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.
That is a fallacy. The only vaccine to make large profits in recent years is Gardasil, but the routine chidlhood immunizations make little profit. In fact all Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.
It would be more cost effective for drug manufacturers to not provide vaccines, but only provide drugs to treat subsequent infections.
The big profits come from cancer treatments, are those "wares" too?
Too true. In the case of some vaccines, only one manufacturer even makes them; there used to be a lot more, but some companies got out of the vaccine business b/c it wasn't that profitable. Doctor's offices don't make that much on vaccines, either. The reimbursement isn't that great.
Too true. In the case of some vaccines, only one manufacturer even makes them; there used to be a lot more, but some companies got out of the vaccine business b/c it wasn't that profitable. Doctor's offices don't make that much on vaccines, either. The reimbursement isn't that great.
I don't know if you remember a few years ago there was a lot of hoopla about the possibility of private physicians no longer giving immunizations as the profit margins were so low?
Apparently they don't care about living, breathing, actual babies.
Oh, and nevermind that their negligence directly affects the insurance rates for everyone else. We should have to absorb the cost of their choice to endanger their children.
The hell with that. No immunizations? Double premiums.
That's hitting below the belt. It could just as easily be said that you don't care about the living breathing people that have been injured by vaccines:
And there is a difference between "negligence" and making an informed decision not to vaccinate.
Just to be clear, I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm pro vaccine safety. How would you feel to have your health ruined by something that was supposed to be "safe and effective"?
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self evident."
-Arthur Shopenhauer
German Philosopher
(1788-1860)
It has all been discredited. The vaccine-autism link was a fraud perpetuated by a charlatan. Websites like "Natural News" are hardly unbiased, and their rantings never hold up to scientific scrutiny.
There is plenty of evidence that says there is a link between autism and vaccines.
Natural News has been discredited by whom? Scientists? In the medical profession? The same scientists that push all these prescription drugs?
How many kids die a year because someone else didn't get vaccinated? How many people die each year because of prescription drugs? Didn't 50,000 people die from Vioxx? Was it Vioxx causing all the heart attacks or I am I confusining my legalized poisons? But the same profession is telling us we must get vaccinated? LOLs. They have a lot of cedibility.
Why can't people sue vaccine makers if vaccines are so safe? Why do they need legal protection if the product is so great?
See above. Plus, Mexican immigrants tend to be well immunized. Their parents have seen a lot of these diseases and don't want their kids to get them. I have posted links on this before. You may do a search.
American kids tend to be well immunized also. We are only speaking of a few cases here, right?
You have no problem letting illegals in the U.S. because a high proportion of Mexicans are immunized, but you have a problem with America even though a high proportion of kids are immunized.
What about illegals from Somalia, Hondorous, Panama etc..... How do you differentiate. Should we pass a law and say only illegals from Mexico are allowed in?
One such example from the article, tells about a child whose parents refused to vaccinate him in 2008, then took him to Europe where he contracted the measles. When they got back to the U.S., 839 people were exposed, causing 49 children who were too young to have been vaccinated to have to be both vaccinated and quarantined, one of whom had to be hospitalized.
The article goes on to put figures to this situation:
"[The] average family cost [was] $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers."
So, should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be considered a potential health danger to the public, and be forced to either pay significantly higher premiums to cover their childrens' health care; be forced to refund the government, families and insurers their costs when their unvaccinated child causes a public outbreak or quarantine; or should it be a protected right for parents not to vaccinate their children, with no consequences should others suffer medically because of their (in)actions?
what a stupid poll, asking this question would be like me asking if liberals and other who refuse to arm themselves with firearms be forced to pay more in taxes to have the police protect them. all others who already own firearms are exempt from paying that special tax.
Back on topic, why are you giving vaccines to your child when you have no faith they even work?
They work most of time. How would you feel if you had a child who could not be vaccinated and that child got a disease because someone else who should have vaccinated did not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
Babies get 6 vaccines between birth and age 6 mos. which I think is something to ponder seriously.
Could it be that in 1910 the sanitation and supportive therapy were not as good as they are today?
I had all the measles varieties, chicken pox, and mumps(lucked into both sides at the same time). So did everybody else my age. Nobody died that I know of.
Sure, some people probably died in the 1910s and on up into the 1950s- the very frail, or those who developed pneumonia or other complications. But measles deaths dropped rapidly from 1910 on- (even though the vaccine was not given until the early 60s)- right along with better sanitation, hygiene, living conditions, and medical supportive care (such as aggressive fever control, IV hydration, mist tents, and medications).
Deaths from measles were almost nil by the time the first vaccine was ever given.
All the sanitation in the world isn't going to offer one tenth of the protection offered by vaccines.
The rest of your post is simply unbacked speculation. Even today a child who gets measles in first world country faced a one in five risk of hospitalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zekester
I'll tell you what then: back off and let parents decide what's best for their own children instead of the state. With regards to the dangers of vaccination I can only say that their is enough smoke to suspect a fire, but as usual it probably won't be properly understood until a generation from now because all current medical professionals and researchers are too close to the forest to see the trees.
They're not deciding for their own children. They're deciding for everyone else as well. Little babies cannot get vaccinated against many diseases. Why should they be at risk because someone else is ill informed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zekester
If the other kids have their shots how can unvaccinated kids harm them? They can only harm other unvaccinated children and that's a chance that many parents are willing to take. Besides, what age is "under the immunization age" when the current schedule calls for 28 jabs by age 2, some of which start at 2 months old.
Vaccines don't work one hundred percent. They rely on herd immunity. That immunity should not be breached because of another parent's foolishness. Oh and the two month old shot helps protect against whooping cough, tetanus and diphtheria. Would you rather have those diseases back instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zekester
That's hitting below the belt. It could just as easily be said that you don't care about the living breathing people that have been injured by vaccines:
And there is a difference between "negligence" and making an informed decision not to vaccinate.
Just to be clear, I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm pro vaccine safety. How would you feel to have your health ruined by something that was supposed to be "safe and effective"?
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self evident."
-Arthur Shopenhauer
German Philosopher
(1788-1860)
Vaccines are extensively tested. Certainly much more chelation therapy or any of the homopathic nonsense dished up by the quacks. What makes you think that a child who reacts poorly to a vaccine will react any better to an actual case of the disease?
No, what's next? People who send their kids to school sick should be forced to reimburse my insurance company? My kids get sick much more often from those kinds of people than they ever will from unvaccinated kids.
I agree. My son is sick all the time because he goes to daycare part of the day and kindergarten the other. Kids carry germs; and at that age aren't too cautious about spreading them to one another.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,546,892 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest
There is plenty of evidence that says there is a link between autism and vaccines.
Natural News has been discredited by whom? Scientists? In the medical profession? The same scientists that push all these prescription drugs?
How many kids die a year because someone else didn't get vaccinated? How many people die each year because of prescription drugs? Didn't 50,000 people die from Vioxx? Was it Vioxx causing all the heart attacks or I am I confusining my legalized poisons? But the same profession is telling us we must get vaccinated? LOLs. They have a lot of cedibility.
Why can't people sue vaccine makers if vaccines are so safe? Why do they need legal protection if the product is so great?
It should be handed the same as smkers or drinkers as to increasing risk.
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.
