Vaccines

[jaa]

I will start with the disclaimer that I am not against the vaccines in principle, assuming they are safe and effective, as vague of a statement as that may be.
However, it seems to be that most parents that I know have few to no ethical considerations when they make the vaccination choice. In other words, from economics perspectice, a parent should choose to vaccinate only when the net benefit of vaccinating outweighs the net benefit of not vaccinating. That means if herd immunity is strong enough, then the net benefit of not vaccinating is conceivably quite larger than the benefit of vaccinating. It is a selfish analysis but all the studies that have looked at the issue have shown that people will make exactly such selfish choices when their child's health is on the line. Of course, if everybody starts making this choice and pandemic occur then the benefit of vaccinating will increase and outweigh the benefit of not vaccinating. In other words, as long as there is a strong enough herd immunity there is no reason to vaccinate justifiable purely based on risk-benefit analysis.

Yeah I believe this is the case as well. But it's the classic selfish free-rider case. It is good for the individual at everyone else's expense. It's not surprising it happens, and should be expected, especially when people's children are involved as you mentioned.

 

[Spokey]

Someone mention metals like aluminium in the context of causing brain damage from vaccination. However there are recorded instances of vaccinations causing encephalitis without containing any metals.

I think one of the problems is when the wrong agent is blamed, tested and found to be innocent, the original vaccine is also vindicated, even though it might not have been directly tested.

 

[burtlancast]

Everything's not a conspiracy, but i find it rather peculiar you would consider people trying to protect their child a much greater threat to your well-being than multi-nationals responding to no check and balances, immune to prosecution and able to mix deadly viruses to the flu shots they are trying to make mandatory.

Again, everything's not a conspiracy...

I think people trying to protect their children is rational, and I believe these parents are doing what they believe to be the right thing. I also think they are misinformed. And I think multi-nationals respond to financial incentives almost exclusively, and this is a big problem. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. I don't think that the majority of scientists who think the benefits of vaccines outweigh their risks are interpreting the results in favour of the multi-national companies to the detriment of society.

You've evaded my point.
As long as there's no accountability, transparecy and ethical conduct, no law should exploit the pretext of public safety in order to enforce mandatory vaccinations.

Time and time again, vaccine manufacturers had ample opportunities to prove their general well-meaning intentions, ability and integrity.
And guess what: time and time again, they failed miserably. So much so, they have to rely now on the strong arm of governaments to impose their merchandise over the population, who distrusts them almost completely nowadays.

And using selective logic in picking up only the good aspects of vaccines ( if there are any) while ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to their dangers won't make those facts vanish.

You go ahead and vaccinate your family if it pleases you; i will use nutrition and natural methods instead on mine.

And i really, really like my odds.

 

[Jake]

My opinion is vaccines started off as a wonderful thing, but the US schedule has gotten way carried away in recent years. Compare our schedule with some other modern countries, such as Japan for example, and you will see we are much more aggressive. You have to question giving every newborn a vaccine for an STD on the first day of life, when the mother is already tested to start with.

I agree with the sentiment, I don't trust big pharma. These are the same guys manufacturing our vaccines. And you could make the argument that vaccines should be subjected to more scrutiny since they are far more insulated than prescription drugs. I can't see how these companies are dishonest with other drugs but I'm supposed to completely trust them with regards to vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... ettlements

 

[burtlancast]

I can't see how these companies are dishonest with other drugs but I'm supposed to completely trust them with regards to vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... ettlements

Have a look too at this: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6250689/195 ... ald_Report
It used to be on Wikipedia, until they censured it.
In the 1950’s, Congressman Charles Tobey enlisted Benedict Fitzgerald, an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission, to investigate allegations of conspiracy* and monopolistic practices on the part of orthodox medicine. This came about as the result of the son of Senator Tobey who developed cancer and was given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine. However, Tobey Jr., discovered options in the alternative field, received alternative treatment and fully recovered from his cancerous condition! That is when he learned of alleged conspiratorial practices on the part of orthodox medicine. He passed the word to his father, Senator Charles Tobey, who initiated an investigation. The final report clearly indicated there was indeed a conspiracy to monopolize the medical and drug industry and to eliminate alternative options.

This official enquiry by the Senate (1953) proved the American Medical Association was actively suppressing effective cancer cures.

"We should determine whether existing agencies, both public and private, are engaged and have pursued a policy of harassment, ridicule, slander, and libelous attacks on others sincerely engaged in stamping out this curse of mankind. Have medical associations, through their officers, agents, servants and employees, engaged in this practice?
My investigation to date should convince this committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly has solid therapeutic value. Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations."

Benedict F. Fitzgerald, Jr., Special Counsel, US Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 1953 [1]

( download of the official congressional record: http://www.communicationagents.com/chri ... 201953.pdf)
After the conclusions were written, Charles Tobey, the Chairman, got a heart attack, and his successor ordered the enquiry to be stopped.

These guys are hand in hand with the pharma firms.

 

[jaa]

You've evaded my point.

And you've ascribed bad intentions where misunderstanding is the true cause. I have a feeling you do that a lot.

As long as there's no accountability, transparecy and ethical conduct, no law should exploit the pretext of public safety in order to enforce mandatory vaccinations.

Time and time again, vaccine manufacturers had ample opportunities to prove their general well-meaning intentions, ability and integrity.
And guess what: time and time again, they failed miserably. So much so, they have to rely now on the strong arm of governaments to impose their merchandise over the population, who distrusts them almost completely nowadays.

And using selective logic in picking up only the good aspects of vaccines ( if there are any) while ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to their dangers won't make those facts vanish.

You go ahead and vaccinate your family if it pleases you; i will use nutrition and natural methods instead on mine.

And i really, really like my odds.

OK. Good luck.

 

[Spokey]

So much for 'first do no harm' but anyway, Dr Nina Shapiro's positions doesn't seem very ethical to me.

To be ethical the child about to be vaccinated the child would have to give consent. In order to to that the child would have to know and have some understanding of the risks and agree to be treated.

Since a baby can't know that and since it can't give consent, whether or not there is a public benefit is moot it's still not ethical. Because at the point you're you're putting numbers over the right to control what another agency does to a persons body, you're outside the realm of ethics and instead into the realm of playing god.

Throughout history there have been many 'public health initiatives' which are rightly recorded as travesties. They all featured failure to attain consent and they all had similar arguments attached to them; it's for the greater good, we know better. Mostly they're eugenics and sterilization programs, but it's pretty much the same reasoning, sacrifice the few for a perceived benefit to humanity. Some of those were vaccination programs that went badly wrong.

What I find most troubling is while a child can't be expected to understand the true value of vaccines or most parents, neither can Dr Shapiro, because the medical community as a whole doesn't seem to have a clear picture of vaccines. And that's a picture that almost certainly isn't the near spotless history of near side effect free disease control that is painted for the public.

 

[LucyL]

No, it's not the motorcycle helmet argument. It's more like the speed limit argument. Or the DWI argument. If the only risk was to the people who chose not to get the vaccine, then we would be in total agreement (although we may get into a discussion about child abuse).

Aahh. We've come full circle. If you have been vaccinated, you are not at risk. If you have an infant, and you have no innate immunity (from your own exposure) to pass on to that baby, that baby is at greater risk. People with compromised immune systems also would have to rely on herd immunity, they are at risk, but they always are. Measles is a mild illness in first world sanitation and health environments, if you choose to vaccinate rather than contract the illness (because prior to vaccination the infection rate was like 95%) and thus have no immunity to pass on to that baby you may or may not ever have, you made a choice.

The real harm is the result of your choice - you are welcome to make a choice, but are you really willing to put the gun to my head while your wife jabs needles in my kids arms?

So I do think someone should be free to drink as many beer as they want. I do not think they should then be allowed to get behind the wheel no matter how much they protest that alcohol does not effect them.

What if the only people drunk drivers ever killed were motorcyclists who chose not to wear helmets? That's basically the only way the analogy works.

Any part of the universe? So we eradicate a disease and then through some quantum entaglement on the other side of the universe our identical clone gets cancer? I'm being silly of course, but this seems like a slippery argument to me. If we don't know the consequences of any action, why do anything?

Yes, now you get it. Except it's not "why do anything" but rather "why force anyone at gunpoint to do anything"?

The human brain is an excellent simulation machine. We take actions based on foreseeable consequences. Risk vs reward. If we eradicate x disease is there a chance it causes some unforeseeable harm to conscious creatures somewhere in the universe? Yes. Is this chance great enough to even give a second thought to? Nope. As far as we can tell the benefits of eliminating human disease far outweigh the costs (populations vaxxed for x number of years, decreased protection vs other diseases, etc.).

Do you work for Monsanto?

I would like to see how the numbers of people who died during the vaccination stack up vs the number of people that age who just die naturally. Without that, the 100 figure seems meaningless.

Way more than 100 people that age die naturally. The 100 figure bears relationship to receipt of the vaccine.

I think this is ridiculous. If I say the government is currently zapping me with nanobots that cause me to commit whatever crime, this is not something the government would or should ever have to defend. It comes down to probabilities. Chemtrails are more likely than my nanobot delusion, but both are much less than 1% in my estimation. To accept the government is spraying people with chemicals you have to expect that a large number of people in government are aware of this and ok with their friends and family being sprayed.

You DO work for Monsanto! (kidding - mostly)The government has determined the things being sprayed are harmless - whatever those things are. And that the reason for spraying, like cloud seeding etc, is entirely benevolent. Remember, I'm not positive it is happening, I just think it is possible. http://iceagenow.info/2012/05/chemtrail ... -part-iii/

You give a lot more credence to non-specialists than I do. If 4 billion people unscientific people were saying the sun revolves around the earth and 400 astronomers and physicists were saying the opposite, I'm going with the latter group.

What if those 4 billion people lived on the sun?

 

[jaa]

So much for 'first do no harm' but anyway, Dr Nina Shapiro's positions doesn't seem very ethical to me.

That's a strange interpretation of a code to hang your ethical hat on.

Imagine if there was a zombie movie where one guy had the zombie disease in quarentine that had the potential to infect all of humanity. 3 people have been exposed to this guy. Luckily there's a vaccination! One guy doesn't believe in vaccinations and is afraid of needles anyway. Would the doctors be unethical to administer the vaccination against this guys will? Maybe not. But they would be unethetical if they released this unvaxxed idiot into the general population.

 

[jaa]

Aahh. We've come full circle. If you have been vaccinated, you are not at risk. If you have an infant, and you have no innate immunity (from your own exposure) to pass on to that baby, that baby is at greater risk. People with compromised immune systems also would have to rely on herd immunity, they are at risk, but they always are. Measles is a mild illness in first world sanitation and health environments, if you choose to vaccinate rather than contract the illness (because prior to vaccination the infection rate was like 95%) and thus have no immunity to pass on to that baby you may or may not ever have, you made a choice.

The real harm is the result of your choice - you are welcome to make a choice, but are you really willing to put the gun to my head while your wife jabs needles in my kids arms?

You're still hung up on the measles. I'm talking about vaccines in general. And I'm just taking your word for the only infected mothers provide passive immunity BTW. My quick search shows both vaccinated mothers and mothers who have been infected provide passive immunity (which is a point for getting vaxxed if the immunity is the same). In either case, does this mean you would vaccinated your boy for measles?

What if the only people drunk drivers ever killed were motorcyclists who chose not to wear helmets? That's basically the only way the analogy works.

Not exactly, because some people can't get vaccinated. So you are putting these people at risk too. So add a bunch of pedestrians walking around.

Yes, now you get it. Except it's not "why do anything" but rather "why force anyone at gunpoint to do anything"?

lol there's nothing to get there that's an illogical way to look at personal freedom.

The human brain is an excellent simulation machine. We take actions based on foreseeable consequences. Risk vs reward. If we eradicate x disease is there a chance it causes some unforeseeable harm to conscious creatures somewhere in the universe? Yes. Is this chance great enough to even give a second thought to? Nope. As far as we can tell the benefits of eliminating human disease far outweigh the costs (populations vaxxed for x number of years, decreased protection vs other diseases, etc.).

Do you work for Monsanto?

Nice. It's becoming clear I'm debating someone arguing from a point of woo instead of logic. Do you work for Homeopathic Crystals for the Cure? No need for either of us to waste any more time on this discussion.

 

[Spokey]

You're talking about containment, isolation and treatment. This is a different propositions to mass vaccination, they're actions not based on unproven speculation and such a situation is one of the few instances where vaccines can make sense. Such methods were used in Leicester to contain smallpox outbreaks, from which they had far fewer deaths than other towns enforcing highly unethical mass vaccination programs.

 

[burtlancast]

The crux of the vaccination controversy is that vaccine proponents have always refused to admit the incidence of infectious diseases came down drastically following improvements in nutrition, sanitary conditions and housing throughout the 20th century.

They of course would rather pretend it came down following mass vaccinations.

The epidemiological data has been assembled by many critics of mass vaccinations and is readily available to anyone caring to look for it.

 

[jaa]

Understood spokey and that's a good point burt. I think I I admit that in those cases, which measles may be included in, that vaccinations may do more harm than good. So we have a spectrum. On the far left, sanitation, first class facilities, and other conditions that keep improving as society progresses would drastically minimize the suffering caused by an infectious disease. In these instances, we agree vaccinations would cause more harm then not getting vaccinated caused. On the right, you have diseases where improvements in society don't help limit the spread or suffering caused by the disease. In those cases, we agree vaccinations are a godsend.

Somewhere along this spectrum is an inflection point where harm caused by vaccination is equal to harm caused by not getting vaccinated. To the right of this point I agree with the article posted that not getting vaccinated or having your children vaccinated is unethical (this is not taking into consideration of harm caused by other factors such as cost, psychological harm if you vaccinate your child and they get ill, etc. I grant that these costs may move my unethical line a little further to the right than the inflection point). To the left, forcing a child to get vaccinated is unethical. You could get vaccinated yourself (ignoring anything like inherited immunity considerations) with no ethical implications as you would only be causing harm to yourself and not others.

Where the main disagreement seems to lie is where we draw the line for what vaccines. I tend to side with the consensus of the experts as I don't know enough to make an informed decision, while it seems others here do research and selectively pick experts to listen to based on how the evidence lies with their worldview. That's fine, and the latter method will produce the best results assuming your judgement is sound. In general, I don't think that most non-experts are reading the background material thoroughly enough and selecting the correct experts to listen to so that their opinion would be more valid than the general scientific consensus. When it comes to vaccines, and how one's personal decision affects the health of others, I don't think we can leave it to any individual to decide whether or not they can go against the general scientific consensus. So even if you've done the research, and you come to a more accurate conclusion based on logic and reason than the general scientific consensus, in matters of public health, I think you have to sacrifice your personal freedoms unless you can sway the general consensus. If a nuclear reactor was simple to make, you wouldn't want your neighbour creating one because they didn't believe radiation caused damage to humans.

 

[LucyL]

jaa wrote: Even if you do grant vaccines are riskier than Dr. Shapiro and mainstream scientists believe, you are still on ethically shaky ground if you don't vaccinate your kids.

jaa wrote: There are people who genuinely believe vaccines cause autism at a rate where they are better off forgoing vaccinations. I think these people are harmful to society and I think our laws should reflect that.

jaa wrote: It seems to me that allowing people to go against the scientific consensus could lead to horrifying results.

jaa wrote: If we eradicate x disease is there a chance it causes some unforeseeable harm to conscious creatures somewhere in the universe? Yes. Is this chance great enough to even give a second thought to? Nope.

jaa wrote: But it's the classic selfish free-rider case. It is good for the individual at everyone else's expense.

-----------------------
jaa wrote: So we eradicate a disease and then through some quantum entaglement on the other side of the universe our identical clone gets cancer? I'm being silly of course, but this seems like a slippery argument to me. If we don't know the consequences of any action, why do anything?
LucyLwrote: Yes, now you get it. Except it's not "why do anything" but rather "why force anyone at gunpoint to do anything"?
jaa wrote: lol there's nothing to get there that's an illogical way to look at personal freedom.
-------------------------
jaa wrote: When it comes to vaccines, and how one's personal decision affects the health of others, I don't think we can leave it to any individual to decide whether or not they can go against the general scientific consensus.

jaa wrote: in matters of public health, I think you have to sacrifice your personal freedoms unless you can sway the general consensus.

I honestly don't know which is sadder. The disregard for personal liberty or the obsession with scientific consensus. Anyone reading this thread can see that no one has called for a ban on vaccines or said they should be outlawed. I don't recall ever reading that opinion even on the anti-vaxxer sites, though it is probably there, I just don't read them much.

The opportunity exists for any individual who wants, to get a vaccine and whatever that protection the vaccine affords, for any disease he can. What is left in the population are those who don't want or can't get a vaccine for some reason. And that quickly, corporate vaxxers run out of their "greater good" argument. In fact a mere 1.9 percent of the population opts out of vaccines for religious or philosophical reasons (http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/21/4767 ... us-new-fad). So if the purpose of forced vaccinations is to protect a mere 1.9 percent of the population from itself, that is not a greater good argument. (For comparison, 20% of the population smokes, according to the CDC)

There remains the disease eradication goal. Considering a small percentage of the population is unconcerned with disease eradication, and the rest of society is happily protected from the disease, one presumes the goal remains for the fun of the exercise. Or, perhaps to protect the corporations whose vaccines sometimes infect people (including those of the small subset that desire to be vaccinated but cannot).

The arguments are all very reminiscent of Monsanto's GMO problem, where they are unable to contain their products, and thusly threaten to alter the very genetic makeup of nature at large. They do so of course, with full FDA approval and scientific consensus (http://skeptiforum.org/richard-green-on ... -and-gmos/). Monsanto presses on anyway, arguing the greater good of their products to reduce world hunger, use of their pesticides etc.

To quote a random person on the internet: " "Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron, because consensus is not a scientific process. Unless by "consensus" you mean that a lot of scientists have successfully reproduced an experiment. But nobody ever means that." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987036)

 

[mas]

Dr Gheradi (French) found evidence of aluminum clusters in the arm muscle of people who were vaccinated right at the vaccination site over a decade since they became vaccinated and these people developed neurological disease.

In the US there was a CDC symposium ( around 2010) with Dr. Gheradi and ultimately the US Health establishment proclaimed that Dr. Gheradi’s findings were not to be investigated further.


Macrophagic myofasciitis: a summary of Dr. Gherardi's presentations.
Brenner A1.
Author information


Abstract
Dr. R.K. Gherardi presented two papers at the symposium, detailing his researches into a proposed new clinical entity which he has entitled Macrophagic Myofasciitis (MMF). In his first paper he described the histopathologic and immunologic characteristics of the condition, and in the second, the clinical and serologic features. Dr. Gherardi believes that MMF, a syndrome of ascending myalgias, fatigue and diffuse musculoskeletal pain, may be related to a chronic immune response to aluminum granulomas persisting at the sites of prior immunization with aluminum adjuvated vaccines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12184366

http://www.autismoava.org/noticias-otro ... nes-debate

________________________

With the mandatory California vaccination bill looming, it would be like a domino effect for all the other states to fall into place.

 

[TreasureVibe]

Bump!!!!

 

[Whataboutbob]

Immune system and gastrointestinal deregulation linked with autism

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Vaccines have done very little to reduce mortality. If any.

In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.1

Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined

Polio did not dissappear. It seems that it was defined out of existence.

 

[Peatness]

Disclaimer – I am anti vaccination!

Vaccines have been corrupted as a way of getting nefarious substances into people

 

[Jon2547]

Before vaccines were invented no one ever lived past the age of 35. ALL HAIL THE WONDERFUL MEDICAL DEITIES. PLEASE INJECT US WITH YOUR SWEET POISONS, ER, LIFE SAVING ADJUVANTS.