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.
In other words you are admitting that the vaccines don't work as advertised. Regardless of your stance on vaccines, this alone should give anyone pause. I also find it alarming that hospitals won't administer the vaccines until the patient or parent signs a hold harmless agreement first.
Probably the most concerning thing to me is how anyone in the medical field that publicly opposes vaccines is threatened with loss of their medical license.
I highly suggest that anyone curious about this subject reads up on former medical professionals that have been censored, had their licenses suspected, or otherwise threatened due to their professional opinions against vaccines.
I don't ever recall vaccines being "advertised" as 100% effective. Birth control isn't 100% effective either, doesn't mean that it doesn't still prevent pregnancy. Using the example earlier, seat belts (and car seats) aren't 100% effective either, doesn't mean they don't make you a heck of a lot safer or prevent injuries and deaths.
In other words you are admitting that the vaccines don't work as advertised. Regardless of your stance on vaccines, this alone should give anyone pause. I also find it alarming that hospitals won't administer the vaccines until the patient or parent signs a hold harmless agreement first.
Probably the most concerning thing to me is how anyone in the medical field that publicly opposes vaccines is threatened with loss of their medical license.
I highly suggest that anyone curious about this subject reads up on former medical professionals that have been censored, had their licenses suspected, or otherwise threatened due to their professional opinions against vaccines.
No. Vaccines work by stimulating the natural immune response in a safe way. Immunocompromised people don’t have fully functioning immune systems and will see limitednor no direct benefit to vaccination.
How do you think vaccines are “advertised to work”?
In other words you are admitting that the vaccines don't work as advertised. Regardless of your stance on vaccines, this alone should give anyone pause. I also find it alarming that hospitals won't administer the vaccines until the patient or parent signs a hold harmless agreement first.
Probably the most concerning thing to me is how anyone in the medical field that publicly opposes vaccines is threatened with loss of their medical license.
I highly suggest that anyone curious about this subject reads up on former medical professionals that have been censored, had their licenses suspected, or otherwise threatened due to their professional opinions against vaccines.
Do you think vaccines are advertised as being 100% effective? You really know very little if you do. Vaccines have a high rate of efficacy that is NOT 100%. The more people who are vaccinated, the greater the efficacy across a population. An unvaccinated person is not protected and is more likely to pick up a vax preventable disease and therefore more likely to pass said disease along to those who can not be vaccinated, those who are immunocompromised, or that small percent for whom vaccines do not work. An outbreak could be devastating.
Try learning about vaccines from real science, not a quack like Mercola.
In other words you are admitting that the vaccines don't work as advertised. Regardless of your stance on vaccines, this alone should give anyone pause. I also find it alarming that hospitals won't administer the vaccines until the patient or parent signs a hold harmless agreement first.
Probably the most concerning thing to me is how anyone in the medical field that publicly opposes vaccines is threatened with loss of their medical license.
I highly suggest that anyone curious about this subject reads up on former medical professionals that have been censored, had their licenses suspected, or otherwise threatened due to their professional opinions against vaccines.
They do work as advertised.
The only people who claim they work 100% of the time are the people making excuses for why they don't need them for themselves or their family.
facts are facts and I air on the side of science . Most of the reasons that some diseases don't exsist today are because of vaccines from yesteryear that someone took most of their lifetime to create so some other innocent person would not die from the disease . Think about that next time you want to fuss about why you should not vaccinate your kid . I don't blame public school not wanting to admit unvaccinated people whoever it may be . You want your kids to be educated at the public school system then vaccinate if not then choose home schooling .
USA has been polio free for 40 years. I m sure some vaccines are ok but not all are needed
A lot of people have responded to this, but "an airplane ride away". Quite a few countries still use the oral polio vaccine, which contains live weakened polio virus. Vaccinated people shed this virus through their stools. In a few rare cases, the vaccine-virus can reactivate to the strength needed to cause disease. I have horrors of someone vaccinated with this vaccine, and shedding, coming to the US and coming into contact with unvaccinated kids (or adults, but that's far less likely). It could spread like wildfire.
We don't use OPV here in the US, we use the inactivated vaccine which cannot cause disease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoastforme
And the virus has been destroyed except nigeria and one location in Middle East. Woopdie do
It hasn't been "destroyed" anywhere. It's just not circulating anywhere but a few countries. It's alive and kicking, believe me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrah
Those of us above a certain age still bear scars from the small pox vaccine. You don't see it on children any longer because it has been eradicated through the use of the vaccine. It doesn't exist. The U.S. does keep the vaccine stock piled for a few reasons though.
The only vaccine I refused for my children was chicken pox. The vaccine was brand new. The expectation was that it would last 10-15 years. I knew in 10-15 years they would be college age and might not get a new vaccine. Within a few months they both had chicken pox thus were protected. Because of new anti-viral drugs available they recovered quickly. Daughter only missed about a week of school. Son happened to be on holiday break so it didn't matter. He broke out on Christmas Eve. (fun memory).
I was "present at the creation" of the chickenpox vaccine. Many parents had such misconceptions. Certainly, when it came out, no one knew how long it would last, though it had been used in Japan since 1988 (approved in the US in 1995) and the original vaccinees were still immune with no diminution of immunity. I never heard this 10-15 years stuff professionally (or from any other source); it must have been an urban legend circulating in your area. If it turned out that immunity decreased over time, the solution would have been a booster dose. We now have a booster dose, not because of waning immunity but because one dose doesn't confer immunity in everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STL74
They work and should be given to all except those with medical contraindications (for example...a specific allergy or a history of a severe adverse reaction). My highly educated opinion (degree in cell and molecular biology as well as a doctorate). I am not, however, in favor of mandatory vaccination. You can make your choice but schools and other institutions should be able to deny access to unvaccinated persons (unless there is a true medical exemption)
See "Jacobson vs Massachusetts, 1905" re the constitutionality of mandates. It's been upheld a number of times. Herd immunity only works when sufficient numbers are vaccinated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
I'm going to come in a little differently here. I don't think vaccines are harmless. I do think there is some risk if injury, just like there is for every, other medication. I also think the number of vaccines has increased largely to increase profits for pharma. I think it's odd that I, born in 1972, am considered fully vaccinated but I've had less than half the shots that my kids have had. For the record, both of my kids were fully vaccinated on schedule.
That said, I think there is no question that the benefits of vaccines FAR outweigh any risks. I also think the medical community's failure to really admit that someone MAY have a SMALL chance of a bad reaction makes it look like they are covering something up, so people become suspicious and turn to groups who make outrageous claims about vaccines.
Vaccines DO NOT cause autism. They just don't. Do I think there is an environmental factor that is responsible for the huge upswing in autism? Absolutely. But I don't think it's vaccines. That link has been studied ad nauseum and no connection has been found. We'd be better served to move on and find what IS causing it (and also the upswing in allergies). It could be pesticides, it could be plastics, it could be hundreds of things. But it's not vaccines.
Is there a small risk of bad reactions with vaccines? Of course. Same as with antibiotics or even ibuprofen. But there is a much, much bigger risk to NOT vaccinating.
These risks are very, very small. It's less than with antibiotics, I can tell you that. And "the medical community" freely acknowledges that there are some risks and side effects, don't know where you got the idea that they don't. The side effects and the number to call are on every Vaccine Information Statement that health care providers are required to give with every vaccine. See example: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis...ents/dtap.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
It is exactly this type of post that leads me to be very weary of vaccines. Someone in favor of vaccines should have no problem whatsoever with those that don't vaccinate. If the vaccines really work, the vaccinated have nothing to worry about.
Your reasoning on the flu vaccine is faulty as well. But I am sorry about your friend.
charolastra00 explained this, so I'll just say "What she said". Yours is a standard anti-vaccine talking point, and it's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom
My kids got vaccinated on the schedule suggested by their doctors. Until they started vaccinations, I kept them away from most people and didn't bring them to lots of public places. I assume anyone against vaccines is working for big polio.
I find the debate on vaccines interesting and indicative of the general difficulty in discussing important scientific questions with a non-technical and often anti-technical audience. Unfortunately much of the debate on vaccines isn't reflective of how good scientific debates should be done--even on the side that agrees with scientists. It's mostly appeal to authority on both sides. Great if you know which authority to trust, but confusing if you don't or a deeply distrustful of either the government or big corporations (the side that in this case is right).
The problem is that scientific questions are really difficult to answer conclusively. Scientists have to be skeptical. If you really approach the vaccine problem--or really any problem--from a truly skeptical perspective, it takes a lot of work to make the right decision. No one has time for that (at least for every question). So we have to trust outside sources. And so scientific debates become debates about what authorities we trust.
I disagree with the bold. It's the science, and the preponderance of scientific consensus, not "appeal to authority" that supports vaccines.
Bear in mind that most vaccines are given only a few times in a lifetime. Compared to an advertised patented diabetes drug such as Invokana witch is taken daily for life at $15.00 _per pill_. Over a 20 year period that amounts to over $100,000.00 !
So:
Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) [1] M-M-R®II 00006-4681-00 10 pack – 1 dose vial $21.05 $70.92 03/31/2019 Merck
A 10 pack MMR for at most $70.92 or $7.09 per dose, given only once. Or Invokana at $15.00 a pill, given every day for life.
And that doesn't tell you somehting? Maybe that... vaccinations... oh i dunno... WORK?!?!
In any event, why don't you show us saying anything about the negatives of vaccines? Why should the onus be on us to educate you. Show us what crap you're reading that says it's dangerous. Is it the elite trying to keep us down?!?
Causes Autism? That's been disproved 100 times already and the guy that wrote that study lost his medical license for writing it.
What else ya' got?
Unfortunately, he lost his medical license in the UK. He never had a medical license in the US, but he was in Austin, TX as the director of Thoughtful House Autism Center. He finally resigned that post in 2010. He is working to have more children opt out of vaccines in Houston, TX currently. He is heavily involved with Republican Politics.
You don't know enough to be wary of vaccines, based on this post.
Infants are vulnerable before they are old enough to get vaccines. Immunocompromised kids (and adults) are vulnerable even if they've been vaccinated. I had to be revaxed for many things following chemo, for instance, and in that period of time until my immunity was built back up through recovery and vaccines, I was at an extreme risk. There are people who cannot have vaccines for valid medical reasons. There are also people for whom vaccines just don't work. That is why we rely on herd immunity to protect everyone.
With false perceptions about "big pharma" and autism, herd immunity is breaking down.
Just sticking to the facts as you portray them, if vaccines work for the vast majority, that vast majority have nothing to fear from those that are not vaccinated.
That efficacy argument cuts both ways and many that are pro vaccine don't acknowledge the obvious.
I disagree with the bold. It's the science, and the preponderance of scientific consensus, not "appeal to authority" that supports vaccines.
If you just say “the preponderance of scientific evidence” it absolutely is an appeal to authority. Science being that authority. If you’re someone (like me) that trusts scientific consensus that has meaning in an argument, but if you distrust science it has no value.
Vaccine debates are almost never about what science thinks (science is pro vaccine) but more about whether science is an authority that should be trusted.
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.
