Vaccines - Calling the Shots

[Quattro Pete]

The whole concept of vaccinations seems to be hotly debated these days. You see some parents refusing to vaccinate their kids due to potential side effects.

PBS just ran this piece on the subject yesterday, trying to be somewhat objective, I think. Not saying this piece is the holy truth, but interesting to watch nonetheless, especially if you have young kids. I'm sure you can research and find more pros and cons. The hard part is identifying what's a fact and what is just noise in order to get a better understanding of the benefits of not contracting a disease vs. the risk of potential side effects.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/vaccines-calling-shots.html

 

[Nick R]

Just my opinion: The people who are refusing to let their kids get vaccinated are doing nothing but creating a hazard for other people, as well as putting their own kids at risk. Vaccines are the reason that so few people get serious illnesses that were extremely common in the past. You know, like smallpox. And polio. And others. I mean come on. Most of the "anti-vaccine" fad is based on nothing but hot air and pseudo science, and pretty much have all been discredited by actual doctors and scientists.

 

[Bandito440]

I'm watching it on the DVR right now. I imagine this thread is going to explode and get locked soon, so here's my thought:

The risk of these vaccines is much lower than the risk of measles, polio, etc.

Unfortunately, the anti-vaccine crowd isn't likely to watch PBS anyhow. I put this in the chemtrail, fluoride conspiracy, and 6,000 year old Earth category.

 

[sasilverbullet]

Yep, before this gets locked...

Remember that at one time every banned drug was once approved...

 

[JHZR2]

Regarding locking, simple as this, keep the politics out of it. Some on here are prematurely invoking such discussion by belittling folks who may have a certain feeling, or who may not watch PBS or whatever. Keep it civil and apolitical.

We have not declined necessary vaccines, but also have put them in on our own schedule.

When you look at the metals loading on some of these things, and consider the pharmacokinetic rates for small bodies (all of this is calculatable from referenced sources and fairly simple maths) it starts to be compelling to me that a spread out approch is better.

In reality, they try to give newborns a million shots at once for only one reason - because then they only have to pay the administering doctor their fee once, versus once a month or whatever the schedule that one desires would be.

Some things like chicken pox, flu, etc., I see very little value so long as there are no immunity compromised people in the household, no elderly, etc. Those things are self-inflicted problems created from the criminal act of mothers dumping kids in day care after four to six weeks.

Vaccines offer profound benefits to society and the population on a personal basis. NOT using them is a bad idea, but the administration approach and reasoning behind some of them is purely an economic decision, and there is no way Id blindly take the advice of some profit mongering group.

 

[javacontour]

It's all about freedom. If you think you should vaccinate, vaccinate. If you are against it, then don't.

The live the consequences of your choice, good or bad.

The problem comes in when any group tries to force their view on another.

If you believe in it, you and your family will be protected regardless what others do. After all, that's what the vaccine does. If you don't and your kids get sick, too bad, pay up, don't expect others to pay the costs for your choices.

I had my kids vaccinated, but I don't feel that it should be a government mandate. If others believe differently, hopefully it's still free to do so.

 

[SteveSRT8]

agreed, my son has been battling with his doctors over his daughter's vaccinations. At 3 months they wanted to give her 6 simultaneously.

Nothing wrong with spreading them out a little.

IMO the ASD link is weak, but anything is possible with kids...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Vaccines offer profound benefits to society and the population on a personal basis. NOT using them is a bad idea, but the administration approach and reasoning behind some of them is purely an economic decision,

My thoughts on this, as well.

 

[Win]

I have adult friends with Polio.

All of my children are vaccinated.

Around here, they want to send kids to the health dept. for vaccinations.

No thanks, my kid had it done in the doc's office, well away from all the other diseased people - I didn't care how much extra it cost.

Given the state of the southern border, they better come up with one for TB.

 

[4wheeldog]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's all about freedom. If you think you should vaccinate, vaccinate. If you are against it, then don't.

The live the consequences of your choice, good or bad.

The problem comes in when any group tries to force their view on another.

If you believe in it, you and your family will be protected regardless what others do. After all, that's what the vaccine does. If you don't and your kids get sick, too bad, pay up, don't expect others to pay the costs for your choices.

I had my kids vaccinated, but I don't feel that it should be a government mandate. If others believe differently, hopefully it's still free to do so.


The problem with libertarianism is that what we do, effects what happens to others. Vaccination is one of those cases. People have short memories, and the idiots that are not vaccinating their kids have no memory of the nasty diseases we don't deal with, anymore.......But may again in the future, if enough idiots fail to vaccinate.

I would be a libertarian, but life has taught me that too many people make bad decisions that I wind up paying for.

 

[Thermo1223]

Our first child we denied everything at child birth except a vitamin K injection.

I didn't even what the antibiotic gel on her eyes(for chlamydia) because I know my wife is clean obviously. My wife who is a nurse told me it isn't a big deal.

Fast forward and we started a delayed schedule which our doctor was on board with for a bit then started touting the party line if we don't listen to them to find another pediatric doctor.

We did have 1 ER visit because our first daughter being a young newborn had a high fever one night that drugs were having a hard time breaking. She had nothing in her vaccination wise so they wanted to do blood test and urine samples. Well it was all inconclusive so it was chocked up to being the flu. She was fine after a few days but you always take precautions with infants.

Our second we were a little more relaxed with because she had to be in daycare and so did her sister. So anything her sister was immune to at this point could be a potential issue for her. It turned out just fine.

My wife's mother is a big holistic nut to the point she took her husband off his cholesterol & blood pressure meds. He doesn't eat that horrible but he is like any other guy. He likes his meat & potatoes and not his veggies. Well she gave him "supplements" to do the same thing his meds were supposed to do. Needless to say that did not work. His cholesterol was over 400 and his blood pressure went up.

She gave us quite a hard time about vaccinating our second because at that time it was autism this, caused by that.

IMO there is really no direct proof that anything is certain and painting it with such a broad brush is stupid.

Some things are just genetic....you have very little control of what genes place where. You roll the dice each time you have a child.

I do agree that flooding an newborn with 6 viruses right outside the womb is a bit dangerous. So I would agree that spreading them out isn't a bad idea. My wife is required to get the flu vaccine every year or risk being terminated but she does work in healthcare.

 

[leeharvey418]

What does it matter? The government can just put the vaccines in chemtrails anyway.

Now where did I leave my foil hat?

 

[javacontour]

But if your kids are vaccinated, then how does what someone else do with respect to this issue impact you? You and your kids benefit from the vaccine. Those who choose not to vaccinate roll the dice.

The problem is when they expect others to bail them out and someone in charge says you have to bail them out.

What if we just let them live with the consequences of their choices?

My question is who are the idiots, those who don't vaccinate, or those who bail them out after they've made a bad choice?

From my perspective, it's not those who not choose to vaccinate who are the biggest idiots, but those who ensure they remain the gene pool because they are insulated from the consequences of their choices.

Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's all about freedom. If you think you should vaccinate, vaccinate. If you are against it, then don't.

The live the consequences of your choice, good or bad.

The problem comes in when any group tries to force their view on another.

If you believe in it, you and your family will be protected regardless what others do. After all, that's what the vaccine does. If you don't and your kids get sick, too bad, pay up, don't expect others to pay the costs for your choices.

I had my kids vaccinated, but I don't feel that it should be a government mandate. If others believe differently, hopefully it's still free to do so.


The problem with libertarianism is that what we do, effects what happens to others. Vaccination is one of those cases. People have short memories, and the idiots that are not vaccinating their kids have no memory of the nasty diseases we don't deal with, anymore.......But may again in the future, if enough idiots fail to vaccinate.

I would be a libertarian, but life has taught me that too many people make bad decisions that I wind up paying for.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
If you don't and your kids get sick, too bad, pay up, don't expect others to pay the costs for your choices.


Therein lies the problem. Since people are lumped into the same insurance risk pool without regard to how they take care of their health, those of us who take care of ourselves and are in excellent health pay for those who choose otherwise.

The people who decide not to vaccinate their children look to people like me to pay for the problems they create. Quite frankly, if I'm paying inflated health care premiums because a group of people choose to be unhealthy, then I reserve the right to dictate terms.

If it really is about freedom then I shouldn't have to bear the costs that unvaccinated kids, smokers, obese people, dope users and other unhealthy, self destructive people create. I'll gladly bear the total costs of my own health care if others will do the same.

And yes, as a kid I had whatever vaccines were available at the time. And I still get an annual flu shot, paid for out of my own pocket. I had mine for this year back on August 28.

 

[wsar10]

Originally Posted By: sasilverbullet
Yep, before this gets locked...

Remember that at one time every banned drug was once approved...


EXACTLY !
There is no need for most vaccines,why would you vaccinate your newborn child for something that is ONLY transmitted by blood ? No need to inject a bit of mercury (now re-named) IN HOPES that it will prevent the flu although statistics beg to differ as far as prevention and lessening the effects of the flu.

For the above closed minded comment regarding the lack of responsibility by not getting your children vaccinated, You should educate yourself about what those "vaccines" include as inactive (and some active) ingredients with some vaccines you are doing more harm to your child's immune system the good.

There is a good book out there about child vaccines IIRC its called "two and talking"

Most people are generally ignorant (to allot of things) and think that a doctors word or suggestion is GOLD, meanwhile they are paid to perscribe !

 

[javacontour]

I totally agree. As long as you are expecting others to help bear the costs, either from insurance or government healthcare, you make it the business of others how you live.

I have no problem with having costs changed based on your labs, attendance or non-attendance at the gym, do you smoke or not, etc.

We already do that with life insurance. It's rated. If you fall into a high risk category, you pay higher rates. If you are overweight, have high BP, or bad blood numbers, or are a smoker, you'll pay more for life insurance.

I have no problem suggesting the same for health insurance.

But too many believe they are entitled to low cost insurance, regardless their choices, including choices on the vaccination issue.

Higher health premiums is a legitimate consequence of rejecting vaccination.

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: javacontour
If you don't and your kids get sick, too bad, pay up, don't expect others to pay the costs for your choices.


Therein lies the problem. Since people are lumped into the same insurance risk pool without regard to how they take care of their health, those of us who take care of ourselves and are in excellent health pay for those who choose otherwise.

The people who decide not to vaccinate their children look to people like me to pay for the problems they create. Quite frankly, if I'm paying inflated health care premiums because a group of people choose to be unhealthy, then I reserve the right to dictate terms.

If it really is about freedom then I shouldn't have to bear the costs that unvaccinated kids, smokers, obese people, dope users and other unhealthy, self destructive people create. I'll gladly bear the total costs of my own health care if others will do the same.

 

[jrustles]

Did human beings, or any other animal or biological lifeform, ever evolve with vaccines for any significant period of time?

Or is this a one hundred year old, bizarre social convention with a very alarming past?

 

[Quest]

My 1st son was born at the heightened publicity of Dr. Wakefield's research RE: link between autism and vaccine (or specifically, the carrier used within), but I decided to take the plunge and went for the full fledged vaccination.

Ditto with our 2nd child.

Now, at least the hubbub about Dr. Wakefield is clear and I have no regrets about giving them vaccinations.

I'm looking forward to giving both kids the HPV vaccinations for I believe it's for the sake of both se-xes, not just to protect girls from cervical cancer (but also boys from developing throat cancer, like Michael Douglas).

Me thinks the point of argument (against vaccinaction, esp. from certain geographical region and/or relisious reasoning) is moot, citing the suffering the population once had before the polio vaccination came along (yes, I have seen/some older generations, close relatives, etc. suffered from the aftermath of polio, and also the suffering of menningitis, etc.)

Living on herd-immunity can only go so far. I wish the population here in N.A. has more common sense to that of some Nord countries, where the population had a very, very high rate of vaccinations due to more developed govt health policies.

Q.

 

[Quest]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

But too many believe they are entitled to low cost insurance, regardless their choices, including choices on the vaccination issue.

Higher health premiums is a legitimate consequence of rejecting vaccination.


I agree with that. Afterall: we here in PNW has the healthiest population avail in W. Canada: the least amount of smokers, more health-aware folks who exercise regularly (thus not a lot of big folks around, esp., in dwntwn area), etc.

Folks who just don't think and proactively look after their own health and well-being will lay a heavy burden on the society in terms of welfare benefits, productivity and our health-care systems.

Imaging those who insisted in smoking until they developed cancer, and must stay on/rely on our public healthcare systems on an extended period of time until their times are over, and the associated burden to the rest of the taxpayers, etc.

Methinks this is mostly fueled by pure selfishness.

Q.

 

[javacontour]

I tend to agree with the above comments on much of vaccination, as done in the US being a business decision.

I recall citing the differences between how the US recommends the flu vaccine, which is essentially everyone should get it, while it was either the EU or WHO promoting only those in high risk populations should get a flu vaccine.