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.
Many people who are opposed to vaccines hate being called "anti-vax". It's just so, you know, negative. It implies being against something. So they've come up with new jargon. A big one is "vaccine safety". You will see/hear all told number of anti-vaxers saying they're pro "vaccine safety", including Jenny McCarthy, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Jill Stein. (Stein, I should add was really just pandering; I think she knows better.) McCarthy has gone on to other pursuits since she's decided her son isn't autistic after all. Kennedy has written some virulently anti-vax stuff about the latest meningitis vaccine and sent it to the editors of newspapers in college towns, all the while proclaiming to be "fiercely pro-vaccine". He also claims vaccines cause autism and has compared vaccines to the holocaust. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: Doing the math on meningitis vaccinations - Boulder Daily Camera Chloe Mugg: A rebuttal to RFK Jr. on meningitis B - Boulder Daily Camera Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Compared Vaccines to a Holocaust
An anti-vax blogger using the psuedonym Guggie Daly has written an article on preferred terms. You can read it here: https://issuu.com/naturalmothermagaz...ury_2017_final (Article starts on p. 78) The whole purpose of this new vocab is to discredit vaccines while appearing to have a higher moral stand of "vaccine safety".
In point of fact, vaccines are very safe now, and more research is continuously being done to improve their safety even more.
Nah... I'm just gonna keep calling them pro-post-birth-abortionist
A "listed side effect"? As opposed to using the term "vax-injured"?
Two very different connotations, IMO.
Quote:
I think she's showing her ignorance of immunology with that statement.
Would you mind elaborating? Wouldn't even those who have had a vaccine have an intact immune system? If their body/immune system responded appropriately (as expected)?
IME, as a vaccine provider for many years, it is a fear of needles first, and all the other stuff second.
i have no fear of needles, for instance three times per week i get up early in the morning and get stabbed with two needles large enough to sink a battleship, and then bleed into a machine for four hours. and since 2001 i have had numerous blood tests for various issues.
however the lat time i got a flu vaccine was in 1976, that year also also got the flu. ever since i have not gotten a flu vaccine, and i have not gotten the flu. i know, everyone who is provax is going to say it is a coincidence, that might be if i had gotten the flu at least once in the intervening years, but i never got the flu before getting the vaccine, and never got it since my 1976 bout with the flu AFTER getting the vaccine.
and i have known other people who would get the flu vaccine every year, and end up getting the flu as a result. once again some will say it is a coincidence, i dont think so though. and those that did get the flu after getting the vaccine, did not get the flu when they refused to get the vaccine. too much evidence on my side, empirical though it may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Your ignorance of how vaccines work is stunning. If I am vaccinated against say...smallpox. (saving 5 million per year BTW), that doesn't make me 100% immune to it. Lets say its 99%. So I know have a 1 in 100 chance instead of a 100% chance if completely exposed.
Thats why its so important that EVERYONE gets immunized. It effectively stops it in its tracks by giving it no method to propagate. And when it cant propogate...it dies.
Seriously, if you are going to argue about stuff this important, you should educate yourself, and not argue from a position of ignorance. Because its important. 5 million deaths a year important.
there are good vaccines to get, small pox, polio, and a number of others. the reason these are so effective though is because there are only a few strains of the diseases in question. the flu however has several strains, and you cant vaccinate against them all. also the flu tends to be rather virulent in many people, which makes the vaccine less effective in those people.
as i have said before, i am not anti vaccine, but rather i am pro choice. for instance a couple of years ago i did get a hep-b vaccine voluntarily.
A "listed side effect"? As opposed to using the term "vax-injured"?
Two very different connotations, IMO.
Would you mind elaborating? Wouldn't even those who have had a vaccine have an intact immune system? If their body/immune system responded appropriately (as expected)?
I mean exactly what you said in the bold. She doesn't know what "an intact immune system" means.
Can a person who has been vaccinated for chicken pox and mumps get either? If the answer is yes, then they (or their parents if they are a minor) should be free to choose whether or not to get vaccinated. A vaccination does not prevent people from being carriers, so the claim that someone who isn't vaccinated and therefore could cause harm to others is nonsense because being vaccinated will not prevent a person from being a carrier of the virus, even if just for a few hours.
That said... why are some so adamant that others should be compelled to be vaccinated, or as the person above spewed, be sentenced for a crime over a communicable disease? How is some demanding others must get vaccinated not statism?
There is no reason, other than following the money transferred from big pharma to politicians willing to take that money if they pass laws which compel compliance so big pharma can make billions selling their snake oil that they won't even guarantee works. No logic to this compelled to comply concept at all.
No, most vaccinated people are not carriers of the diseases that vaccines prevent because they never become infected in the first place. One exception is pertussis; vaccinated persons for which protection wanes may have mild or no symptoms and pass the infection to someone else. That is why pertussis boosters are so important.
The other vaccines do not cause illness due to shedding of vaccine virus, either. Vaccine organisms are either dead (inactivated) or deliberately weakened. They are not the same as the wild versions of the disease. Many new vaccines only contain part of the organism being vaccinated against.
No one can compel you to be vaccinated or to vaccinate your children. You just have to be willing to live with the consequences, including having to find an alternative way to educate your children.
You are also using a logical fallacy: the Nirvana fallacy, implying that if a vaccine is not perfect it is not worth taking.
Eventually we may see a lawsuit: your unvaccinated (without a medical contraindication) child gets a vaccine preventable disease and gives it to someone who has a serious complication or dies from the disease. Are you willing to accept responsibility for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
How can you POSSIBLY even suggest that someone who didn't get vaccinated CAUSED someone who did get vaccinated to catch a communicable virus? Either the vaccine works, and those who were vaccinated won't catch the virus, or it doesn't. The FACT that you conveniently leave out that EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not they were vaccinated, can be a carrier of a communicable virus is quite telling about your willingness to disregard facts as long as you can impose YOUR will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon everyone else in society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
Simple, if you are vaccinated, then you won't catch anything from those that are not.
Vaccines protect all but a few percent of those who take them. Those who are not protected may get the disease but often have a milder illness, get well quicker, and are less likely to pass the disease to someone else. For example, some vaccinated people who got measles during the outbreak that started at Disneyland had rashes lasting only a few hours. In addition, some people who were vaccinated and then have conditions or take medications that suppress the immune system may catch the disease if exposed. A woman who was immunosuppressed died in 2015 from measles pneumonia despite having been vaccinated.
No, the majority of people who are vaccinated never become infected and are not "carriers".
i have no fear of needles, for instance three times per week i get up early in the morning and get stabbed with two needles large enough to sink a battleship, and then bleed into a machine for four hours. and since 2001 i have had numerous blood tests for various issues.
however the lat time i got a flu vaccine was in 1976, that year also also got the flu. ever since i have not gotten a flu vaccine, and i have not gotten the flu. i know, everyone who is provax is going to say it is a coincidence, that might be if i had gotten the flu at least once in the intervening years, but i never got the flu before getting the vaccine, and never got it since my 1976 bout with the flu AFTER getting the vaccine.
and i have known other people who would get the flu vaccine every year, and end up getting the flu as a result. once again some will say it is a coincidence, i dont think so though. and those that did get the flu after getting the vaccine, did not get the flu when they refused to get the vaccine. too much evidence on my side, empirical though it may be.
there are good vaccines to get, small pox, polio, and a number of others. the reason these are so effective though is because there are only a few strains of the diseases in question. the flu however has several strains, and you cant vaccinate against them all. also the flu tends to be rather virulent in many people, which makes the vaccine less effective in those people.
as i have said before, i am not anti vaccine, but rather i am pro choice. for instance a couple of years ago i did get a hep-b vaccine voluntarily.
Not everyone gets the flu. In a typical season, maybe 2 to 20% of the population gets it. During pandemics 20 to 50% may. Not everyone who is infected has symptoms.
The effectiveness of flu vaccine also depends on how well the vaccine matches the most common circulating strains.
The injectable flu vaccine cannot cause you to have flu. The virus in it is inactivated (dead). If you got a true influenza infection after the vaccine, you were either infected before the vaccine had time to work or you got a strain not covered by the vaccine. Yes, if you have not had flu since 1976 and do not take the vaccine it may entirely be that you were fortunate enough not to be exposed. Yes, your anecdotal experience does not mean a thing compared to the big picture for flu. The flu vaccine cuts the chance of getting flu by about 50 to 60%. That means that millions who take it do not get the flu. I take the flu vaccine and do not get flu. Does my anecdote cancel yours out?
The "virulence" of a particular strain of flu has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccine in a particular person. All vaccine preventable diseases have multiple strains. Fortunately one vaccine will protect against all of them for some diseases. For others, like pneumonia and HPV, the vaccine protects against the most common strains.
It's interesting that you consider smallpox vaccine a good one to get. Smallpox has been completely eradicated, by a worldwide vaccination campaign. The last case of wild smallpox in the US was in 1949 and the last case in the world was in Somalia in 1977. The disease was declared eradicated globally in 1980. The US stopped routine vaccination against smallpox in 1972. It's not on anyone's vaccine schedule any more. So why is it a "good vaccine"? It was not without complications, either.
Polio is on the way to being eradicated, too. There have so far this year been only 5 cases of polio in the entire world. The only reason the US still vaccinates against polio is due to the small risk of someone bringing it here from that small geographical location where it has not been stamped out yet.
The fact is that your chance of getting smallpox is zero. The risk of getting polio is so close to zero that it might as well be zero. Your risk of getting flu and becoming seriously ill from it - or dying - is many times greater.
For the US:
Smallpox: zero cases per year.
Polio: zero cases per year.
Influenza: 3,000 to over 40,000 deaths per year. There have been 72 pediatric (under age 18) flu deaths reported so far for the 2016-2017 flu season. Based on past experience, 90% of those children will have not been vaccinated, and, no, not all of them had conditions that could increase the risk of dying from flu. Many were perfectly healthy before they were infected with the flu virus.
So which is the best vaccine to take if you want to reduce the risk of getting seriously ill or dying? Not smallpox; don't need that one at all any more. Not polio; the risk of exposure to that is vanishingly small.
It's the flu vaccine, though it's not perfect.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 04-20-2017 at 04:59 AM..
IME, as a vaccine provider for many years, it is a fear of needles first, and all the other stuff second. When I worked with teen moms, they were very upfront about being squeamish about the shots. More sophisticated parents invent other reasons to oppose vaccines, but if you look at anti-vax literature and graphics, many of them show babies being "shot" (photoshopped of course) with multiple needles/syringes.
Does anyone have any input about the terminology of those who don't vaccinate?
I will continue to call them anti-vaccine or vaccine refusers, because that describes what they are. They may pick and choose which vaccines to be "anti-" but it boils down to a basic inability to do a valid risk assessment and arriving at a decision, based on bad information, that the vaccine is more dangerous than having the disease. That is because vaccination has made vaccine preventable diseases so rare. They refuse to admit that stopping vaccination will just allow those diseases to come roaring back again.
I will continue to call them anti-vaccine or vaccine refusers, because that describes what they are. They may pick and choose which vaccines to be "anti-" but it boils down to a basic inability to do a valid risk assessment and arriving at a decision, based on bad information, that the vaccine is more dangerous than having the disease. That is because vaccination has made vaccine preventable diseases so rare. They refuse to admit that stopping vaccination will just allow those diseases to come roaring back again.
Let me play a bit of Devil's Advocate here. So what you are saying is that if a Medical Professional recommends any vaccine (or medication?), and a patient refuses they are an anti-vaxers because they are refusing medical advice?
There are vaccines and then there are vaccines. Putting aside children (child endangerment issue), what about an adult who refuses a Tetanus shot? Are they putting the community in danger by refusing that one? Anti-vaxxer simply because refusing what doctor tells them to do?
Then we get into diseases that are not air borne and highly contagious to the general public. Blood borne diseases. Certain actions by an individual need to be performed in order for others to catch them, specifically Hep. B and HPV. Simply being in the presence of another with those diseases won't cause others to catch them. Again, Anti-Vaxxers for refusing those?
I read an article which said it was safe to give HPV vax to pregnant women. Why? Clearly that would not be to protect an already sexually active woman. This would be a stealth way to vaccinate her unborn baby. This raises other issues with pregnant women. Do they have the right to refuse vaccinations aimed at their unborn babies? You have to vaccinate the adult in order to vaccinate the baby she is carrying. As more and more vaccines are added during pregnancy, it is going to become a problem. Get the baby vaccinated before it's even born?
Personally, the bigger issue is that medical professional do not like patients going against their advice for vaccines, or any thing else.
I used to get flu vaccines every year and every year I did, I caught the flu, typically twice. Now that I haven't had a flu vaccine in about 5 years, I also haven't had the flu in about 5 years.
I just came here to do a drive-by post and say I've never gotten the flu vaccine, and also never had the flu. My ex-GF, as a nurse, is required to get the vaccine each year and manages to come down with the flu at least once a year. She thinks it's fairly useless.
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.
