No change to Colorado vaccine exemptions HB-1312 abandoned

[coschristi]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

The reason was to increase the percentage that would develop protective antibodies. That would indeed protect infants by strengthening herd immunity.

Immunity they already had that was much stronger than the vaccine's immunity. Well; at least it strengthened herd mentality.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

There is no big conspiracy there

Yeahhh no. Not thinking they were cut out for a ' big' conspiracy.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Did you read the entire article in your link? One thing you have to determine from any study is the clinical significance. From your link:

The information in the article reflects the reason that the age for the first dose of measles vaccine was reduced from 15 months to 12 months. It has nothing to do with the addition of the second dose in the series. The authors also note that high vaccination rates against measles drove down the number of cases.

"The second strategy to limit the impact of increasing infant susceptibility is decreasing the risk of exposure to measles in infants. Since the 1989 to 1991 resurgence of measles, increased vaccination efforts in the United States have achieved record high coverage rates, both in 1-dose coverage among preschool children and in 2-dose coverage among school-aged children. These efforts and the vaccination efforts of other countries in the Americas, which have resulted in reduced importation of the measles virus, have driven measles incidence in the United States to record low levels. Despite increasing infant susceptibility to measles, only 62 cases of measles were reported in the United States among infants less than or equal to 15 months of age in 1996."

Well; you don't have to rub my nose in it! I had 5 babies between 1992 & 1996 but all they got was the stupid vaccine. Besides, one of the authors was the then director of the CDC. What did you think he would say? "False signal! As you were! Nix that 2nd MMR!" Not.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

They are penalizing people for refusing to help stop a measles outbreak. Those people are dangerous and if they continue what they are doing someone is eventually going to die. If there are deaths due to SSPE it will take years for them to show up.

Wouldn't it be weird if they put somebody in jail for being 'unvaccinated in public' & they caught the Measles from a vaccinated correctional officer while in custody? It could start an Outbreak (the measles not the inmates)! Nobody would know who was a dangerous person & who wasn't!

[coschristi]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

If you wish to live in a society , then you abide by the common laws

vaccinations should be mandated.

not getting vaccinated is endangering your fellow member of society

Meh. My child was permanently disabled by a vaccine he got protecting his fellow members of society. Would you believe not one single fellow has ever knocked on my door to ask how they could help?

[newtovenice]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ao/1116952001/

Another article about the Scientology ship. Of the 318 persons aboard 41 could "prove" that they were vaccination. The took blood samples from the 277 people who could not "prove" that they were vaccinated.

But still only 1 case of measles.

Aren't cruise ships complete petri dishes? Why aren't there more cases of measles?

[coschristi]

Originally Posted by Jo48

I am sure you would just love insurance premiums raised for every man, woman, and child who does not get their yearly flu shots as well.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Or those who do get them could get a discount on their premiums.

Or ... This is not exactly the insurace companies 'first rodeo':

At the time of the initial survey (spring 1984), 166 suits were pending against the four responding manufacturers. The total amount paid in settlements in the previous decade for completed cases had been $2 million, and about another $1.8 million had been spent on legal defense, not in all cases including "in-house" counsel.

The information gathered in a follow-up effort (spring 1985) revealed that about 65 additional suits had been filed in the intervening year. Legal costs for the 1-year period ranged up to "several million dollars" for some manufacturers.

Time series information supplied by two manufacturers indicated a sharp increase in the number of claims filed; their experiences varied considerably, but the total number of reported claims filed against them in 1983 was more than twice that filed in 1980.

Over the past two decades, pharmaceutical companies have been withdrawing from vaccine manufacturing and marketing. Increasingly, the liability situation and its consequences (i.e., litigation costs or difficulty in obtaining insurance coverage) have been cited as major factors in the decision to withdraw.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216813/

Which might explain the dead silence coming from their direction.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by newtovenice

The study is not vaccinate vs unvaccinated.

It is those who did not receive MMR. There is not mention of other vaccine status. SO these kids ar not vaccine free.

Study funded by: This project was funded by the
National Institute of Mental Health, National
Institutes of Health, and the US Department of
Health and Human Services under contract HHSN-
271-2010-00033-C.

Authored by:
All authors have
completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Jain,
Ms Marshall, and Mr Kelly report being employees
of The Lewin Group.Ms Buikema and Dr Bancroft
are employees of Optum. Optum is a wholly owned
subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group and The Lewin
Group is an Optum company. The Lewin Group
operates with editorial independence. No other
disclosures are reported.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm, not medical researchers or scientists
Accelerating Healthcare Transformation For Real-World Impact
The Lewin Group provides health care and human services policy analytics and consulting to institutions, communities and governments. A premier national health care and human services consulting firm, The Lewin Group finds answers and solves problems for leading organizations in the public, non-profit and private sectors.

Optum Health, another consulting firm, not medical researchers or scientists
https://www.optum.com/about.html
We are a leading health services innovation company. Our aspiration is to improve experiences and outcomes for everyone we serve while reducing the total cost of care.

So a govt-funded study performed by govt-connected consulting firms. Hmm.

Um, no. Optum is not a "govt-connected consulting firm." It is a subsidiary of the group that owns United Healthcare Insurance Company. The study was done using its database.

From the article:

"A retrospective cohort study was conducted using an administrative claims database associated with a large US health plan (the Optum Research Database). The Optum Research Database includes more than 34 million individuals each year, containing both commercially insured individuals and Medicare managed care enrollees. The database consists of proprietary, deidentified health claims data from a geographically diverse US population (16% West, 20% Midwest, 36% South, and 27% Northeast). In addition, the age and sex distribution of the enrollees is similar to that reported by the US Census Bureau for both the commercially insured and the Medicare managed care populations."

"Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Institute of Mental Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication."

https://www.optum.com/solutions/life...s-disease.html

Yes, the study was on MMR. that is why it did not cover other vaccines. It is MMR vaccinated versus unvaccinated. It was not a clinical trial. The people who did it are data analysis geeks.

Originally Posted by MissTerri

Meanwhile while you’re wringing your hands about a small percentage of the population not being vaccinated during an outbreak of what was once a normal childhood relatively benign illness that has led to zero deaths thus far and dreaming about taking away their right to attend school if they do not get those vaccines, people are dying many preventable deaths, drowning, getting in car accident, getting hit by cars. Yet, you’re so worried about measles that you feel it is worth it to take people’s rights away so that you can get a teeny tiny bit of extra protection. Yes, drama. Hope that no one in your family ever suffers a vaccine reaction and you find yourself in the place where many others have with no one believing you.

It is not a small percentage in the areas where outbreaks occur. Some of the schools in the area of the outbreak in NYC have zero vaccinated students.

Are you completely unaware that measles can do bad things besides killing people? I have never seen you acknowledge that. Once again: measles injures people, and it can and does cause permanent disabilities, including brain damage. It damages the immune system, increasing the risk of other infections for up to three years. It causes subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which kills everyone who gets it. It does those things at a much higher rate than the one in a million risk of a serious adverse reaction to MMR.

Advocating for vaccines does not preclude doing other things to improve health, including reducing drowning rates, reducing automobile fatalities, and reducing pedestrian fatalities. We can do all of those at the same time.

You are perfectly free not to vaccinate. Those who do vaccinate and those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons do not accept the additional risks your unvaccinated children pose, who may come to school with measles if they are exposed (90% chance of getting it) before you know they have the disease.

If you have an adverse reaction that can be related to the vaccine it will be believed. The problem is that you believe that everyone who claims to have an adverse reaction did have an adverse reaction. That is not true.

Originally Posted by MissTerri

Oh please.

You speak about your kids but what about kids who never learn to swim or those who can’t afford the safest car seats or car, who still get hit by cars in spite of taking precautions because the streets around them do not have safe places to cross? It sounds like you are only concerned about your own kids, not others. What’s up with that? I guess it only matters when it comes to vaccines.

You can keep your kids home with you until they are school aged or find a nanny who is up to date on her vaccines or choose a daycare with a 100% vaccination rate.

Oh please. The irony. Someone who demands that everyone else accept the risks from exposure to her unvaccinated children is carrying on about someone else only being concerned about her own kids.

Why shouldn't she be able to expect a near 100% vaccination rate at her child's K through 12 school, too?