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 am not anti-vax, but it does seem there are SO MANY nowadays. I would feel uneasy too about a baby getting so many.
Isn't that a... good thing? It's not great for the earth, since humans are able to run roughshod all over it for many more decades than we used to be able to. It may not even be good for humans because they have so much more time in which to destroy their very own habitat... but like, yeah, where these vaccines exist, we're not dying of crippling communicable diseases anymore.
It’s a shame you have to be fearful due to a medical issue. I agree with vaccines being a choice. No one should be forced. I also think the choice not to vaccinate shouldn’t endanger you who has no choice. You deserve the best herd immunity those of us who can get vaccinated can provide. I truly hope we don’t lose it, but based on falling vaccination rates, I’m as fearful of that as you are.
Thanks, it's difficult for people to understand sometimes. When I see someone cough or sneeze without covering it up, I move as far away as possible. I'm not going to be getting measles or chicken pox since I've already had them before he vaccines were invented but I worry about kids today not vaccinated who might be affected adversely, especially those with week immune systems.
I posted a link about the lawsuit challenging DeBlasio’s orders. Not sure what your response has to do with what I posted.
You quoted a lawyer: "Michael Sussman, a New York civil rights lawyer, said attorneys are already working on a lawsuit to challenge the April 9 order, which requires unvaccinated individuals in certain affected zip codes in the city to receive the measles-mumps-rubella, or MMR vaccine."
What the good attorney left out is that the people who are affected by the order are those who have been exposed to measles, not every unvaccinated individual in certain zip codes. He is lying by omission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
You’re totally twisting things. That’s not what I said.
That is exactly what you said. Even if a doctor recommends a vaccine based on her best medical opinion whether you would take it "depends".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
A few bad doctors don’t spoil the whole bunch.
In California they have. The responsible doctors very likely do not mind having their recommendations for exemptions reviewed because they are practicing evidence based medicine. The ones who will not like it are those who will no longer be able to sell exemptions to those with no contraindications to vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
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:
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!"
As far as matching is concerned, are you familiar with logistic regression?
Having matched groups is necessary at the outset for a randomized controlled trial. There are other ways to control for differences in comparison groups or other than randomized trials. Double blind randomized trials are unethical for vaccines because their known benefit is so clear that no one will randomize people to a group that will not be vaccinated.
Your premise about the healthy user effect is false because many who are anti-vaccine are educated and of higher socioeconomic status. In addition, it is possible to restrict a study to those who are intentionally unvaccinated.
From link # 1: "Though lower mortality compared with not being DTP-vaccinated was, therefore, expected, DTP vaccination was associated with a non-significant trend in the opposite direction, the HR being 2.22 (0.82-6.04) adjusted for WAZ."
The authors now have the difficulty of explaining why the risk was increased for girls and not boys. Question: are boys valued over girls in Guinea-Bissau? In other words, will a greater effort (money) be expended to get medical care for a boy over a girl?
There are also difficulties with the data, as patients were lost to outmigration and a single patient could be considered either vaccinated or unvaccinated at different points in the study.
"Of the 890 children aged 6–35 months registered in Bandim in June 1981, we were not able to locate the BHP card of 107 (12%) children in 2015; most will not have attended an examination, but some cards may have been lost. A further 81 had a BHP card, but had not attended a weighing session since October 1980, had no precise vaccination dates, or were excluded due to other considerations. Hence, 702 children were included in the study cohort; the number of deaths and person-years in the different vaccine groups was, therefore, limited."
What did the children die from?
"There were 42 deaths between 6 and 35 months of age; 14 had fever as the main symptom, 13 had diarrhea or diarrhea and vomiting, 6 died from measles, 1 had respiratory infection, 1 was malnourished, 1 had anemia, 1 did not eat, and 5 had no information, most likely because the mother/family had moved."
How are any of those deaths related to the vaccine?
The authors conclusions are bases on small numbers. One would not expect a DPT + polio vaccine to protect against diarrheal illnesses or measles. You have to wonder how many of the deaths from diarrhea were due to rotavirus.
Link # 2 is an article by the same authors. There is no full article available, but the number of participants is small and probably subject to the same limitations as link # 1.
Link # 3 again shows the well known effect of measles prevention on mortality due to the immune damage that measles infection causes which persists for up to three years.
Link # 4 again draws conclusions from small numbers.
If you are arguing that vaccines affect boys and girls differently you need a larger study in a population that is easier to study than in a African country with limited medical resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
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.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you and my job is irrelevant.
No one cares whether you take vaccines or not. However, it is totally irresponsible of you to go into a neonatal intensive care unit if you refuse to take a pertussis booster. Your family may not care whether you give them whooping cough or not. Parents of other fragile babies do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
I have an adult 35 year old immune 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.
Most immune compromised people follow the advice of their doctors, including which vaccines to take and which are contraindicated. It is really, really sad that you do not consider it your responsibility to take measures by vaccinating yourself to reduce the risk that your daughter would be hospitalized again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
I am not anti-vax, but it does seem there are SO MANY nowadays. I would feel uneasy too about a baby getting so many.
Why does the ability to prevent more dangerous diseases make you uneasy?
All of these illegal immigrants that are pouring into the US are bringing all sorts of diseases that were eradicated in the US long ago. Now they're back. But the Democrats won't help stop the illegal immigration because they want the immigrants to vote for them. They don't give one crap about US citizens. Get ready for the spread of more diseases.
Many of the vaccines are worse than what they're trying to prevent. See NaturalNews.com.
All of these illegal immigrants that are pouring into the US are bringing all sorts of diseases that were eradicated in the US long ago. Now they're back. But the Democrats won't help stop the illegal immigration because they want the immigrants to vote for them. They don't give one crap about US citizens. Get ready for the spread of more diseases.
Many of the vaccines are worse than what they're trying to prevent. See NaturalNews.com.
Illegal immigrants are not bringing in vaccine preventable disease for the most part, except maybe chickenpox, which some countries do not vaccinate against. It's legal travelers and unvacccinated Americans who bring it in.
Folks, please do not use Natural News as a source for vaccine information. It is full of misinformation. Natural News only wants to sell you something.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 04-10-2019 at 07:15 PM..
OH!!! That's right. In New York, you can do anything you want these days and not get in trouble. Well, unfortunate for the parents who chose not to vaccinate their kids. Those same kids' parents may have had the option to not even have the child. Sounds and looks like they're getting exactly what they deserve. The unfortunate part is that some innocents will be in the same predicament. Or, maybe it's not measles. Maybe it is the dirty, nasty polluted water. Let's be sure to ask our kids if we, as parents, are allowed to have someone administer them. Remember, some children did not have the chance to get vaccinated; as a matter of fact, they didn't get a chance to breathe. Let that soak in!
All of these illegal immigrants that are pouring into the US are bringing all sorts of diseases that were eradicated in the US long ago. Now they're back. But the Democrats won't help stop the illegal immigration because they want the immigrants to vote for them. They don't give one crap about US citizens. Get ready for the spread of more diseases.
Many of the vaccines are worse than what they're trying to prevent. See NaturalNews.com.
Nonsense! Always glad I bookmarked this: https://www.cato.org/blog/migrant-ca...cination-rates "The United States is in the middle of the pack with an 89 percent average vaccination coverage rate."
Do note that the Cato Institute is a quite conservative organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You quoted a lawyer: "Michael Sussman, a New York civil rights lawyer, said attorneys are already working on a lawsuit to challenge the April 9 order, which requires unvaccinated individuals in certain affected zip codes in the city to receive the measles-mumps-rubella, or MMR vaccine."
What the good attorney left out is that the people who are affected by the order are those who have been exposed to measles, not every unvaccinated individual in certain zip codes. He is lying by omission.
That is exactly what you said. Even if a doctor recommends a vaccine based on her best medical opinion whether you would take it "depends".
In California they have. The responsible doctors very likely do not mind having their recommendations for exemptions reviewed because they are practicing evidence based medicine. The ones who will not like it are those who will no longer be able to sell exemptions to those with no contraindications to vaccines.
As far as matching is concerned, are you familiar with logistic regression?
Having matched groups is necessary at the outset for a randomized controlled trial. There are other ways to control for differences in comparison groups or other than randomized trials. Double blind randomized trials are unethical for vaccines because their known benefit is so clear that no one will randomize people to a group that will not be vaccinated.
Your premise about the healthy user effect is false because many who are anti-vaccine are educated and of higher socioeconomic status. In addition, it is possible to restrict a study to those who are intentionally unvaccinated.
From link # 1: "Though lower mortality compared with not being DTP-vaccinated was, therefore, expected, DTP vaccination was associated with a non-significant trend in the opposite direction, the HR being 2.22 (0.82-6.04) adjusted for WAZ."
The authors now have the difficulty of explaining why the risk was increased for girls and not boys. Question: are boys valued over girls in Guinea-Bissau? In other words, will a greater effort (money) be expended to get medical care for a boy over a girl?
There are also difficulties with the data, as patients were lost to outmigration and a single patient could be considered either vaccinated or unvaccinated at different points in the study.
"Of the 890 children aged 6–35 months registered in Bandim in June 1981, we were not able to locate the BHP card of 107 (12%) children in 2015; most will not have attended an examination, but some cards may have been lost. A further 81 had a BHP card, but had not attended a weighing session since October 1980, had no precise vaccination dates, or were excluded due to other considerations. Hence, 702 children were included in the study cohort; the number of deaths and person-years in the different vaccine groups was, therefore, limited."
What did the children die from?
"There were 42 deaths between 6 and 35 months of age; 14 had fever as the main symptom, 13 had diarrhea or diarrhea and vomiting, 6 died from measles, 1 had respiratory infection, 1 was malnourished, 1 had anemia, 1 did not eat, and 5 had no information, most likely because the mother/family had moved."
How are any of those deaths related to the vaccine?
The authors conclusions are bases on small numbers. One would not expect a DPT + polio vaccine to protect against diarrheal illnesses or measles. You have to wonder how many of the deaths from diarrhea were due to rotavirus.
Link # 2 is an article by the same authors. There is no full article available, but the number of participants is small and probably subject to the same limitations as link # 1.
Link # 3 again shows the well known effect of measles prevention on mortality due to the immune damage that measles infection causes which persists for up to three years.
Link # 4 again draws conclusions from small numbers.
If you are arguing that vaccines affect boys and girls differently you need a larger study in a population that is easier to study than in a African country with limited medical resources.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you and my job is irrelevant.
No one cares whether you take vaccines or not. However, it is totally irresponsible of you to go into a neonatal intensive care unit if you refuse to take a pertussis booster. Your family may not care whether you give them whooping cough or not. Parents of other fragile babies do.
Most immune compromised people follow the advice of their doctors, including which vaccines to take and which are contraindicated. It is really, really sad that you do not consider it your responsibility to take measures by vaccinating yourself to reduce the risk that your daughter would be hospitalized again.
Why does the ability to prevent more dangerous diseases make you uneasy?
A single vaccine preventable disease will put more stress on a baby's immune system than all the vaccines he will ever receive.
Amen!
Exactly! The doctor(s) give you guidelines on what you can do-avoid crowds, don't go to church because people go to church sick, etc. They tell you what vaccines you can have. When DH was first discharged after his intensive chemo last fall, the doc told him to get a flu shot.
Regarding "too many too soon" (reprise): https://vaxopedia.org/2016/09/07/antigens-in-vaccines/ "Even considering that kids get multiple doses of many of these vaccines, with today’s complete vaccine schedule, from birth to age 18, including yearly flu shots, they would get a combined total of just 653 antigens. That’s still much less than a single dose of the DTP vaccine that kids got until 1997, when it was replaced by the DTaP vaccine.
With the 1980 immunization schedule, kids got 5 doses of DTP, 4 doses of OPV, a dose of MMR, and a dose of Td, combining to a grand total of at least 15,096 antigens."
With these measles outbreaks popping up everywhere, I think it behooves us to quit spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about vaccines. Vaccines work, they're safe and effective.
All of these illegal immigrants that are pouring into the US are bringing all sorts of diseases that were eradicated in the US long ago. Now they're back. But the Democrats won't help stop the illegal immigration because they want the immigrants to vote for them. They don't give one crap about US citizens. Get ready for the spread of more diseases.
Many of the vaccines are worse than what they're trying to prevent. See NaturalNews.com.
Uh... what?
How are illegal immigrants to blame for Diploma Debbie refusing to vaccinate her child because she's far too active reading scary anti-science nonsense on Facebook?
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.
