Parents not vaccinating their kids
- Thread starter miroz
- Start date
cool_name
Active member
13334442:goat00 said:
You are right, we should never trust science or modern health care, next time you break your leg don't go get a cast because we gave people herion in the past.
also you straight up getting cash if your kid dies would be because the us has put a value on a life, so there is very little to argue now
cool_name
Active member
13333975:Barefootin_Fiend said:
the real question is are you so selfish that you wont get the vaccine to save somebody elses life, you would honestly rather them die then just get a vaccine
and this is my favourite video regrading this topic, yes it may be slightly fallacious but, that was only to dumb down the overall point so litterally even the most dense people couldnt miss it[video]http://youtu.be/lhk7-5eBCrs[/video]
DrZoidberg
Active member
I'm not a fan of the government telling me what I have to do either... But I'm also getting a vaccine either way because I don't want measles or polio. Like I said, I figure people would choose immunization over polio but apparently not. Or at least so those of us who cannot get the vaccine are immune from herd immunity.
Also, in this modern age I'm sure there's a test to see if your kid will have an adverse reaction before they give it to them. So if people are so concerned they should ask.
Also, in this modern age I'm sure there's a test to see if your kid will have an adverse reaction before they give it to them. So if people are so concerned they should ask.
Phil-X-
Active member
13334501:*DUMBCAN* said:
lol, its funny when someone posts actual numbers w/ source in a discussion on a scientific matter, and rather than post a real response to counter his claims- you post a cringe worthy meme calling him stupid.
megadank meme dude. No Points Awarded/10
could have at least called his source bias or something..
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13334551:Phil-X- said:
I thought it was obvious that from vaxtruth.org is hardly the most reliable source in the whole of the internet. (read: probably the least reliable source in the whole of the internet.) I mean, the second line on their website is "30% OF CONGRESS ADMIT NOT VACCINATING THEIR KIDS!!!!" - i.e. sensationalist garbage. You have to be either stupid or trolling to think it's a valid source of argument.
My point for the third time, in bold and underlined this time because maybe it will finally sink in: NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ IS TRUSTWORTHY. Even the primary literature (journals etc) isn't trustworthy, that's why you need to know your shit before you can analyse it. That said, you probably couldn't understand it unless you knew your shit, which is why so many people just read the abstract and nothing else.
Hell, I don't know enough to analyse immunology papers, so I just go by the consensus. There may be one, maybe two, people on newschoolers who do know enough. Consensus isn't reached with a dartboard, it takes many years of independent research, meta-analysis, further research and more meta-analysis before it is reached.
Of course the real problem is the public perception of science, but that can wait.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13334578:goat00 said:
I'll address the fraud, but I can't be bothered to talk about the idea that science is always fucking up: big pharma is corrupt, everyone knows it.
Unfortunately it's only corrupt in really boring ways so campaigns to tackle the corruption tend to fail. All trials, Ben Goldacre's campaign to force pharma to publish results of all trials they perform (by registering trials before they are started, not allowing unregistered trials to be published), has a mere 85k signitures, slightly more than half the signatures amassed by a petition to approve an ALS drug that has not been sufficiently tested, so may not be safe. Why is this? Because ALS is a cool disease right now, having been mentioned on Buzzfeed severall billion times this summer. No big pharma is not hiding a secret cure to cancer, anyone who knows anything about cancer knows this is impossible.
goat00
Member
If your point was not everything you read is trustworthy, i think were on the same page (just maybe different sides of it.) this thread kind of dovetails into the "should the government mandate vaccines?" topic, to which the answer is FUCK no. as vaxtruth can for sure be crazy biased, heres a study correlating infant death mortality rates to numbers of vaccs given (from all over the world) interesting, but as some sharp nser is bound to point out, correlation is not causation. still, interestinghttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
i personally dont vaccinate (or havent since 2007.) i get sniffles, and was bed ridden once 2 winters ago for 3 days. i TRY to eat well and keep my immune system humming naturally, which it seems to do pretty well most of the time. BUT, if i had a kid, my tune might very well change. the percentage is small that adverse reactions will occour, but theres still a percentage. as a parent with a newfouund love for a child (people say its the craziest emotion you can feel), I may accept the risk. but id for fuckin sure be doing more in-depth research on it than i have.
i personally dont vaccinate (or havent since 2007.) i get sniffles, and was bed ridden once 2 winters ago for 3 days. i TRY to eat well and keep my immune system humming naturally, which it seems to do pretty well most of the time. BUT, if i had a kid, my tune might very well change. the percentage is small that adverse reactions will occour, but theres still a percentage. as a parent with a newfouund love for a child (people say its the craziest emotion you can feel), I may accept the risk. but id for fuckin sure be doing more in-depth research on it than i have.
Casey
Active member
13334621:goat00 said:
I dont especially care what you or anyone else does on principle, I just think its horseshit that these new age liberal/conservative fucks are putting people that made the right decision at risk. If I had kids that went to public school and your stupid ass kids brought measles
goat00
Member
google "science was wrong." read for days. or read "a short history of nearly everything" by bill bryson. most of what we know is based on fuckups that were later corrected. we know very little but assume a lot. i hope thimerosal injected into bloodstreams turns out to be a good call.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13334617:Casey said:
Not all the sane middle would live on though, because vaccines aren't 100% effective. The point of vaccines is to generate herd immunity, not to secure individuals. The exception here is travel vaccines, for example Hep A and B, typhoid, Japanese Encephalitis, rabies. All these vaccines are actually very effective, which is why if you have them you are safer going to a 3rd world hospital. I'll elaborate on the rabies vaccine a little - this doesn't actually give you immunity to rabies, it only extends the period in which you must get help a bit. I can't remember the precise time, but you still don't have long even if your vaccinated. When I went to Nepal there were places I went where, if you were bitten, you wouldn't be able to reach a helipad to be evacuated and reach the hospital in time without the vaccine, so it's kinda important.
13334621:goat00 said:
What vaccines have you, I'm assuming a grown man, been able to get in the last 7/8 years? Of course there's Flu, a fairly ineffective vaccine compared to the others, that is only really given to asthmatics, pensioners, other groups at risk of pneumonia. Other than that, there really aren't any others unless you're travelling. You'd be retarded not to get the recommended vaccines before you go travelling, but natural selection so do as you please (actually they're kinda expensive...).
Ok, should the government mandate vaccines?
Basically, another freedom vs sensibility argument.
Should you be allowed to smoke cigarettes, even though overwhelming scientific consensus is you're seriously harming yourself? Yeah, it's your choice, #freedom.
Should you smoke in a public place, even though your second hand smoke poses significant risk to non-smokers? No, because your choice has potential to negatively affect others.
Should you be allowed to modify a car, either visually or performance wise? Yes.
Should you be allowed to remove the brakes from your car, even though this means you won't be able to stop when someone walks out in front of you? Definitely not, because your choice has potential to negatively affect others.
Should you be allowed to refuse to take a certain medication based on it's side affects? Yes, for example I never take aspirin because of its side effects.
Should you be allowed to refuse to vaccinate your child, compromising herd immunity, allowing diseases to reappear, endangering those who cannot have vaccines for real medical reasons, and potentially endangering some of those who are vaccinated (no vaccine is 100% effective)? Absolutely not, because your choice has potential to negatively affect others.
So you've probably got my message. I'm ok with you having your freedoms when your matters concern you alone, but when your decisions are negatively impacting others then that is when governments need to step in and enforce you don't.
Also, if you look all at the statistics (not just one paper), there is absolutely no denying that vaccines are effective and the benefits far outweigh the risk. If you can't be bothered to read loads of papers (no-one can), then look at meta-analyses. These are when the results of many studies are collated, allowing us to see a bigger picture. For example, here is a meta-analysis on the efficacy of the flu vaccine, published in the Lancet. The Lancet is one of the most respected of all medical journals. Tl:dr, the paper shows the efficacy of the flu vaccine to be roughly 70%, not a great number by any means. It is widely acknowledged that the flu vaccine is fairly ineffective, which is why it is only recommended for those at risk of complications such as pneumonia.
goat00
Member
ah. jenny McCarthy. glad ya went there. its telling when people attack the same weak spot over and over, cuz ya know, shes the only person ever to speak out against vaccines...
heard immunity huh? heard immunity was coined as a phrase in 1901 by a german (Hedrich) as he observed natural immunity in communities that had measles outbreaks... in 1901. 1963 is when the vac for measles was introduced. Hedrich also observed that as little as 68% of a population had to have natural contact with the disease to achieve heard immunity. so where is this 95% vaccination requirement number come from?
fromhttp://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S17.long
Measles case fatality decreased from 21 deaths/1000 reported cases in 1911–1912 to
heard immunity huh? heard immunity was coined as a phrase in 1901 by a german (Hedrich) as he observed natural immunity in communities that had measles outbreaks... in 1901. 1963 is when the vac for measles was introduced. Hedrich also observed that as little as 68% of a population had to have natural contact with the disease to achieve heard immunity. so where is this 95% vaccination requirement number come from?
fromhttp://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S17.long
Measles case fatality decreased from 21 deaths/1000 reported cases in 1911–1912 to
reBlocke
Member
13334656:*DUMBCAN* said:
I agree w/ everything said above, except this. This flu vaccine is recommended for everyone older than 6 months, every year (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm - you may be thinking of the Strep Pneumo vaccine, which is another can of worms). The flu vaccine varies in effectiveness from year to year because the dominant influenza antigens shift yearly, so the vaccine has to be reformulated. The problem comes because production of the vaccine has to start before we know what strains will be most prevalent (this is also why you don't become immune to the flu after getting it once, such as you do with chicken pox, etc.). However, even on a year where the vaccine is "not good" (like this year), having more people vaccinated limits how much the virus spreads throughout the community, which can be especially important for people at risk to be very ill if they get sick (pregnant, young, old, chronically ill, immunosuppressed). Things like 'keeping a healthy immune system' and 'avoiding sick people' can make it less likely that you'll get the flu, but it won't make your risk 0 - nobody is innately immune. And while it might be just an inconvenience for a healthy young adult to get the flu, you can easily give it to someone who's immune system can't handle it. You still shed virus for up to 7d after getting the flu, and almost no-one takes that much time off work.
Also, someone mentioned that this argument doesn't matter, 'because almost everyone gets vaccinated'. This is not true. In my area, a significant portion of kids attending school aren't vaccinated (with things like the MMR vaccine - not yearly flu vaccine, which I'm sure is much lower): 25% in Boulder, for example (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/lifestyle/education/how-many-students-are-unvaccinated-in-your-childs-school-check-data-from-local-school-districts).
Another reason why the argument matters is that because there is a misguided distrust of vaccines, diseases that could have been eradicated from this earth are not. For example, the primary reason Polio still exists is the difficulty in getting certain countries to trust 'Western Vaccines'. Likewise, Measles was at one point eradicated from the Western hemisphere, and now it's back.
reBlocke
Member
13334801:goat00 said:
I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but -
1. The term 'Herd Immunity' is not specific to measles, but applies to all contagious disease.
2. The 95% number for herd threshold is a function of the virulence of the disease and the effectiveness of the vaccine. More virulent disease and less effective vaccine = more people need to be vaccinated for the community to be protected. Hedrich would have no idea how effective our current measles vaccine is, so he'd have no way of calculating the current herd threshold (his estimate is lower because actually getting measles provokes a much larger immune response, and thus stronger subsequent immunity, than just getting the vaccine)
3. The case fatality rate of measles has gone up since the early 1900s because more of the people who get measles are immunosuppressed/ill/etc. (as the healthy people can get the vaccine). It has nothing to do with the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the vaccine.
GayWolf420
Active member
Seems like an easy enough issue to understand. Id much rather have vaccinated kids that aren't sick versus contaminated little turds running amuck in society touching everything.
Wow! Great discussion NS, I have a kid, we had her vaccinated. There is such a minuscule chance that it could harm them that you should get it done. Sure she would probably be ok if we didn't but why not protect her when the odds are so favourable, You damn near take the same risk anytime you put them in the car seat.
However, I don't think you should be required to. It's your kid and your believes, let Darwin run it's course.
However, I don't think you should be required to. It's your kid and your believes, let Darwin run it's course.
goat00
Member
If ud like stats on other vaccs, go for it. Everyone can find what they are looking for. It looks like people on both sides have numbers and graphs and infalsifiable info. Only time can tell as the mmr vacc (the one in the news lately and obviously what prompted this topic) is only 52 years old (not even a generaion.) Maybe natural selection will find me worthy. "Take this. vaccine that MAY kill you for a disease that very likely wont." Sorry for passing.
toastyteenagers
Active member
FuckAllOfYou
Active member
13333593:Phil-X- said:
What on God's green earth are you trying to say?
reBlocke
Member
13334961:goat00 said:
Background on how vaccines work: the vaccine is either a hunk of nonfunctional proteins from the virus or bacteria, or a version of the virus or bacteria with the things removed that make you sick. So, every possible adverse reaction (with the exception of a reaction to the storage material - for MMR vacc. the rate is literally 1 in 1 million) that you could get from the vaccine, you would also get from the actual virus or bacteria, except much more severe.
The effectiveness vs safety of vaccines is seriously one of the most studied things in all of medicine. The only other thing that has probably saved as many lives as vaccines is that we figured out not to drink from the same water we shit in. Seriously. It's full on crazy to think that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13334845:reBlocke said:
Here in the UK it's only free (cos we have free healthcare that actually works) for people at risk from pneumonia. I acknowledge that this is a very different position from in the US. I tried to find the uptake data for it from the UK and compare it to the US (~52%), but since the vaccine is not solely offered by the NHS this data is quite hard to find.
Also the flu vaccine hurts like a motherfucker, I've only had it once and lame as it is that's my main reason for not getting it again.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/ pretty interesting video. I definitely think people should vaccinate
a_pla5tic_bag
Active member
13334956:Rusticles said:
Darwin's dead for humans. It's in our hands now.
fghtoffyrdmns
Active member
13335838:a_pla5tic_bag said:
this is very tru
act.resist
Active member
miroz
Active member
13335996:butterslut. said:
Hahaha!
So the question still stands - should the government require the vaccination of kids?
My personal take had been that the government can't force the vaccination of kids. However, US citizens pay taxes and without vaccinations those kids shouldn't be allowed to go to the same schools, public transit, etc as other vaccinated children. Hospitals could reserve the right to make similar decisions as well. Presented with all those disadvantages, who would not vaccinate their kid?
toastyteenagers
Active member
13335996:butterslut. said:
how the hell do people not BELEIVE in Gravity?
ianrich511
Member
Get your kids vaccinated. When they are adults, let them make their own decisions. I don't get the flu shot, but that is because I like to give my immune system a challenge every year.
Parents should be required by law to vaccinate their children for the common communicable diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, polio, etc.). The main issue here is the immense amount of misinformation being spread around. False information was brought to the attention of the public years ago wrongly linking the MMR vaccine and autism. Since then, numerous studies have disproved that information and concluded that there is absolutely no connection between the two. The reason we do not see these diseases often in our society is due to the effectiveness of vaccines. I recently read an article written by a female doctor from New York stating that many young parents are not vaccinating their children because they do not know the severity of these diseases, or what kind of tragic physical effects they cause. However, if you look at third world countries, women are willing to travel over 10 miles with their children should a polio vaccine become available. Just because we don't see these diseases in our neighborhood doesn't mean they don't exist.
Also, here's a funny contradiction -->
Also, here's a funny contradiction -->
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13336671:AT-AT said:Figured I'd show the infant vaccine schedule, so that we can all see what we are discussing.
I'm sorry but what is the point of this? Where is there discussion here?
Do you have an MD? No. I don't, only a few newschoolers do. Are you expecting us to say something like "shit, that's a lot of vaccines, I don't think kids can cope"?
This schedule has been designed by people who know what they're talking about. We don't, so we really can't discuss it.
AT-AT
Active member
and the majority of the expert MDs use wikipedia on a constant basis when treating patients. No different than you or me.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/
remove
Active member
13336701:AT-AT said:
Holy shit, this is the worst justification I've ever heard. Do you claim to have more medical knowledge than a fucking doctor? Of course they have to look up shit from time to time, there's a lot of fucked up stuff that happens medically.
Seriously man, stop posting and go play in traffic or something
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13336708:AT-AT said:
Ha, and my supervisor (tenured professor, much bigger deal here in the UK) constantly uses google.
Being an expert means you understand everything about a field, not you know anything. You still need to look up facts. An experts methods of searching and understanding are much different from yours.
You're retarded if you think you checking wikipedia is the same as a doctor looking there.
soHarsh
Member
13336708:AT-AT said:
I am not sure if you are trolling here or being serious. These so called MDs go through 4 years of rigorous schooling called Med School, and after do their residency (usually 4-5 years) then some go on to do a fellowship (1-3 years). I don't know about you but I wouldn't consider myself to be on the same level as a MD when using wikipedia or google. Unlike me and you they are probably using it to supplement 15+ years of experience.