epidemic
Who can you trust, but yourself. Make your own observations. I have made mine. I trust my wisdom over most others, but my wisdom is also based off years of research and trial and error. However, much of what I know is no secret. It has been known for thousands of years. It's just that people today for some reason think they are smarter than people from the distant past.
All I can say is history repeats itself.
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.