CNN: Children should get vaccinated. Period.

[Herr Vogel]

Having only skimmed through the thread, please forgive me if others have already expressed similar sentiments.

I don't have a problem with vaccines. What I have a problem with is the government and the media acting as advertisers for the pharmaceutical industry while purporting to speak from a position of moral or intellectual authority. I am also generally opposed to the concept of an idea so obviously benevolent that its implementation must be made mandatory through the use of state force.

 

[Fargo]

I am not anti-vax, I have my kids get them. I am just sick of the condescension and mockery of those who would pretend that there are no risks or adverse effects when even the CDC acknowledges them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190025/#!po=0.0728863

My condition is described at the bottom of the study. I do not believe I am one of the reported cases because I was mis-diagnosed as having a brain tumor for a couple of years.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I am not anti-vax, I have my kids get them. I am just sick of the condescension and mockery of those who would pretend that there are no risks or adverse effects when even the CDC acknowledges them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190025/#!po=0.0728863

My condition is described at the bottom of the study. I do not believe I am one of the reported cases because I was mis-diagnosed as having a brain tumor for a couple of years.

Having met you and your family I can vouch for your understanding of "herd" immunity!

 

[Fargo]

Having met you and your family I can vouch for your understanding of "herd" immunity!

Lol, it is an apt description! We are on the tail end of a stomach bug making its way through the herd, I wish to heaven there was more immunity involved.

 

[HoughMade]

Having only skimmed through the thread, please forgive me if others have already expressed similar sentiments.

I don't have a problem with vaccines. What I have a problem with is the government and the media acting as advertisers for the pharmaceutical industry while purporting to speak from a position of moral or intellectual authority. I am also generally opposed to the concept of an idea so obviously benevolent that its implementation must be made mandatory through the use of state force.

Don't send the kids to school and avoid state force.

 

[Mongo59]

I am just sick of the condescension and mockery of those who would pretend that there are no risks or adverse effects when even the CDC acknowledges them.

I am not sure if this was intended for me or not. That was not my intent in any way. I did not knowingly address side effects or adverse effects in my statements. I wish I was better at presenting my thoughts. Please accept my apology for any insensitivity as it was not intended.

 

[Double T]

Serious question, at what point do you think the risk to your child of a serious adverse event outweighs the benefit of the vaccine/medication?

To play devils advocate....

Your child has an infection of a moderately resistant strain of a bacteria in their abdomen from a ruptured appendix. The doctor wants to run a multi-faceted approach and run a little combo therapy with some zosyn and tobramycin.

Without treatment, your child will likely spiral into a "perfect storm" type of illness with septicemia and concurrent acute kidney injury, or even death.

With treatment, the child could risk all sorts of adverse effects including breathing difficulties, lung disorders, ototoxicity, steven-johnson syndrome, blood disorders/dyscracias, anaphylaxis, or seizures, possibly also resulting in death.


I know these are differing circumstances, but they border on the same concept. You can't really prevent a ruptured appendix. You can prevent your kid from getting the measles (hopefully). Adverse effects of the measles are possibly brain damage from a high fever, deafness, or death.

Why would you not want to potentially protect your kid from that? Everyone wants to beat the government overreach to death, but do you really complain when TB patients are forced to comply to therapies and isolation to try to prevent MDR-TB?

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I don't think that vaccines work 100% of the time.

However, I do think they work most of the time. Enough so that I'm glad I got them.

I got my kids vaccinated as well. Some people don't... That's the parents call. (NOT the governments) I think it's a stupid call if they pass on it.

When their kids get sick, and possibly die, and mine don't, I'll feel sad for the kids. Worse, I'll feel anger at the dumb-ass parents.

However, I also believe in freedom, so they have a right to be stupid, and risk it if they so chose. Lord knows I've taken a lot of stupid risks in my time. I just wish they would risk it with their kids.

Still, every time I read of an unvaccinated kid getting real sick, or worse, I wanna beat the living s**t out of the parent responsible.

 

[Libertarian01]

Not supporting one position or another at this time, just recalling some information I collected long ago filed under "semi-useless history" information.

It is my understanding that today, in the 20th and 21st century, we who receive a vaccine are not truly vaccinated against a disease. In the early days hundreds of years ago the Turks would take an extremely small dose of the real disease and scrape the arm with the disease, thus vaccinating the person from the disease 100% (this is not directed at daddyusmaximus, pure coincidence.) However, the chance of actually getting a full blown outbreak of the disease was very high, like maybe 1 - 4%. So there was a significant risk of full on infection, but when the benefit of being inoculated was complete immunity to small pox or whatnot the risk/reward analysis was very good.

Today we do not receive the actual disease as part of the inoculation. We receive some dead disease and/or genetically modified variant that, while helpful, is not as complete protection versus the real deal. However, the benefit is that a chance of actually contracting the disease from the inoculation is 0%. This then makes the modern vaccine "safer" but less effective than the ancient one. The "less" part is extremely small as I understand it but it does exist.

There was a story I read where an English noble woman fretted over whether or not to vaccinate her children before leaving on a diplomatic mission with her husband. If I recall correctly she had one (1) child inoculated but not the other one. The one that wasn't inoculated contracted the disease and died. It was a difficult choice for her because the process at the time did include the minor risk of contracting the disease whereas you could hope for luck without the vaccine.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Lex Concord]

The problem in my eyes is that these organizations are doing this research because they want to vindicate vaccines. They're approaching it with an agenda. I think the agenda comes from good intentions - the desire to make sure everybody gets vaccinated. I don't think it's some grand, world-wide conspiracy theory. All it takes is a little pre-trial bias to skew data.

So while you could be right, and that research could be right, I don't have much confidence in it. Especially after hearing reliable testimony that even the CDC researchers are EXTREMELY biased in this regard.

It's silly that I should be labeled a quack, or anti-science, or viewed as completely unreasonable. ALL I am asking for it honest, transparent, unbiased research to keep vaccine manufacturers accountable and to allow parents to make informed decisions.

Article of faith. Heretics must be silenced. Thou shalt not question the lord thy .gov

 

[eldirector]

Doug and Daddy up above are correct.

Vaccines are not some sort of 100% preventative. They also do not come without their own risks. That, and we often talk about "vaccines" as a single group, while they actually very widely in their mechanics and effectiveness. I have heard people talk about the flu vaccine and the MMR vaccine in the same breath, while they are completely different in almost every way.

 

[NKBJ]

You want to know about what's causing it and why autism is going off the charts then read Brave New World.
And while you are at it, here, listen to what the author Huxley had to say three decades further on after writing the book (and maybe research the history of the technocracy/eugenics ideology and movement too).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30

Here's a fun depiction of the technocratic plan. The BBC even preserved the spirit of the writings, the poking fun humor from the early 1930's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek5vse2_Aq0

Meanwhile, give your children all this stuff because you have been ordered to, shut up and sit down, you know the drill.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

 

[Fargo]

Bug, Mongo59, Double T,

Thank you for the clarification on what you meant, I have no hard feelings or animus towards any of you. Best regards.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I am not anti-vax, I have my kids get them. I am just sick of the condescension and mockery of those who would pretend that there are no risks or adverse effects when even the CDC acknowledges them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190025/#!po=0.0728863

My condition is described at the bottom of the study. I do not believe I am one of the reported cases because I was mis-diagnosed as having a brain tumor for a couple of years.

I'm the same, and my kids (grown now) got all of the vaccines that were required and/or recommended by our doctor.

But, I also have a problem with the Political side of this debate. It's a science debate, but most get their information from political-type sources. And, as I like to say, getting your science information from a political source is like getting a pizza at a Chinese restaurant. If you ask for one, you may get it, but don't be surprised if it comes with a little squid and soy sauce on it.

And, to say that "Vaccines are safe" vs "Vaccines are risky" is like saying that "Dogs are safe" vs "Dogs are risky". Lets just say it's a little more complicated than that, and none of those statements can tell the entire, accurate story of Vaccines, or dogs.

 

[Libertarian01]

I do believe in vaccines and intend to get one later this year.

I have a friend of mine who has been suffering from Shingles for over a year now. It appears that she is one of the sad few who will have it for the rest of her life.

There is a new vaccine for Shingles call Shingrix. It is about 95% effective depending upon your age. The old one was only about 50% effective, which was still better than nothing, but nowhere near as good of armour. The downside to this vaccine is that it can make you seriously sick for several days, like the flu. It also has to be taken in two (2) doses. My friends who had it were fine with the first shot and got really sick with the second.

Knowing that I could get sick from this doesn't make me feel good, but the alternative of actually getting Shingles and seeing the massive damage it has caused with her suffering for over a year and going to pain doctor after pain doctor with no real help more than incentivizes me to get the vaccine. I would STRONGLY RECOMMEND all of you consider this vaccine, or at least look into it. Seeing someone suffer from Shingles who may have to endure pain from now until the day they die is very sad indeed.

That said, I also know there is a risk, and I WILL research deeper before I get the vaccine (if I get it, which is likely.)

I think part of the problem today is that most of us have never seen the horrible devastation these diseases can do. We have never had to wake to the horror of Polio wondering whether or not our children will ever walk again. We meander blithely through life rarely seeing the horrific scars that smallpox could leave, all because most of our American ancestors were vaccinated against it and it is policy today. So I don't think we truly are able to weigh the risk/reward ratio as we almost never see the risk side. We only see the risk side of the vaccine without appreciating the damage that would be caused by the actual disease.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that the people who are extremely pro vaccine tend to seriously downplay all of the risks involved. I believe they are overall right, but they shouldn't scoff at legitimate risk concerns. That does nothing to promote their position and it also undermines the drive for research to actually investigate those risks and hopefully remove them for future generations.

I also wish they would come up with a vaccine for Hep C. I've taken the one for Hep B and Hep A, but I don't think the Hep A is good anymore. I took it before backpacking through Europe many years ago.

This is an issue that will never be solved. There are those who have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. However, there are those who also just will never accept what anyone else tells them and will never, ever trust. They are not, in my opinion, raising good questions but simply irrationally refusing to ever trust anything and cannot be logically convinced of their own error.

Regards,

Doug

 

[NKBJ]

On the Lafayette news tonight... people in multiple states (including Indiana) suffering from getting vaccinations.

 

[jamil]

I dunno. I see people treating the issue almost like a faith; something to be believed in or not. Maybe you can believe some facts which lead you to think it's better to be vaccinated than not. Or maybe you believe another set of facts which makes you think the risks outweigh their effectiveness...for some vaccines, or maybe even all. And maybe some of your beliefs about vaccines are full of ****, or maybe you're spot on. It's just not a religion to be believed in. There are facts that maybe you think or true or not. And it's also political. It shouldn't be a faith though.

 

[Libertarian01]

I dunno. I see people treating the issue almost like a faith; something to be believed in or not. Maybe you can believe some facts which lead you to think it's better to be vaccinated than not. Or maybe you believe another set of facts which makes you think the risks outweigh their effectiveness...for some vaccines, or maybe even all. And maybe some of your beliefs about vaccines are full of ****, or maybe you're spot on. It's just not a religion to be believed in. There are facts that maybe you think or true or not. And it's also political. It shouldn't be a faith though.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The more complicated/technical/specialized an issue is, the more the ignorant must take "on faith" the opinion(s) of the expert(s). This applies to everything. It is just the nature of the beast.

Say we want to have a better understanding of quantum physics. We do not have the time to go to years of college, learn very complicated mathematics, learn basic and advanced physics, then understand the quantum physics. So we must take on faith what an advanced physicist or physicists tell us. And even if we DO take the time and have the mental capacity we won't have time for everything else, like molecular biology or criminal law. So even a person with several doctorates in science accused of a crime must take, to a large degree, the expert opinion of their lawyer/legal team on faith. There is absolutely no way to garner an understanding of the law, the legal system, and jury thinking without spending the time to actually study it.

It's not a matter of smarts, at least not entirely. It is complicated by time. We as human beings simply don't have the time to learn everything there is to know, so we must rely upon experts to help us understand many of the issues we grapple with. This also requires trust, and trust is a very tricky thing. As long as there has been inoculation there have been people afraid of it that did not understand it. From the birth of this skepticism has come several mindsets that carry into our modern day. The first are those who now simply accept the expert opinion of the risk/reward analysis telling them that to be vaccinated is better than not to be. Another group reasonably questions some of the risk side and wants clarification. But there is that other mindset that will never, ever accept that they might be wrong, or grossly exaggerating the risk, if they are. This could be for a variety of reasons, some normal and some very twisted thinking.

We all know that we are living organisms. We have the same organs and for the most part the same genetic material. We all eat, breath, poop, pump blood, and eventually die. This is common knowledge. What is not common knowledge is how, EXACTLY HOW, our bodies fight off infection. And I'm not just talking about the immune system, I am talking at the cellular and sub-cellular level. How exactly we function, our cells reproduce, and so on is not in the general knowledge of most folks. Can genetic damage be fixed? Why or why not? What about chromosomal damage? What's the difference? How exactly does immunization work? Cells don't have neural brains, so just because a cell that died in us 20 years ago fought the polio vaccine how the hell do our cells today know how to fight it - exactly? I don't know. I just know that somehow that experience is transmitted from generations of cells in my body to the next generation. I take it on faith that the scientists knew what they were doing when they made the polio vaccine, and so far they've been right, insofar is eradicating polio as a threat in the USA goes.

But getting back to your insight the more complicated the issue the more we MUST take on faith the information given to us by experts. There is no other way as we all cannot be experts on everything. I also think this is a good thing. It forces us to work together. It compels teamwork. It requires trust. It is the nature of humanity that allows us to conquer problems larger than any single one of us could defeat.

Regards,

Doug

 

[KellyinAvon]

Hi all! KellyinAvon, SMSgt, USAF (Retired) here. I admittedly didn't go through like the first 180 posts of this thread so if this has been covered, my bad.

I was active duty military 7 Feb 86-31 Aug 07. 21 years, 6 months, 24 days. I filled up two of the yellow international shot records and was on the computerized kind at the end. I've had everything from Yellow Fever to Typhoid (that one is BAD) shots over the years. Seems like every time I walked by the immunizations clinic I needed something.

I don't get flu shots. I had to get one every year in the USAF, usually cattle drive style from somebody who only gave shots during flu-shot season. 10% effective if the CDC rolled the dice right. I tell every Doc why I don't (pretty much, you can't make me anymore is my answer) and they seem ok with it.

Small Pox. Got that as a little kid in the late-60s. Supposed to be good for life, come 2004 (pre-deployment to Qatar) it's not good anymore, you need another. It's perfectly safe, here's a ream of paper with warnings and reasons to go to the ER immediately.

Anthrax vaccine. (this gets a bit personal, please be aware.) Came on the scene in the late 90s after DoD admitted there was such a thing as Gulf War Syndrome (after several years of claiming thousands of troops were all POS's.) This **** is bad. It's for subcutaneous exposure, not inhalation exposure. No one is so ****ing insane to use it as a weapon on a mass-scale, you can't control it. I don't see elected officials lining for these vaccines for themselves or their children. There were GIs who refused the vaccine. They were court-martialed and sent to prison.

I had 19 years in the ****ing military when I went to Qatar. I should send Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan (name ring a bell?) a Christmas Card every year. He stopped the program because it violated advised consent after I had one of the six shots. I wish he'd have acted a bit sooner. My short-term memory has been pretty much ****ed since then.

Tetanus shot? I grew up on a farm. Everything could cut you and had rust on it. Hell yes I got tetanus shots. Not everything is as safe as tetanus shots. I'm not anti-vax. I'm anti-shoot people up with **** you won't give to your own children.

 

[jamil]

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The more complicated/technical/specialized an issue is, the more the ignorant must take "on faith" the opinion(s) of the expert(s). This applies to everything. It is just the nature of the beast.

Say we want to have a better understanding of quantum physics. We do not have the time to go to years of college, learn very complicated mathematics, learn basic and advanced physics, then understand the quantum physics. So we must take on faith what an advanced physicist or physicists tell us. And even if we DO take the time and have the mental capacity we won't have time for everything else, like molecular biology or criminal law. So even a person with several doctorates in science accused of a crime must take, to a large degree, the expert opinion of their lawyer/legal team on faith. There is absolutely no way to garner an understanding of the law, the legal system, and jury thinking without spending the time to actually study it.

It's not a matter of smarts, at least not entirely. It is complicated by time. We as human beings simply don't have the time to learn everything there is to know, so we must rely upon experts to help us understand many of the issues we grapple with. This also requires trust, and trust is a very tricky thing. As long as there has been inoculation there have been people afraid of it that did not understand it. From the birth of this skepticism has come several mindsets that carry into our modern day. The first are those who now simply accept the expert opinion of the risk/reward analysis telling them that to be vaccinated is better than not to be. Another group reasonably questions some of the risk side and wants clarification. But there is that other mindset that will never, ever accept that they might be wrong, or grossly exaggerating the risk, if they are. This could be for a variety of reasons, some normal and some very twisted thinking.

We all know that we are living organisms. We have the same organs and for the most part the same genetic material. We all eat, breath, poop, pump blood, and eventually die. This is common knowledge. What is not common knowledge is how, EXACTLY HOW, our bodies fight off infection. And I'm not just talking about the immune system, I am talking at the cellular and sub-cellular level. How exactly we function, our cells reproduce, and so on is not in the general knowledge of most folks. Can genetic damage be fixed? Why or why not? What about chromosomal damage? What's the difference? How exactly does immunization work? Cells don't have neural brains, so just because a cell that died in us 20 years ago fought the polio vaccine how the hell do our cells today know how to fight it - exactly? I don't know. I just know that somehow that experience is transmitted from generations of cells in my body to the next generation. I take it on faith that the scientists knew what they were doing when they made the polio vaccine, and so far they've been right, insofar is eradicating polio as a threat in the USA goes.

But getting back to your insight the more complicated the issue the more we MUST take on faith the information given to us by experts. There is no other way as we all cannot be experts on everything. I also think this is a good thing. It forces us to work together. It compels teamwork. It requires trust. It is the nature of humanity that allows us to conquer problems larger than any single one of us could defeat.

Regards,

Doug

No to faith. I agree with the gist of what I think you're saying, basically that we kinda have to go with what experts say because we can't all be experts in everything. But I disagree that we should call that faith. Faith is a belief in something without logical proof or material evidence. When we trust "experts" it is often through at least some logical proof or material evidence they present that causes us to believe them. I would say it involves trust, but not so much, faith. To the extent that it is faith, we're probably at least a little full of ****. When we just believe in something, I guess I'll call that tribal for lack of a better term. It's basically side-picking.

To illustrate, we'll pick on global warming/climate change. I've said for years that the vaccine debate and climate debate are very similar in how many people come to believe what they do about it. We pick a side based on our various biases, then choose which experts we believe based, not on the most vigorous logical proofs or material evidence, but mostly which ones confirm what we want to believe. And that's a lot closer to faith than weighing logic/reasoning/evidence from all sides. I'm saying we shouldn't take it on faith. But people do their personal "research", and what they're really doing is looking for "experts" who agree with them. That's an instinctive human behavior that we're better off learning how to override.

It's been my experience that the truth usually turns out to be somewhere in between the extremes. You have to open your mind to either side, and just look at the best arguments each side makes. Look at their reasoning for logical fallacies. Look at the evidence each side presents, look for signs of deception, look for cherry-picking facts. At the end of that all that you reason out for yourself what facts you can determine are true and false, what reasoning is most sound. A good skepticism of "sides" is useful. Because sides look for self-confirmation, reject reasoning based on side-taking. I don't have faith in experts--I don't believe *in* them. They are fallible. Corruptible. Flawed. They're human with all the human triumphs and failings. We can't all be experts, and we certainly can't be experts in everything. We're better off looking at what we can understand about the things experts tell us, and use logic and reasoning to figure out just how full of **** they may be, if at all. And try to pinpoint where the truth is as best we can. THAT's not faith. It's a best reasoned guess.

Where that takes me in the vaccine debate is a mostly centrist take on it. It's obvious from the facts available that most vaccines are relatively safe, and relatively effective for most people. But not all are safe, not all are effective. They're not harmless. Some are more or less safe than others. Flu shot? **** you. I'm not taking that ****. It's not very effective. Not usually all that harmful either, but as ineffective as it is, I'm not participating in that particular industrial complex. Many vaccines seem like a no-brainier in the risk/reward assessment. Reward probably outweighs the risk for those.

But here's where I get a little tribal myself. Vaccines should never be forced on individuals. Convince people with your science the benefits of taking them. In cases of epidemics, I can see society asking unvaccinated people to stay the hell away from others. But **** all the way off in a deep dirty hole in the ground if you say I have to. The people who have faith in forced vaccination should be lined up and fired upon with millions of spitty wads of icky drool laced paper.