53 replies to this topic

[Justavictim82]

Well, I did not know that they used live virii. One would think that people wouldn't do that.

However, if you take a look around, (as I did, after seeing that, cause there had to be a reason apart from "fuck it why not") you'll see that there's no link discernable between shingles and the vaccine. Shingle rates were on the rise since before 1990 when the vaccine was introduced. Also, the virus is a variant of the strain that has its ability to interface with neural cells incapacitated, so it can't infiltrate neurons (which is what causes shingles later).

So yes, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry. But your fears are unfounded because medical science isn't stupid.

Medical science isn't stupid and I never said that. I do, however do no see the validity of vaccinating against something that originally has an approximate mortality rate (in the first world) of 1/~20000 especially when said virus is not killed and can mutate later to either reoccur as the same virus or a similar virus later on. If this is such a important and nessisary vaccination, then why does what you would call 'the epicenter of progressive civilization' in Europe not use this vaccine except for those who are extremely likely to come in contact with the strain (doctor, nurses, EMT's, etc) instead of vaccinating the population? So Europeans are now stupid too?

My point of this was never to say that the vaccine does not work... on the contrary like most vaccinations it has proven itself. My point is why are we buying into its nessissity that is driven by a 'for-profit making money of the sick and dying' industry whose biggest contributions in curing illness/ailments over the last 20 years is the ED pill and the Chicken Pox vaccine. Modern medicine would just assume to pump you fill of pills than to actually cure rampant disease.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of vaccines, Justa.  It's not that they're a "necessity."  You're probably not going to die without them.  In fact you probably won't even get sick.  But you might.  And even if you don't, somebody will.  Vaccines are all about reducing illness in large populations, and thereby reducing death, suffering, hospitalization, etc., etc.  It's Public Health 101.  It's not about you or me or Redezra as individuals, it's about all of us as a group.  The evidence is unequivocal; the benefits of widespread vaccination far outweigh the costs.

[Justavictim82]

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of vaccines, Justa. It's not that they're a "necessity." You're probably not going to die without them. In fact you probably won't even get sick. But you might. And even if you don't, somebody will. Vaccines are all about reducing illness in large populations, and thereby reducing death, suffering, hospitalization, etc., etc. It's Public Health 101. It's not about you or me or Redezra as individuals, it's about all of us as a group. The evidence is unequivocal; the benefits of widespread vaccination far outweigh the costs.

Again, both you and Redezra are generalizing my lack of knowledge or understanding of vaccines Jor. While I respect your opinion, it is just that, an opinion. I am responsible for the care of a pre-school age daughter and an infant son. Most people here do not have these responsibilities or decisions to make on a daily basis. You personally are unique because you are both directly and indirectly responsible for the care of school age children. As a responsible parent, I have to weigh risks and rewards of anything I subject one of my children to. My daughter has had all her vaccinations except for the Pox vaccine for the very reasons I have listed above and my son will most like have the same treatment (unless new information comes out to sway my judgement). I personally am not happy that some here have lumped me in with the 'savages that do not vaccinate' because that is unfounded and unfair. I take all information seriously before I act on what could affect my child's life. I do question the nessicity of this vaccination being mandated because outside of the US, Australia, and Canada, it is not 'mandated'. Not only that, but vaccination injury is a thing. While vaccination injury is incredibly rare, so is death by the varicella virus.

[Locke]

I personally am not happy that some here have lumped me in with the 'savages that do not vaccinate' because that is unfounded and unfair.

Then maybe you shouldn't have said this:

I haven't given my kids all their vaccinations

Missing one probably not life threatening and possibly optional vaccine is a lot different than "not all of them." Without specifying how are we to know what vaccines were not done, especially when you use a polio vaccine as an example of a vaccine gone wrong?

[Imperator]

Shingles sucks.  It's really painful and can last for weeks.

I had chickenpox or the vaccine as a child (don't remember which) and still got shingles. >_<

 

Luckily I went and saw the doctor at the right time and got medication for it (government subsidisation is awesome for $100+ medication like this), so it only lasted about 2 weeks. Still 2 weeks of excruciating pain though, with lovely stabbing sensations around the spot where the shingles were (roughly around near my left kidney). Left a slight discolouration of the skin around the area too.

Edited by Imperator, 29 May 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Most of the vaccines we mandate are also mandated by other developed countries.

 

While vaccination injury is incredibly rare, so is death by the varicella virus.

 

This is what I meant when I said I think you're missing the point.  It's not ONLY the prevention of death that public health is interested in.  We are interested in reducing sickness overall.  Fewer kids getting sick means fewer lost school days, fewer lost work days for parents (who have to stay home to care for a sick kid), fewer hospitalizations, less medication being prescribed, etc.  All of these things are good for society.  And the net cost savings far outweighs the cost of vaccination.  

 

I certainly didn't mean to be insulting.  But there are opinions and there are opinions.  Some opinions are made by educated, trained people with lots of experience and reams of data; some are not.  If your car was making a funny noise, whose opinion would you trust, a mechanic or a bricklayer?  We live in a world of vast amounts of information and ever-increasing specialization.  Not everyone is qualified to have an opinion on every topic, although we as Americans (and as people in general, I suppose) love to pretend otherwise.  I call this the "Jenny McCarthy Effect."  Not that I'm lumping you in with her!  I just get frustrated at all the misinformation out there.

 

Justa, may I ask why you chose not to vaccinate your own kids?  Was it just the varicella vaccine?

[Justavictim82]

Most of the vaccines we mandate are also mandated by other developed countries.


This is what I meant when I said I think you're missing the point. It's not ONLY the prevention of death that public health is interested in. We are interested in reducing sickness overall. Fewer kids getting sick means fewer lost school days, fewer lost work days for parents (who have to stay home to care for a sick kid), fewer hospitalizations, less medication being prescribed, etc. All of these things are good for society. And the net cost savings far outweighs the cost of vaccination.

I certainly didn't mean to be insulting. But there are opinions and there are opinions. Some opinions are made by educated, trained people with lots of experience and reams of data; some are not. If your car was making a funny noise, whose opinion would you trust, a mechanic or a bricklayer? We live in a world of vast amounts of information and ever-increasing specialization. Not everyone is qualified to have an opinion on every topic, although we as Americans (and as people in general, I suppose) love to pretend otherwise. I call this the "Jenny McCarthy Effect." Not that I'm lumping you in with her! I just get frustrated at all the misinformation out there.

Justa, may I ask why you chose not to vaccinate your own kids? Was it just the varicella vaccine?

Just the varicella vaccine at this time. My wife and I have talked about each vaccination individually. Like I said before, vaccinations are not 100% fail proof. Imperator and my father are proof of that. We carefully weighed the risk/reward. The 2 we were the most concerned about were varicella and the MMR vaccination (which we eventually agreed to give). While I admit that my wife is more liberal on these matters, we eventually made educated decisions on all of them. We did delay some (Hep B) because of age concerns.

Then maybe you shouldn't have said this:Missing one probably not life threatening and possibly optional vaccine is a lot different than "not all of them." Without specifying how are we to know what vaccines were not done, especially when you use a polio vaccine as an example of a vaccine gone wrong?

This is a far point. My problem is that most people blindly get vaccinations without considering the potential side effects or health risks. Perhaps these are the times we live in?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

What did you see as the risks?  In other words, why not give them?  They may not be foolproof, but neither are condoms, but you would never recommend someone have unprotected sex with a stranger without them, right?  So let's say they're only 75% effective — that's still pretty effective.  What did you believe were the potential negative consequences, and the likelihood of those consequences occurring?

[Justavictim82]

What did you see as the risks? In other words, why not give them? They may not be foolproof, but neither are condoms, but you would never recommend someone have unprotected sex with a stranger without them, right? So let's say they're only 75% effective — that's still pretty effective. What did you believe were the potential negative consequences, and the likelihood of those consequences occurring?

I don't see them as worth the risk. I have given multitudes of reasons all of which are either fact or widely speculated hypothesis. You used the example of condoms. Condoms do not always work as well. Would you have sex with someone who was HIV-positive even while wearing a condom? If Pfizer came out tomorrow with a HIV/AIDS vaccination that had a 97% success rate of making you immune to the disease for the rest of your life, would you opt to take the vaccination knowing that you could end up being in the 3% that could end up contracting a potentially fatal disease?

Edited by Justavictim, 29 May 2014 - 05:10 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I have never seen figures that showed anything near 3% contracting a fatal disease.  That's why I was asking about the risk.  I'm curious because I've never met anyone whose vaccination decisions were based on anything more than dogma — they believe what their church tells them, what their physician tells them, what Jenny McCarthy tells them, etc.  I see your point:  Is a 95% chance that your child will never get chicken pox worth a 3% chance of death?  No, of course not.  But is a 95% chance of never contracting chicken pox worth a 0.003% chance of death?  That's a small chance, but it is a chance.  If the latter number were true (I don't know the actual numbers, I 'm just making them up for the purposes of illustration), it would mean that out of every 100,000 patients administered the vaccine, 3 died.  That sounds low, to be sure, but if it were my child's life...?

 

So yeah, I get it.  I disagree, and believe the benefits far outweigh the risks, but I get it.

[Redezra]

And if you don't have the vaccine, what's your chance of catching it then? What's the chance of that developing into a critical, life or death situation?

It's scary, sure. But don't kid yourself. Doing nothing results in a far higher chance of death or permanent disability.

 

 

When I was young, my parents discovered that I was allergic to the whooping cough vaccine. My chance of death from it was, as a result, much higher. I went to hospital a couple of times as a result. But the choice my parents face was "Do I vaccinate my child, and risk death or permanent impairment, or do I risk them catching whooping cough which almost certainly results in death or permanent impairment?"

 

As I see it, and as my parents saw it, there is only one choice in the face of these facts. And that's why I am so against any form of vaccine skepticism.

[lissa]

If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, then I suggest please home school and don't let them out.    For people with compromised immunue systems (like moi) I like to steer clear of any unvaccinated individual- kid or adult. 

[Justavictim82]

If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, then I suggest please home school and don't let them out.    For people with compromised immunue systems (like moi) I like to steer clear of any unvaccinated individual- kid or adult. 

 

While I agree with this statement in principle, I also truthfully wonder how many of hospitalizations and deaths can also be attributed to immuno-deficient indviduals as well. Not just for Pox but for all diseases. No one really dies from AIDS but diseases that are contracted after the immune system is compromised.  

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Unvaccinated people are not putting vaccinated people at risk, only their own kind. For the most part they are safe because they are protected by what we call "herd immunity" (did I already explain this somewhere upthread? I'm getting a sense of deja vu here). Basically: unvaccinated people are not at serious risk of catching, say, whooping cough (pertussis), because most of us are vaccinated against whooping cough and therefore can't get it. But as more and more people choose not to vaccinate, the heard gets thinner and thinner. And since many anti-vaccinators live in like-minded communities, you end up with pocket outbreaks of things like, well, whooping cough. And measles. That's a big one, and deadly. And guess where it breaks out in the United States? Among religious communities that choose not to vaccinate and send missions abroad. They bring back all kinds of nasty stuff to the flock. I think of it as Darwin's last laugh.