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.
Because vaccines are generally a unique form of medication aimed at preventing the transmission of infectious disease through a large population or the general population. Medicines are intended to treat individual cases of disease which have already appeared.
It is recognized that vaccines are intended for widespread use and that is why vaccines not only must obtain approval from the FDA, but to be placed on the recommended vaccination schedule, must also receive approval from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Center for Disease Control.
Some medical decisions should not be made by each and every individual because of the implications for public health and disease control. That is the basis for compulsory vaccination laws.
Measles, mumps, and chicken pox vaccines may be "slam dunks" for you. The point is they aren't for everyone. Some of the posts here in this thread are good evidence of that fact. Where public health concerned I am not comfortable leaving such decisions in the hands of people who hold beliefs that are by an objective standard, irrational beliefs. We simply can't maintain good herd immunity if we give each individual the right to refuse all vaccines. Without that herd immunity, vaccines lose much of their ability to prevent transmission of infectious disease.
The difference is I chose to vaccinate myself and my children for most things but would not presume to tell others what to do. When a government takes personal choice for medicine away from the individual it then becomes morally responsible for assuming the responsibility of side effects. And however tiny those side effects are, they can have drastic lifelong consequence for yenpeople they happen to.
Ultimately when you in some governmental role say what medicines people should and should not take you are inevitably saying that it is ok to sacrifice the lives or future of some subset of individuals for the majority. Morally I do not think that is defendable especially when we are talking about children.
Being pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine is as stupid as trying to label people pro-medicine or anti-medicine based on their personal choices.
Not all vaccines are created equal, because not all illnesses are created equal. Some are slam dunks, like measles, mumps, etc. Some are not, like Lymerix. But all medicines involve some degree of personal choice and applying statistics to individuals is a colossal mistake. This is endlessly bizarre to me as people on both sides are often fundamentally irrational. If someone has cancer, and they choose chemo over radiation. Are they anti-radiation and pro-chemo? Should they be able to decide for other people what their treatment should be?
I travel to malaria prone areas of the world frequently. I don't take anti-malarial drugs. The one that was widely touted when I was first beginning to travel to these areas decades ago, was mefloquine. In 2013 they realized it has some very serious neurological side effects. This is not an uncommon story in medicine, which as a science, is constantly updating as new information is added. So I approach vaccines the same way I approach all medical decisions, I speak with my doctor, talk about potential risks and potential side effects vs potential efficacy and then make a decision that is best for me. Why is that ok for all medical decisions except vaccines?
That is very imprudent.
Malaria Wiped Out In U.S. But Still Plagues U.S. Hospitals : Goats and Soda : NPR "He says many doctors, particularly in rural areas, might not consider that a patient who's come in with a fever has malaria. Even if they suspect malaria in someone who'd recently traveled, "they might not have access to proper diagnostics to test for it." And if they do end up diagnosing a patient as having malaria, treatment might be harder to arrange in Arkansas than in Angola."
And that speaks to my point about people having different risks when it comes to rotavirus. If a mother is not breastfeeding then her baby is at a greater risk if they get rotavirus. The risk that their baby will die from dehydration as a result of rotavirus is still extremely low but still...... The risk is not the same for everyone. People can weigh individual risk factors and make decisions.
There is zero proof that the rotavirus vaccine has saved a single life in the US yet we are fools for not getting it? lol!
We may not have an exact figure for the number of lives saved but it is not zero. If the number of deaths was 20 to 60 per year before the vaccine, then reducing the incidence by 50% would net 10 to 30 lives saved per year.
It's clear you do not think that preventing the misery the disease causes is worth anything.
Quote:
Yes. It's pretty much the only thing that my breastfed babies wanted to do when they were sick. Nursing is just as much for comfort as it is for food so they naturally wanted to nurse when they didn't feel good.
A vomiting baby does not derive much good from nursing, though, does she?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
The difference is I chose to vaccinate myself and my children for most things but would not presume to tell others what to do. When a government takes personal choice for medicine away from the individual it then becomes morally responsible for assuming the responsibility of side effects. And however tiny those side effects are, they can have drastic lifelong consequence for yenpeople they happen to.
Ultimately when you in some governmental role say what medicines people should and should not take you are inevitably saying that it is ok to sacrifice the lives or future of some subset of individuals for the majority. Morally I do not think that is defendable especially when we are talking about children.
We only mandate vaccines because the absolute risk of serious harm from them is so small as to almost be impossible to calculate.
We assume responsibility for that tiny few who are harmed by having a compensation system that does not rely on even proving the vaccine actually caused harm, only that it might have done so.
The difference is I chose to vaccinate myself and my children for most things but would not presume to tell others what to do. When a government takes personal choice for medicine away from the individual it then becomes morally responsible for assuming the responsibility of side effects. And however tiny those side effects are, they can have drastic lifelong consequence for yenpeople they happen to.
Ultimately when you in some governmental role say what medicines people should and should not take you are inevitably saying that it is ok to sacrifice the lives or future of some subset of individuals for the majority. Morally I do not think that is defendable especially when we are talking about children.
POSSIBLY 1-2 extra cases in 100,000 babies. POSSIBLY! Not verified. Not seen in the US.
"The current rotavirus vaccines have also been found to be rare causes of intestinal blockage affecting about 1 in 100,000 children. Of interest, natural rotavirus is also a rare cause of intestinal blockage. Because both current rotavirus vaccines prevent rotavirus — and therefore prevent a rare form of intestinal blockage — the question became which was rarer, intestinal blockage caused by the vaccine or by natural infection. The question can be answered by looking at what happened to the rate of intestinal blockage once vaccination started to replace natural infection. Most recent evidence shows that the incidence of intestinal blockage of infants in the United States has not increased because of rotavirus vaccines." http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs...avirus-vaccine
Interesting source. The co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine. He was a voting member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices when they voted to add rotavirus vaccine to the schedule. He made a lot of money off of his "invention".
The US Government disagrees with your interpretation of the studies that have shown an increased risk of intussusception with the rotavirus vaccine.
Title: Vaccine Injury Table: Rotavirus Vaccine Within the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program*
Abstract: This final rule adds intussusception to the Vaccine Injury Table under the category of rotavirus vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program allows a family of a child, a person, or their estate to receive monetary compensation if they experience a vaccine-related injury or death after receiving a covered vaccine. Currently, no adverse event is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table for rotavirus vaccines. However, recent data point to a small risk of intussusception, and the rule amends the Vaccine Injury Table to provide for this adverse event.*
No evidence that this vaccine has saved a single life in the US.
We may not have an exact figure for the number of lives saved but it is not zero. If the number of deaths was 20 to 60 per year before the vaccine, then reducing the incidence by 50% would net 10 to 30 lives saved per year.
That's pure speculation on your part. There is no proof. No evidence whatsoever of your claim.
Quote:
A vomiting baby does not derive much good from nursing, though, does she?
Yes, a vomiting baby derives a lot of good from nursing. Maternal antibodies in those babies under the age of 3 months as well as hydration. Just because they are vomiting does not mean that they are not keeping some of the liquid down. Do you stop drinking fluids when you get a stomach bug?
Malaria Wiped Out In U.S. But Still Plagues U.S. Hospitals : Goats and Soda : NPR "He says many doctors, particularly in rural areas, might not consider that a patient who's come in with a fever has malaria. Even if they suspect malaria in someone who'd recently traveled, "they might not have access to proper diagnostics to test for it." And if they do end up diagnosing a patient as having malaria, treatment might be harder to arrange in Arkansas than in Angola."
Actually, given the amount of information I gave you it is very "imprudent" for you to presume to tell an individual what is or is not the correct medical decision for them. You, unlike my doctor, did not ask if I was able to avoid malaria hours, if I had the ability to minimize my risks in other ways all of which the WHO advises as the primary precaution. No, your first thought was to suggest that I am "imprudent" for not taking a series of medications with very real side effects. That is wildly telling.
Luckily for me I had a doctor whose first instinct is not to throw medication at every possible situation. As a WHO trained doctor, my doctor did not suggest prophylactic medication for my situation. Given which drugs were being pushed at the time that is a good thing for me and fellow travelers.
That's pure speculation on your part. There is no proof. No evidence whatsoever of your claim.
Yes, a vomiting baby derives a lot of good from nursing. Maternal antibodies in those babies under the age of 3 months as well as hydration. Just because they are vomiting does not mean that they are not keeping some of the liquid down. Do you stop drinking fluids when you get a stomach bug?
No it's not speculation. It's epidemiology!
Breastfeeding and rotavirus disease:
"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." http://www.mdedge.com/jfponline/arti...tions-children
"Conclusions
Our study findings did not reveal breastfeeding as protective against rotavirus diarrhea in infants. This suggests searching for other complementary preventive methods such as rotavirus vaccination and zinc supplementation to reduce the problem of rotavirus diarrhea in infants irrespective of their feeding practices." https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com...471-2431-11-17
Interesting source. The co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine. He was a voting member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices when they voted to add rotavirus vaccine to the schedule. He made a lot of money off of his "invention".
The US Government disagrees with your interpretation of the studies that have shown an increased risk of intussusception with the rotavirus vaccine.
No evidence that this vaccine has saved a single life in the US.
Bold #1: That is a lie. Offit was not on the committee when Rotateq was voted on. "The ACIP voted to approve RotaTeq in February 2006, two years and 9 months after Dr. Offit had left the committee." http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_o...q-vaccine.html
#2: It's hard to prove that something hasn't happened, e.g. that someone hasn't gotten rotavirus disease because of the vaccine. You know that. We do know that incidence has decreased.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-25-2017 at 07:21 PM..
It's hard to prove that something hasn't happened, e.g. that someone hasn't gotten rotavirus disease because of the vaccine. You know that. We do know that incidence has decreased.
If they were able to tell us the number of deaths from rotavirus pre vaccine then they can easily figure out the number of deaths post rotavirus vaccine. It's not hard. They just haven't bothered to do it. Why wouldn't they want to know how many lives their vaccine saved? There is no evidence that it has saved even one life in the US. None.
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.
