Should Vaccination be Mandatory

Ohdang said:

Except you completely left out the part that when you get chickenpox, that's not all you're getting. You're getting herpes in your nerve cells, quite literally (its one of the herpesviridae), that stays with you forever and may end up being a recurrent case of shingles. Its more than likely not going to kill you, but have you ever seen someone with shingles in person? That's pure misery.

Click to expand...

Shingles isn't something that I think is a serious consideration with respect to the possible of autism or other possibility neurological diseases. And yes, I have first hand experience with shingles.

And again, before someone misquotes me; I am not saying that MMR causes autism.

Ohdang said:

Other herpesviridae are pathogenic for viral meningitis, and you've got their cousin in your nerve cells. Think about that for a second.

Click to expand...

I've thought about it a great deal, and chickenpox is not something that I'm willing to vaccinate a baby against. Not enough evidence exists to substantiate the claim that these vaccines are completely safe to a child of that age, for the aforementioned reasons.

Ohdang said:

There really isn't a good reason not to get it outside of certain medical conditions. These are the kinds of vaccines that we should be focusing on getting as close to 100% of the population as possible immunized. And its so easy to prevent and so safe that its insanity not to get it. This isn't some new experimental vaccine, its got a solid history.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not against vaccinations. I am against the vaccination schedule.

I think the current trend towards stacking vaccinations as young as possible, now even vaccinating during pregnancy, is not proven to be completely safe.

Again, I reference the vaccinations from the 1990s which had toxic chemicals in them. Had we been having this conversation in 1995, you'd be telling me everything is okay while I get shots filled with mercury.

I have serious reservations about giving a baby these vaccinations. And understand, my entire point is with respect to children who are pre-adolescent. We're talking babies and toddlers. Not school age kids.

IWantAKouki said:

But why vaccines? Why not....blowing out birthday candles?

Click to expand...

Does this really deserve a response?

Ohdang said:

Why is it that people have this apparent need to think everything is going to kill them?

Click to expand...

Maybe people want to know exactly whats being injected into their children. Had you walked into a hospital in 1994 and said, "there is mercury in that needle," you would have been scoffed at.

Now we know.

Ohdang said:

f enough people saw it I could create nationwide fear-mongering over blowing out birthday cake candles, guarantee it. Fake an article and start one of those email chains to stay-at-home-moms with nothing better to do than sit at home and believe ridiculous rumors and over-protect their children from the slightest threats. Autism shmautism, it's not just this debate, it's everything.

Click to expand...

What's the point of this though? I mean, I'm just voicing my view point as a father who is deathly afraid of his children being poisoned by all of the filth we are told is good for us.

Biphensol A, for example; would you have mocked people for saying years ago "this shit is dangerous!"

Ohdang said:

Well think about what he is saying, even if we give you 1/1000 people getting autism, something like 50% of people will get shingles.

Click to expand...

And every one of those people with shingles is glad they got it versus autism. (as if there was a comparison or decision to be made between the two regardless)

Ohdang said:

And just to be clear I respect you as a poster & person and a lot of my viewpoints are not necessarily directed at you in particular. Just the crazies out there who run with everything they see.

Click to expand...

Well, do you really think I'm one of the "crazies?"

My children are vaccinated, but I do not follow the CDC's advisory schedule as I do not wish to vaccinate infants against benign diseases.

JSS2306 said:

Eh...

Well put as usual but Thiomersal was an early preservative that prevented effects of the staph virus in 1928.

Yeah... I get what you're saying... only I don't.

Thiomersal hasn't been used in the same way since the 1930's . Back then, there weren't the checks and balances that we have now a days. We can pinpoint things at the cellular level that we simply couldn't back then. It was harmful at certain doses (over-doses) at one time but that doesn't equate to scientifically harmful in other doses. Like mercury in tuna.

Anyways, the measles vacccine isn't the same as the flu vaccine, which is the only virus that Thiomersal is used in now-a-days. It is NOT used in MMR vaccines.

That would discredit any reports of autism associated with the preservative, which by the way, is not any point of contention by conspiracy theorist against the MMR vaccination that I've ever heard because it simply doesn't exist within the vaccination. I could be wrong (please show).

So doesn't that completely discredit your response to my question of you sympathizing with people that haven't researched for themselves? Your example is not even of the same vaccine.

Isn't 500,000 cases annually from the 1950's of a harmful virus that can cause permanent brain damage more swaying than the risk of autism with no scientific basis whatsoever?

I think we both logically know the answer.

Click to expand...

Your post is predicated on the falsehood that Thiomersal has not been used since the 1930's; or at least, that's what I took from it. Thiomersal was discontinued from American vaccination regimes in 1999.

Lastly, if you read my posts, I said clearly that I do not see any scientific link to the MMR vaccination and autism; I even quoted a study that found no correlation whatsoever. I mentioned this 5 times on this page.

I don't know who you're arguing but it isn't me. My point is very simple and narrow, and that is that we have not conducted ample scientific case studies for us to prove conclusively that our current immunization schedule is completely safe for infants. Therefore, I won't have my infant get shots that I don't think are necessary as a parent; including varicella.

When they are older, and prior to going to daycare or school, then yes, they would be vaccinated.

I had them give my daughter every vaccination 3 days after birth. The entire schedule at once. She was a preemie. Now she's a mutant that thirsts for the blood of newborn kittens to calm her ever growing anger.

Ohdang said:

I'm minimizing the controversy because I specialized in the immune system and have extensive knowledge of it, so I know firsthand that it deserves to be minimized.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you're arguing with internet experts. So if you choose to go down that rabbit hole, you should know right at the outset there is no possibility of winning. You cannot condense your years of education and experience into a few paragraphs on a message board, because any hobbyist reading articles on the internet can post paragraphs that sound just as informed as what you write.

Truly informed arguments on these issues take place in medical journals, and each point/counterpoint consumes a great many pages and may involve multiple articles written over a period of years. So even if you were arguing with real experts rather than internet experts, the level of detail necessary to have a real debate on the merits would be beyond the scope of what can be done on a message board like this.

You have my sympathies, though.

Antibiotics and vaccines are not the same thing. Antibiotics are chemical bacteriocides. Vaccines are an intelligence report for your immune system so it can identify and begin creating antibodies for a disease before you have been infected so you can fight off the infection the first time. Very different vectors of control. Viruses have been adapting to avoid detection by our immune system for anywhere between 5400-millions of years based on your world view, that is nothing new. This is why the influenza is such a potent virus- it mutates and alters its' antigens constantly. This is why you can get it multiple times in a year let alone a lifetime. It is also why the influenza vaccine changes each year and why it can be spotty in its' effectiveness- it is composed of a vaccine of the 3 most common strains from the prior spring. If you happen to catch a strain that wasn't in the vaccine or if you have not been exposed to prior then you get sick. Anyhow...

Forced immunization? All of them? Nah. Not immunizing doesn't create a super bug since vaccines are for viruses n antibiotics are for bacteria- so the lack of vaccines will not cause antibiotic overuse. Also each immunization is crafted via different methods and I can understand not wanting to use some.

Of more importance is continued education. I understand parents' concern over potential side effects. Though rare they do occur. However the overarching threat that is posed by the diseases we inoculate against are greater. If these diseases make a full fledged comeback then yes I can see it being forced but as of now I think that would be an overreaction. It could come into play but for now I think we need to avoid hysteria and keep this in perspective before we go forcing a decision that is best made freely.

Lee said:

Neither, they really are not that favorable under current construction to a borrower. The 1.75 upfront is expensive, so on a 200k purchase, that is $3500 tacked on to the loan.

Click to expand...

Lee subtly sneaking his salary in there

IWantAKouki said:

I feel like the more you tell people something, though, even (especially?) with science, the less they believe it. Is there a word for that? I suck at vocabulary.

Click to expand...

Stupidity?

Man Called X said:

I had them give my daughter every vaccination 3 days after birth. The entire schedule at once. She was a preemie. Now she's a mutant that thirsts for the blood of newborn kittens to calm her ever growing anger.

Click to expand...

So?
There's a problem here, or are you just looking for attention?

The Human Q-Tip said:

Yes, but you're arguing with internet experts. So if you choose to go down that rabbit hole, you should know right at the outset there is no possibility of winning. You cannot condense your years of education and experience into a few paragraphs on a message board, because any hobbyist reading articles on the internet can post paragraphs that sound just as informed as what you write.

Truly informed arguments on these issues take place in medical journals, and each point/counterpoint consumes a great many pages and may involve multiple articles written over a period of years. So even if you were arguing with real experts rather than internet experts, the level of detail necessary to have a real debate on the merits would be beyond the scope of what can be done on a message board like this.

You have my sympathies, though.

Click to expand...

Only Ohdang has claimed expertise in this thread....

My posts clearly state that I am not aware of any data that conclusively proves the safety of infant vaccines. That I have no idea what was (90s) or is in the vaccines, nor do I know if they are safe or not.

So, who is the "internet expert" in this conversation?

Do you want mandatory vaccinations for infants and babies? If not, then some folks in here are saying you're a "crazy."

If you are implying that I take that stance (considering I have used the term "crazies"), then you are certainly throwing words in my mouth.

I have no problem with parents doing their diligence in making sure things are safe.

I have a problem with parents not vaccinating their children because they think they will get autism, despite studies refuting this, because it is endangering others.

IWantAKouki said:

If you are implying that I take that stance (considering I have used the term "crazies"), then you are certainly throwing words in my mouth.

I have no problem with parents doing their diligence in making sure things are safe.

I have a problem with parents not vaccinating their children because they think they will get autism, despite studies refuting this, because it is endangering others.

Click to expand...

To be specific, studies show that there is no correlation between certain vaccines, specifically the MMR among a few others, and autism. I think folks in here are overstating what we know conclusively, and not willing to acknowledge what we don't know.

We don't know, conclusively, how safe vaccines are for infants and toddlers.

Obviously the safety of vaccines is a function of the child's age, and that safety level apparently diminishes with age. If a person makes a rational decision to delay vaccination, they are doing so in the best interests of their child. That is different than saying "never vaccinate," it is saying "vaccinate when ready."

I think it is a reasonable precaution to not want to inject vaccinations into a fetus, or a newborn baby. Is there a fear component involved? Of course! But there is also a trust component as well; can we trust the medical consensus at this point?

Because frankly, you telling me that vaccines are not dangerous, again to me, runs contrary to when I have experienced as extreme illness the direct result of being vaccinated.

And I've witnessed this with my wife, mother, and a friend. My infant nephew was vaccinated when he was a newborn and was hospitalized for 2 days from a 104+ degree fever.

Again, YMMV - do what you want with your kids. But I'm not injecting a pregnant woman or my infant children with vaccinations that I simply cannot be absolutely certain are totally and completely safe. Otherwise, yes, I will wait until they are older and would be around other children (school).

@IWantAKouki , also, you specifically said not being vaccinated is "endangering others."

If everyone is vaccinated, then no one is at risk.
If no one is vaccinated, everyone is at risk.

If some are vaccinated and others choose not to be, only those who made the choice not to vaccinate are at risk; they are not endangering anyone who isn't obviously already aware and has consciously made the decision to forgo vaccination.

I'm not saying you should have unvaccinated kids playing in school - but I am saying the "endangering others" argument is pretty weak.

gourimoko said:

@IWantAKouki , also, you specifically said not being vaccinated is "endangering others."

If everyone is vaccinated, then no one is at risk.
If no one is vaccinated, everyone is at risk.

If some are vaccinated and others choose not to be, only those who made the choice not to vaccinate are at risk; they are not endangering anyone who isn't obviously already aware and has consciously made the decision to forgo vaccination.

I'm not saying you should have unvaccinated kids playing in school - but I am saying the "endangering others" argument is pretty weak.

Click to expand...

This is a wholly incorrect, and frankly, dangerous viewpoint when referring to contagious diseases - which are the ones we are most concerned about. Widespread vaccination is the primary reason that we have such low infection rates for many fatal diseases. There are people who can't get them, and people who won't get them, that are protected almost exclusively by the people who do get them. This concept is called herd immunity, and I suggest reading up on it. The fewer carriers there are walking around, the safer everyone is. We should be striving to get as close to 100% immunization as we possibly can because that's the only hope of actually eradicating these diseases.

You're an intelligent guy, just thinking about it logically ought to be enough to convince you of the truth of this. But if it isn't, studies on it are pretty plentiful, you don't have to take my word for it, though that would certainly be easier.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Yes, but you're arguing with internet experts. So if you choose to go down that rabbit hole, you should know right at the outset there is no possibility of winning. You cannot condense your years of education and experience into a few paragraphs on a message board, because any hobbyist reading articles on the internet can post paragraphs that sound just as informed as what you write.

Truly informed arguments on these issues take place in medical journals, and each point/counterpoint consumes a great many pages and may involve multiple articles written over a period of years. So even if you were arguing with real experts rather than internet experts, the level of detail necessary to have a real debate on the merits would be beyond the scope of what can be done on a message board like this.

You have my sympathies, though.

Click to expand...

You're right, I'm not going to get through to too many people on a Cavs board, so I'm going to quit wasting my breath. Its an especially aggravating topic for me right now though because I'm working on a research paper that has to do with the anti vaccination movement that has me interviewing people in the hopes of finding a more effective way to communicate the facts and educate them and combat the misinformation campaign happening right now...and I've been exposed to more stupid people in the past month than I ever have been in my life. My faith in humanity has plummeted to unimaginable lows. I'm almost at the point of telling my boss to forget the whole thing and just tag people so we know who to avoid.