Just got mine. Hopefully they made the best decisions predicting this year’s strains. You want to up your odds of not dealing with that . Not a fun thing.
Who advocate for vaccines are so upset when people who don't want to get them voice there opinion. Especially if said people haven't been getting the flu year after year. I am not going to debate whether they are useful or worth it as there is far from enough complete information to drawer a valid conclusion. Both sides twist facts to push the agenda. I was always raised to get plenty of rest and eat right and get plenty of fresh air and so far that has worked pretty well. I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period.
Plus if the vaccines are so great and work so w
ell then why would you need everybody to have one? Can't you just get one and be fine? Your right to a vaccine doesn't extend to over ride anybody's to refuse one. Get over it
Are you familiar with the concept of herd immunity? I got mine last week and now I shit kryptonite. (Half of the previous sentence is true.)
did some reading about history of infectious diseases and vaccines.
I hope some of you who decide "I've never had the flu I'm not going to mess with what works" don't have kids, because unfortunately their immune systems are not as strong as adults and they are usually more exposed and susceptible, especially once they reach school age.
What was the typical prototype of a polio victim? Healthy, active, "breathes fresh air", clean, etc. how many people do you hear abut getting polio today. In fact, some theories say because people became "too clean" is what helped polio spread, children were no longer exposed to polio viruses as infants, and therefore had no antibodies against it.
What about smallpox? There were half a million people dying each year due to smallpox. How much do you hear about smallpox today?
You can't "pray" these diseases way.
and influenza was far more deadly than polio.
Why do you think you rarely hear about measles cases today anywhere except underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia?
The measles vaccine was introduced in the late 60's. In 1980 worldwide over 2.5M people died from it, in 1990 it was around half a million and by 2014 that number globally is down to around 75,000. How do you think that happened? fresh air and vitamins?
Why do you think many of these diseases are no longer the epidemics they once were? People getting a lot of fresh air?
If it was just you, the individual, at risk, no one would care, it would be Darwinian if you personally contracted the disease and died, but as others have mentioned, you, being ignorant, puts others who are more susceptible at greater risk.
There is a lot that pharma companies due that is reprehensible and downright disgusting. Vaccines is not that.
there is a *huge* and serious outbreak of measles going on in NY. Other places as well, including Italy and Israel (which is where the NY outbreak began). Every single person who gets measles has to not only be tested and treated but every person they have come into contact with has to be investigated. The health consequences are layered on top of massive numbers of manpower and testing costs. It's huge economically. And to a large degree, it is due to villains like gmenatlarge et al.
did some reading about history of infectious diseases and vaccines.
I hope some of you who decide "I've never had the flu I'm not going to mess with what works" don't have kids, because unfortunately their immune systems are not as strong as adults and they are usually more exposed and susceptible, especially once they reach school age.
What was the typical prototype of a polio victim? Healthy, active, "breathes fresh air", clean, etc. how many people do you hear abut getting polio today. In fact, some theories say because people became "too clean" is what helped polio spread, children were no longer exposed to polio viruses as infants, and therefore had no antibodies against it.
What about smallpox? There were half a million people dying each year due to smallpox. How much do you hear about smallpox today?
You can't "pray" these diseases way.
and influenza was far more deadly than polio.
Why do you think you rarely hear about measles cases today anywhere except underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia?
The measles vaccine was introduced in the late 60's. In 1980 worldwide over 2.5M people died from it, in 1990 it was around half a million and by 2014 that number globally is down to around 75,000. How do you think that happened? fresh air and vitamins?
Why do you think many of these diseases are no longer the epidemics they once were? People getting a lot of fresh air?
If it was just you, the individual, at risk, no one would care, it would be Darwinian if you personally contracted the disease and died, but as others have mentioned, you, being ignorant, puts others who are more susceptible at greater risk.
There is a lot that pharma companies due that is reprehensible and downright disgusting. Vaccines is not that.
How much of these lowering of cases is do to modern sanitation practices and how much is due to the vaccines? Im pretty sure the sanitation and waste management in other places like Africa is laughable at best, not so much in America. Many European countries are very against vaccinations and have seen a similar decline in outbreaks? Why? Probably a combination of many things, vaccination being one of them but not the silver bullet.
My problem is not with people getting vaccines, its the belief (of some) that everyone should get them. You don't have to like my opinion and I don't have to like yours but neither way gives either one of us to force their own opinion on the other.
and where did you get your death totals from measles? IDSA show 259 deaths from 1987-1992. So your numbers seem to be off a little. Which makes me wonder what other numbers are off.
come from the WHO and CDC. My numbers are global, are yours?
Here is a blurb from WHO website:
Quote:
...Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.
Approximately 89,780 people died from measles in 2016 – mostly children under the age of 5 years, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine.
Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the respiratory tract, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.
Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000–2016, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 20.4 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 84% from an estimated 550,100 in 2000* to 89,780 in 2016....
and attached is a link to the CDC documentation on measles
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
RE: RE: I can't believe someone is arguing against the efficacy of vaccination Â
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
It's not hard to find disease incidence numbers before and after the introduction of vaccines *in the same country*. I can pretty much tell you that there is no smallpox in the world anymore due to reasons other than installing as Brita.
I was scheduled to get my flu shot yesterday (mandated by my employer) but I was home nursing the flu and 102 fever (going on 4 days now). My fiance who had her flu shot in early September has not caught this from me and I've taken zero precautions to keep from spreading it... So for the first time in my life I actually believe the flu shot works. Everyone go get your flu shot, the flu sucks
RE: RE: RE: I can't believe someone is arguing against the efficacy of vaccination Â
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
It's not hard to find disease incidence numbers before and after the introduction of vaccines *in the same country*. I can pretty much tell you that there is no smallpox in the world anymore due to reasons other than installing as Brita.
While I have conceded that i'm not trying to argue against the fact that vaccines are effective in slowing the spread of diseases. Many seem to hold steadfast in the proclamation that they are the solution to all the worlds problems when it comes to sickness. My stance remains and will always remain that they too also carry an inherent risk of side effects. Whether it be immediately after getting them or long term effects later. This does not make them bad but IMO makes them not right for me. Can you tell me how many people have died or had adverse effects from getting vaccines? The numbers are also lower than what is being reported as its a direct conflict of interest for someone who would make a living off giving vaccines to report something bad happening after giving one.
So we stand on opposite sides of the fence. Again I am not anti vaccine. I have gotten vaccines as a child but now i do not see the point as an adult. I think we are over vaccinating and doing just as much damage as what these diseases would be doing. Just my opinion
RE: RE: RE: RE: I can't believe someone is arguing against the efficacy of vaccination Â
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
It's not hard to find disease incidence numbers before and after the introduction of vaccines *in the same country*. I can pretty much tell you that there is no smallpox in the world anymore due to reasons other than installing as Brita.
While I have conceded that i'm not trying to argue against the fact that vaccines are effective in slowing the spread of diseases. Many seem to hold steadfast in the proclamation that they are the solution to all the worlds problems when it comes to sickness. My stance remains and will always remain that they too also carry an inherent risk of side effects. Whether it be immediately after getting them or long term effects later. This does not make them bad but IMO makes them not right for me. Can you tell me how many people have died or had adverse effects from getting vaccines? The numbers are also lower than what is being reported as its a direct conflict of interest for someone who would make a living off giving vaccines to report something bad happening after giving one.
So we stand on opposite sides of the fence. Again I am not anti vaccine. I have gotten vaccines as a child but now i do not see the point as an adult. I think we are over vaccinating and doing just as much damage as what these diseases would be doing. Just my opinion
You're pitching this as a cost/benefit analysis tradeoff, but do you have numbers to support your opinion?
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
To add to that, I find that the people who respond in a nasty and full attack mode (name calling, etc.) seem to have more of a hidden agenda than the average poster. Also I am not telling anyone what to do, personal choice, isn't that what America is all about.
In the grounds of personal freedom. Most people attacking that stance I would assume have an agenda. Much like I said there is an agenda to not report adverse effects after a vaccine. It happens and is never reported or is side stepped as the vaccination not being the reason. Albeit rare it does happen and nobody wants to refute that. There is no concrete evidence as to how many vaccinations have adverse effects as there is no money leading to getting a concrete number. I have not insulted or talked down on anybody for there opposite view and would appreciate the same from others
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
To add to that, I find that the people who respond in a nasty and full attack mode (name calling, etc.) seem to have more of a hidden agenda than the average poster. Also I am not telling anyone what to do, personal choice, isn't that what America is all about.
THat's actually not true. I don't care if you choose not to get vaccinated. That simply makes you dumb or reckless.
What I do care about is you spreading misinformation where someone may be gullible enough to believe it and not get vaccinated. That's not choice or allowing people to freely choose; it's manipulation. That's villainy.
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
So you would stand on the side that says everyone should get vaccinations no matter what? Disregard personal freedoms?
In the grounds of personal freedom. Most people attacking that stance I would assume have an agenda. Much like I said there is an agenda to not report adverse effects after a vaccine. It happens and is never reported or is side stepped as the vaccination not being the reason. Albeit rare it does happen and nobody wants to refute that. There is no concrete evidence as to how many vaccinations have adverse effects as there is no money leading to getting a concrete number. I have not insulted or talked down on anybody for there opposite view and would appreciate the same from others
I can truly see and appreciate why you might think that nobody ever talks about adverse events wrt vaccines and agree that reporting them is discouraged and buried.
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
To add to that, I find that the people who respond in a nasty and full attack mode (name calling, etc.) seem to have more of a hidden agenda than the average poster. Also I am not telling anyone what to do, personal choice, isn't that what America is all about.
THat's actually not true. I don't care if you choose not to get vaccinated. That simply makes you dumb or reckless.
What I do care about is you spreading misinformation where someone may be gullible enough to believe it and not get vaccinated. That's not choice or allowing people to freely choose; it's manipulation. That's villainy.
What about the counter argument that you don't know everything there is to know about vaccines? Maybe enough information for you is not enough for the next 100 people. If they cared as much about peoples health as they say there research would be as transparent as can be. I do not find that to be the case, I see a big money industry that keeps pushing more and more vaccinations with little research to try to prove it has no adverse effects.
If pharma companies will take seriously complaints and adverse effects of vaccines and show legit research of what is going into vaccines and what shouldn't be my stance could change. So i spoke to boldly there but I think we both realize that is never going to happen.
I work in the food industry and know what goes into testing a product to know that it is safe for consumption. To be completely 100 percent effective it has to be looked at not from a economical standpoint but from a completely unbiased safety standpoint. You need the whole picture.
RE: RE: This is the part that's telling and discouraging simultaneously: Â
If pharma companies will take seriously complaints and adverse effects of vaccines and show legit research of what is going into vaccines and what shouldn't be my stance could change. So i spoke to boldly there but I think we both realize that is never going to happen.
I work in the food industry and know what goes into testing a product to know that it is safe for consumption. To be completely 100 percent effective it has to be looked at not from a economical standpoint but from a completely unbiased safety standpoint. You need the whole picture.
Well first you said that there was no reporting of adverse events and also implied a conspiracy of suppression. And now you're saying that they don't take reports seriously. Seems contradictory to me.
Also, much or most of what goes into FDA approval is pretty well-documented and publicly available. Second, there are enough reported pieces that say that the profit margin on vaccines is not super fantastic, although that probably depends on the specific disease and market. I would guess that other drugs have greater margin though. And none of that takes into account the capital investment sunk to bring the vaccine out in the first place. Finally, I can pretty much guarantee you that the number of food-borne illnesses in the US, in the world, in your household in a month, year, decade, far, far, dwarfs the number of adverse vaccine reactions. I'm not sure that's a comparison you should make.
If pharma companies will take seriously complaints and adverse effects of vaccines and show legit research of what is going into vaccines and what shouldn't be my stance could change. So i spoke to boldly there but I think we both realize that is never going to happen.
I work in the food industry and know what goes into testing a product to know that it is safe for consumption. To be completely 100 percent effective it has to be looked at not from a economical standpoint but from a completely unbiased safety standpoint. You need the whole picture.
Well first you said that there was no reporting of adverse events and also implied a conspiracy of suppression. And now you're saying that they don't take reports seriously. Seems contradictory to me.
Also, much or most of what goes into FDA approval is pretty well-documented and publicly available. Second, there are enough reported pieces that say that the profit margin on vaccines is not super fantastic, although that probably depends on the specific disease and market. I would guess that other drugs have greater margin though. And none of that takes into account the capital investment sunk to bring the vaccine out in the first place. Finally, I can pretty much guarantee you that the number of food-borne illnesses in the US, in the world, in your household in a month, year, decade, far, far, dwarfs the number of adverse vaccine reactions. I'm not sure that's a comparison you should make.
So nobody has ever had a vaccine and have told there Dr to have it explained away as nothing? Does the Dr not get paid to give a vaccine? Keep pumping the needle full
RE: RE: RE: RE: This is the part that's telling and discouraging simultaneously: Â
So nobody has ever had a vaccine and have told there Dr to have it explained away as nothing? Does the Dr not get paid to give a vaccine? Keep pumping the needle full
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing but if the doc has already given the vaccine he's already been paid. So there is no financial incentive for him to lie to a specific patient. In fact, given that the (presumably unreported) adverse events would be rare events, a doc (and pharma) would have greater financial incentive to investigate and repair anything that caused a vaccine to give an adverse event and thus keep the "cash" pipeline open for the much, much greater of majority of patients who will now survive the outbreak because of the vaccine.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: This is the part that's telling and discouraging simultaneously: Â
So nobody has ever had a vaccine and have told there Dr to have it explained away as nothing? Does the Dr not get paid to give a vaccine? Keep pumping the needle full
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing but if the doc has already given the vaccine he's already been paid. So there is no financial incentive for him to lie to a specific patient. In fact, given that the (presumably unreported) adverse events would be rare events, a doc (and pharma) would have greater financial incentive to investigate and repair anything that caused a vaccine to give an adverse event and thus keep the "cash" pipeline open for the much, much greater of majority of patients who will now survive the outbreak because of the vaccine.
I don't know about you but if i'm hearing about people having bad reactions to something i'm going to be skeptical to do it myself. Hence why a Dr office will never report bad things happening. Need the line to stay steady and full.
Doctor's offices will always be full. I dont think they are manufacturing problems if thats what you are insinuating. Are any of your friends physicians Mike?
I would ask them if they vaccinate and their reasoning.
I'm not sure whether vaccines should be mandatory. The personal freedom side of me says no, but the public health side of me says yes. I think the balance is to make them strongly encouraged and provided pursuant to an opt-out system, along with public education about their benefits.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
RE: I just don't want the governement controlling my mind Â
do you work for pharma? Im not anti vax, just curious, you seem to be well read here
I don't.
Jim,
I just re=read this and I apologize if you think it's to curt. Fuller version is that I don't work for pharma but have an avid interest in public health and I have read a bunch on vaccines. I am passionate about the subject and sensitive to misinformation being passed on. Further, where I do work I see enough anti-science or fake science things (not just anti-vaxxers, but people with their own like causes) that the politics of it all makes me nuts. I work for a health department and an academic institution. I actually study immunity and even have lectured on vaccines. So, I would not deny being an advocate but I have no profit motive as was insinuated.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I can't believe someone is arguing against the efficacy of vaccination Â
Again I am not anti vaccine. I have gotten vaccines as a child but now i do not see the point as an adult. I think we are over vaccinating and doing just as much damage as what these diseases would be doing. Just my opinion
If you honestly think that vaccines cause just as much damage as they prevent, then why aren't you anti vaccine? Seems like they'd all just be a big waste of time and money, so if I were to feel that way, I think I'd be pretty anti vaccine and freely admit to it.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I can't believe someone is arguing against the efficacy of vaccination Â
Again I am not anti vaccine. I have gotten vaccines as a child but now i do not see the point as an adult. I think we are over vaccinating and doing just as much damage as what these diseases would be doing. Just my opinion
If you honestly think that vaccines cause just as much damage as they prevent, then why aren't you anti vaccine? Seems like they'd all just be a big waste of time and money, so if I were to feel that way, I think I'd be pretty anti vaccine and freely admit to it.
Anti vaccine would be the stance that vaccines are useless. I see the good in them but also don't think the whole story is out. I am absolutely not interested in getting a vaccine for myself and wasting my time and money. Again the personal freedom side of me says vaccines are a choice.
I'm not sure whether vaccines should be mandatory. The personal freedom side of me says no, but the public health side of me says yes. I think the balance is to make them strongly encouraged and provided pursuant to an opt-out system, along with public education about their benefits.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
"The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine."
I'm not sure whether vaccines should be mandatory. The personal freedom side of me says no, but the public health side of me says yes. I think the balance is to make them strongly encouraged and provided pursuant to an opt-out system, along with public education about their benefits.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
"The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine."
Vaccine Act 1987, vaccine manufacturers are not culpable in any way for vaccine damages.
I'm not sure whether vaccines should be mandatory. The personal freedom side of me says no, but the public health side of me says yes. I think the balance is to make them strongly encouraged and provided pursuant to an opt-out system, along with public education about their benefits.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
"The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine."
Vaccine Act 1987, vaccine manufacturers are not culpable in any way for vaccine damages.
And that’s all meaningless given that at the same time they established a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund where claims are investigated and people compensated.
I am 63 never have had a flu shot . I won't ever get one either . Research whats in it , Same with Vaccines research the history of vaccines they change the names of said diseases like Polio which basically disappeared before they started the vaccines . No thanks to the flue shots !
I am 63 never have had a flu shot . I won't ever get one either . Research whats in it , Same with Vaccines research the history of vaccines they change the names of said diseases like Polio which basically disappeared before they started the vaccines . No thanks to the flue shots !
Jesus, people are dumb.
RE: RE: Haven't had the flu since I was a child . Â
I am 63 never have had a flu shot . I won't ever get one either . Research whats in it , Same with Vaccines research the history of vaccines they change the names of said diseases like Polio which basically disappeared before they started the vaccines . No thanks to the flue shots !
Jesus, people are dumb.
That guy is especially ignorant. It hurts my brain to read some of these conspiracy theory comments. The anti-intellectual and proud of it contingent in this country has never been stronger. Polio was wiped out before the vaccine for it??? What in the hell?
Plus if the vaccines are so great and work so w
ell then why would you need everybody to have one? Can't you just get one and be fine? Your right to a vaccine doesn't extend to over ride anybody's to refuse one. Get over it
Are you familiar with the concept of herd immunity? I got mine last week and now I shit kryptonite. (Half of the previous sentence is true.)
I hope some of you who decide "I've never had the flu I'm not going to mess with what works" don't have kids, because unfortunately their immune systems are not as strong as adults and they are usually more exposed and susceptible, especially once they reach school age.
What was the typical prototype of a polio victim? Healthy, active, "breathes fresh air", clean, etc. how many people do you hear abut getting polio today. In fact, some theories say because people became "too clean" is what helped polio spread, children were no longer exposed to polio viruses as infants, and therefore had no antibodies against it.
What about smallpox? There were half a million people dying each year due to smallpox. How much do you hear about smallpox today?
You can't "pray" these diseases way.
and influenza was far more deadly than polio.
Why do you think you rarely hear about measles cases today anywhere except underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia?
The measles vaccine was introduced in the late 60's. In 1980 worldwide over 2.5M people died from it, in 1990 it was around half a million and by 2014 that number globally is down to around 75,000. How do you think that happened? fresh air and vitamins?
Why do you think many of these diseases are no longer the epidemics they once were? People getting a lot of fresh air?
If it was just you, the individual, at risk, no one would care, it would be Darwinian if you personally contracted the disease and died, but as others have mentioned, you, being ignorant, puts others who are more susceptible at greater risk.
There is a lot that pharma companies due that is reprehensible and downright disgusting. Vaccines is not that.
Quote:
Harmful, are the worst of the scurrilous.
You like to use scutrrilous, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
I hope some of you who decide "I've never had the flu I'm not going to mess with what works" don't have kids, because unfortunately their immune systems are not as strong as adults and they are usually more exposed and susceptible, especially once they reach school age.
What was the typical prototype of a polio victim? Healthy, active, "breathes fresh air", clean, etc. how many people do you hear abut getting polio today. In fact, some theories say because people became "too clean" is what helped polio spread, children were no longer exposed to polio viruses as infants, and therefore had no antibodies against it.
What about smallpox? There were half a million people dying each year due to smallpox. How much do you hear about smallpox today?
You can't "pray" these diseases way.
and influenza was far more deadly than polio.
Why do you think you rarely hear about measles cases today anywhere except underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia?
The measles vaccine was introduced in the late 60's. In 1980 worldwide over 2.5M people died from it, in 1990 it was around half a million and by 2014 that number globally is down to around 75,000. How do you think that happened? fresh air and vitamins?
Why do you think many of these diseases are no longer the epidemics they once were? People getting a lot of fresh air?
If it was just you, the individual, at risk, no one would care, it would be Darwinian if you personally contracted the disease and died, but as others have mentioned, you, being ignorant, puts others who are more susceptible at greater risk.
There is a lot that pharma companies due that is reprehensible and downright disgusting. Vaccines is not that.
How much of these lowering of cases is do to modern sanitation practices and how much is due to the vaccines? Im pretty sure the sanitation and waste management in other places like Africa is laughable at best, not so much in America. Many European countries are very against vaccinations and have seen a similar decline in outbreaks? Why? Probably a combination of many things, vaccination being one of them but not the silver bullet.
My problem is not with people getting vaccines, its the belief (of some) that everyone should get them. You don't have to like my opinion and I don't have to like yours but neither way gives either one of us to force their own opinion on the other.
and where did you get your death totals from measles? IDSA show 259 deaths from 1987-1992. So your numbers seem to be off a little. Which makes me wonder what other numbers are off.
Here is a blurb from WHO website:
Approximately 89,780 people died from measles in 2016 – mostly children under the age of 5 years, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine.
Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the respiratory tract, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.
Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000–2016, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 20.4 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 84% from an estimated 550,100 in 2000* to 89,780 in 2016....
and attached is a link to the CDC documentation on measles
Link - ( New Window )
And not wearing furs or having a vestigial tail.
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
And not wearing furs or having a vestigial tail.
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
Quote:
in general.
And not wearing furs or having a vestigial tail.
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
It's not hard to find disease incidence numbers before and after the introduction of vaccines *in the same country*. I can pretty much tell you that there is no smallpox in the world anymore due to reasons other than installing as Brita.
Quote:
In comment 14135408 Bill L said:
Quote:
in general.
And not wearing furs or having a vestigial tail.
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
It's not hard to find disease incidence numbers before and after the introduction of vaccines *in the same country*. I can pretty much tell you that there is no smallpox in the world anymore due to reasons other than installing as Brita.
While I have conceded that i'm not trying to argue against the fact that vaccines are effective in slowing the spread of diseases. Many seem to hold steadfast in the proclamation that they are the solution to all the worlds problems when it comes to sickness. My stance remains and will always remain that they too also carry an inherent risk of side effects. Whether it be immediately after getting them or long term effects later. This does not make them bad but IMO makes them not right for me. Can you tell me how many people have died or had adverse effects from getting vaccines? The numbers are also lower than what is being reported as its a direct conflict of interest for someone who would make a living off giving vaccines to report something bad happening after giving one.
So we stand on opposite sides of the fence. Again I am not anti vaccine. I have gotten vaccines as a child but now i do not see the point as an adult. I think we are over vaccinating and doing just as much damage as what these diseases would be doing. Just my opinion
Quote:
In comment 14135506 MagicManning said:
Quote:
In comment 14135408 Bill L said:
Quote:
in general.
And not wearing furs or having a vestigial tail.
And, to be clear, whether or not you wish to get a vaccination is an individual right; whether or not vaccines are effective or protective is not the stuff of equal but differing opinions at all.
If you read what i wrote you can see i was not arguing whether they are effective. They are clearly somewhat effective. My contention is to show me some conclusive evidence that the vaccines are the ONLY reason for the decline in those numbers. Most of the people who die from these diseases come from 3rd world countries where there is limited food and potable water. That is more of a problem than not being vaccinated. This can be easily seen by the fact that in countries that are against vaccinations like France the death totals still remain low. Absolutely have a higher infection rate than countries that vaccinate, yes, But at what cost? Some children have adverse effects to vaccinations including death. And before the counter argument is made that it is rare and that its hard to say definitively that is the only reason for a person dying, I agree. But would you also be willing to agree that putting all your stock into vaccines as being the only reason for people not dying of diseases faulty as well? Cant have it both ways.
And if we want to worry about a problem we can all agree on here are some numbers that should be alarming.
The United Nations estimated last year 25,000 people still die of hunger daily. That means more than 9.1 million people die of hunger every year.
It's not hard to find disease incidence numbers before and after the introduction of vaccines *in the same country*. I can pretty much tell you that there is no smallpox in the world anymore due to reasons other than installing as Brita.
While I have conceded that i'm not trying to argue against the fact that vaccines are effective in slowing the spread of diseases. Many seem to hold steadfast in the proclamation that they are the solution to all the worlds problems when it comes to sickness. My stance remains and will always remain that they too also carry an inherent risk of side effects. Whether it be immediately after getting them or long term effects later. This does not make them bad but IMO makes them not right for me. Can you tell me how many people have died or had adverse effects from getting vaccines? The numbers are also lower than what is being reported as its a direct conflict of interest for someone who would make a living off giving vaccines to report something bad happening after giving one.
So we stand on opposite sides of the fence. Again I am not anti vaccine. I have gotten vaccines as a child but now i do not see the point as an adult. I think we are over vaccinating and doing just as much damage as what these diseases would be doing. Just my opinion
You're pitching this as a cost/benefit analysis tradeoff, but do you have numbers to support your opinion?
Quote:
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
Quote:
In comment 14135247 UESBLUE said:
Quote:
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
Quote:
In comment 14135261 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14135247 UESBLUE said:
Quote:
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
Quote:
In comment 14135671 gmenatlarge said:
Quote:
In comment 14135261 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14135247 UESBLUE said:
Quote:
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
To add to that, I find that the people who respond in a nasty and full attack mode (name calling, etc.) seem to have more of a hidden agenda than the average poster. Also I am not telling anyone what to do, personal choice, isn't that what America is all about.
Quote:
In comment 14135689 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
In comment 14135671 gmenatlarge said:
Quote:
In comment 14135261 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14135247 UESBLUE said:
Quote:
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
To add to that, I find that the people who respond in a nasty and full attack mode (name calling, etc.) seem to have more of a hidden agenda than the average poster. Also I am not telling anyone what to do, personal choice, isn't that what America is all about.
What I do care about is you spreading misinformation where someone may be gullible enough to believe it and not get vaccinated. That's not choice or allowing people to freely choose; it's manipulation. That's villainy.
Quote:
In comment 14135261 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14135247 UESBLUE said:
Quote:
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
So you would stand on the side that says everyone should get vaccinations no matter what? Disregard personal freedoms?
I can truly see and appreciate why you might think that nobody ever talks about adverse events wrt vaccines and agree that reporting them is discouraged and buried.
So good agreement on that front.
Link - ( New Window )
My stance remains and will always remain...
It leaves no room for evolution.
Quote:
In comment 14135707 gmenatlarge said:
Quote:
In comment 14135689 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
In comment 14135671 gmenatlarge said:
Quote:
In comment 14135261 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14135247 UESBLUE said:
Quote:
"I don't like the idea of somebody I don't know injecting a substance I don't know into my body. Period. "
Oh please (to him, not you)....you bring billions of substances of unknown origin into your body every single day of your life.
yeah, but you don't inject them into your bloodstream, bypassing the body's natural filters. So now you're calling people "villains" how utterly ridiculous! You are taking this awful personal and then say you don't work for a pharma which I highly doubt. Calling someone a name doesn't delegitimize them as you and others of your ilk would like to imagine.
You assume that people who are in favor of vaccines work for "a pharma?" I don't work for "a pharma." I think, in general, everyone should get vaccinated.
No I was replying to Bill L., you are making the assumption. That's fine that you think that, but the flu shot is not for me.
To add to that, I find that the people who respond in a nasty and full attack mode (name calling, etc.) seem to have more of a hidden agenda than the average poster. Also I am not telling anyone what to do, personal choice, isn't that what America is all about.
THat's actually not true. I don't care if you choose not to get vaccinated. That simply makes you dumb or reckless.
What I do care about is you spreading misinformation where someone may be gullible enough to believe it and not get vaccinated. That's not choice or allowing people to freely choose; it's manipulation. That's villainy.
What about the counter argument that you don't know everything there is to know about vaccines? Maybe enough information for you is not enough for the next 100 people. If they cared as much about peoples health as they say there research would be as transparent as can be. I do not find that to be the case, I see a big money industry that keeps pushing more and more vaccinations with little research to try to prove it has no adverse effects.
I trust my doctors (and relatives who are doctors), I mean they could be in big pharmas pocket, but the fact they get it themselves speaks to me.
Quote:
...
My stance remains and will always remain...
It leaves no room for evolution.
If pharma companies will take seriously complaints and adverse effects of vaccines and show legit research of what is going into vaccines and what shouldn't be my stance could change. So i spoke to boldly there but I think we both realize that is never going to happen.
I work in the food industry and know what goes into testing a product to know that it is safe for consumption. To be completely 100 percent effective it has to be looked at not from a economical standpoint but from a completely unbiased safety standpoint. You need the whole picture.
Quote:
In comment 14135629 MagicManning said:
Quote:
...
My stance remains and will always remain...
It leaves no room for evolution.
If pharma companies will take seriously complaints and adverse effects of vaccines and show legit research of what is going into vaccines and what shouldn't be my stance could change. So i spoke to boldly there but I think we both realize that is never going to happen.
I work in the food industry and know what goes into testing a product to know that it is safe for consumption. To be completely 100 percent effective it has to be looked at not from a economical standpoint but from a completely unbiased safety standpoint. You need the whole picture.
Well first you said that there was no reporting of adverse events and also implied a conspiracy of suppression. And now you're saying that they don't take reports seriously. Seems contradictory to me.
Also, much or most of what goes into FDA approval is pretty well-documented and publicly available. Second, there are enough reported pieces that say that the profit margin on vaccines is not super fantastic, although that probably depends on the specific disease and market. I would guess that other drugs have greater margin though. And none of that takes into account the capital investment sunk to bring the vaccine out in the first place. Finally, I can pretty much guarantee you that the number of food-borne illnesses in the US, in the world, in your household in a month, year, decade, far, far, dwarfs the number of adverse vaccine reactions. I'm not sure that's a comparison you should make.
I don't.
Quote:
In comment 14135790 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14135629 MagicManning said:
Quote:
...
My stance remains and will always remain...
It leaves no room for evolution.
If pharma companies will take seriously complaints and adverse effects of vaccines and show legit research of what is going into vaccines and what shouldn't be my stance could change. So i spoke to boldly there but I think we both realize that is never going to happen.
I work in the food industry and know what goes into testing a product to know that it is safe for consumption. To be completely 100 percent effective it has to be looked at not from a economical standpoint but from a completely unbiased safety standpoint. You need the whole picture.
Well first you said that there was no reporting of adverse events and also implied a conspiracy of suppression. And now you're saying that they don't take reports seriously. Seems contradictory to me.
Also, much or most of what goes into FDA approval is pretty well-documented and publicly available. Second, there are enough reported pieces that say that the profit margin on vaccines is not super fantastic, although that probably depends on the specific disease and market. I would guess that other drugs have greater margin though. And none of that takes into account the capital investment sunk to bring the vaccine out in the first place. Finally, I can pretty much guarantee you that the number of food-borne illnesses in the US, in the world, in your household in a month, year, decade, far, far, dwarfs the number of adverse vaccine reactions. I'm not sure that's a comparison you should make.
So nobody has ever had a vaccine and have told there Dr to have it explained away as nothing? Does the Dr not get paid to give a vaccine? Keep pumping the needle full
So nobody has ever had a vaccine and have told there Dr to have it explained away as nothing? Does the Dr not get paid to give a vaccine? Keep pumping the needle full
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing but if the doc has already given the vaccine he's already been paid. So there is no financial incentive for him to lie to a specific patient. In fact, given that the (presumably unreported) adverse events would be rare events, a doc (and pharma) would have greater financial incentive to investigate and repair anything that caused a vaccine to give an adverse event and thus keep the "cash" pipeline open for the much, much greater of majority of patients who will now survive the outbreak because of the vaccine.
Quote:
So nobody has ever had a vaccine and have told there Dr to have it explained away as nothing? Does the Dr not get paid to give a vaccine? Keep pumping the needle full
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing but if the doc has already given the vaccine he's already been paid. So there is no financial incentive for him to lie to a specific patient. In fact, given that the (presumably unreported) adverse events would be rare events, a doc (and pharma) would have greater financial incentive to investigate and repair anything that caused a vaccine to give an adverse event and thus keep the "cash" pipeline open for the much, much greater of majority of patients who will now survive the outbreak because of the vaccine.
I don't know about you but if i'm hearing about people having bad reactions to something i'm going to be skeptical to do it myself. Hence why a Dr office will never report bad things happening. Need the line to stay steady and full.
I would ask them if they vaccinate and their reasoning.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
TOO LATE. SUBMIT
Quote:
...
TOO LATE. SUBMIT
OK. Damn it!
Quote:
do you work for pharma? Im not anti vax, just curious, you seem to be well read here
I don't.
Jim,
I just re=read this and I apologize if you think it's to curt. Fuller version is that I don't work for pharma but have an avid interest in public health and I have read a bunch on vaccines. I am passionate about the subject and sensitive to misinformation being passed on. Further, where I do work I see enough anti-science or fake science things (not just anti-vaxxers, but people with their own like causes) that the politics of it all makes me nuts. I work for a health department and an academic institution. I actually study immunity and even have lectured on vaccines. So, I would not deny being an advocate but I have no profit motive as was insinuated.
If you honestly think that vaccines cause just as much damage as they prevent, then why aren't you anti vaccine? Seems like they'd all just be a big waste of time and money, so if I were to feel that way, I think I'd be pretty anti vaccine and freely admit to it.
Quote:
Again I am not anti vaccine. I have gotten vaccines as a child but now i do not see the point as an adult. I think we are over vaccinating and doing just as much damage as what these diseases would be doing. Just my opinion
If you honestly think that vaccines cause just as much damage as they prevent, then why aren't you anti vaccine? Seems like they'd all just be a big waste of time and money, so if I were to feel that way, I think I'd be pretty anti vaccine and freely admit to it.
Anti vaccine would be the stance that vaccines are useless. I see the good in them but also don't think the whole story is out. I am absolutely not interested in getting a vaccine for myself and wasting my time and money. Again the personal freedom side of me says vaccines are a choice.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
"The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine."
Quote:
I'm not sure whether vaccines should be mandatory. The personal freedom side of me says no, but the public health side of me says yes. I think the balance is to make them strongly encouraged and provided pursuant to an opt-out system, along with public education about their benefits.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
"The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine."
Vaccine Act 1987, vaccine manufacturers are not culpable in any way for vaccine damages.
Quote:
In comment 14135910 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
I'm not sure whether vaccines should be mandatory. The personal freedom side of me says no, but the public health side of me says yes. I think the balance is to make them strongly encouraged and provided pursuant to an opt-out system, along with public education about their benefits.
To the point about reporting defects--I am a lawyer, and I guarantee you that if there were considerable defects caused by vaccines plaintiffs' lawyers would be all over it and suing for huge money. The fact that that doesn't happen either means the problem is not there, or a bunch of money-hungry lawyers are overlooking a huge source of potential profit. I'd bank on the former, but if you think I'm wrong, go get a plaintiffs' layer and make yourself a multi-millionaire.
"The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine."
Vaccine Act 1987, vaccine manufacturers are not culpable in any way for vaccine damages.
And that’s all meaningless given that at the same time they established a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund where claims are investigated and people compensated.
Jesus, people are dumb.
Quote:
I am 63 never have had a flu shot . I won't ever get one either . Research whats in it , Same with Vaccines research the history of vaccines they change the names of said diseases like Polio which basically disappeared before they started the vaccines . No thanks to the flue shots !
Jesus, people are dumb.