vaccines
 

what do you know about vaccines? are you for or agin them? are they just a money maker for the pharm. co's that have to keep coming up with more vaccines each year in order to maintain profits? or are they actually useful? those of you with young ones should do your homework before allowing the doctors to do what they do just because they're doctors.....remember that if you combine pharmaceutical errors and malpractice, the health industry is the leading cause of death in this country.

only a small handful of them are really necessary...the rest may benefit the elderly or the weak, but are marketed to everybody..Ofcourse it's a MONEY thing...I've never gotten a flu shot..I haven't had the flu in 6 years. Half the people I know who got the flu shot got sick because of the shot........This is a little off topic, but I think it relates: I was a veterinary technician for a couple of years. The vets encouraged pet owners to come in every single year, because dogs/cats absolutely HAD to have their distemper shot or they would be at a SERIOUS risk...yeah right. the vaccine companies were sending literature to the vet, saying that the vaccines were being retested and that they actually only had to be given only every 3 years, and if given more often, they would make the pet be at a risk for tumors...well, the vets still are telling people to come on in every year and get those shots, because it brings them profit, and if the animal gets a tumor, well, even better...more profit. If there weren't any sick people then doctors wouldn't make any money...one more thing, the more you go, doesn't it seem the more unhealthier you are?

yeah, more unhealthier.

and if the vets act that way, i think that human medicine, being more organized and "corporatized" would practice this philosophy a thousand fold.

we were refused treatment by our first pediatrician because we declined the MMR vaccine ( the one that "allegedly" causes a high incidence of autism)

med practices have to maintain a certain ratio of vaccinated/unvaccinated patients to recieve the assistance they get from the gov't. we had to listen to a 25 year old pediatrician tell us how many kids she's seen die from the mumps......give me a mutha effin break.....please. she's never seen a case of the mumps, much less a death.....

That polio vaccine was way overrated.

The whole thing against vaccines sounds like a big conspiracy to me. (Slang?) I haven't looked at any new studies in a while, but from what I've seen, the medical evidence thus far shows that they are far more helpful than harmful. And with the way the world is today, you never know who has a vial of what.

Imagine if we all had smallpox vaccinations...we probably wouldn't be as pressed about someone getting a hold of it.

It kind of rubbed me the wrong way when we had to give the kids the chicken pox vaccine. They don't know with any certainty that a lifelong immunity will develop from it so there is a possibility that they'll contract the disease as adults when its dangerous rather than now when its annoying.

Vaccines...well, I hear both sides of the issue (for and against), and half of the time I don't know what to think. I haven't had a vaccine shot of anything in a while. I'm a bit nervous now since being on peritoneal dialysis about how a flu shot would affect me. :worried:

The chicken pox vaccine was the one that made us start questioning all vaccines, mostly just becuase it seemed unnecessary. We wondered if any others were unnecessary. A quick browse thru the cdc'c statistical rolodex of morbidity and mortality showed us that our healthy middle class white kids weren't at much of a risk for catching, much less experiencing serious complications from most childhood illnesses. However, a look thru the vaers database showed us that vaccines do have very real side effects, from minor (and usually masked by the prescribed post vaccine tylenol dose) to death, and everything in between.
Obvious medical/pharaceutical conspiracies aside, we decided to keep our kids healthy (with diet and lifestyle), instead of just not sick (with injected chemicals, known toxins and carcinogens, and unknown viruses inherent in the animal material used in vaccine manufacture (no sv-40 for us, thanks)).

why does god kill a kitten when you use margarine?

Vaccines are like catastrophic-injury health insurance; the odds that you're going to be on the bullseye at any given time are extremely small, but should you hit the unlucky lottery, you're much better off with the vaccine than without.

The vaccination <-> risk of autism connection (or lack thereof, depending on whose side you hear) is something I'd really like to know more about before I start pounding out any kids.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4311613.stm

"Scientists say they have strong evidence that the MMR vaccination is not linked to a rise in autism."

Wow, a peer-reviewed article in the highly respected Lancet might be incorrect?

beestie - do i have to draw you a graph, or can i just tell you to shut up?

I agree with Jinx, the chicken pox vaccine was the only one that got us. When it was first presented it was a voluntary thing which our Dr. said was not 100% and it was not certain if a booster would be needed in 10 years. When we went back with our son it was mandatory for entrance into the school system. Neither of our children has had chicken pox (bummer, I suppose). I would've rather they had the actual virus and not the vaccine as their antibodies would be more built up.

I did have chicken pox when I was a kid and about 10 years ago I had shingles (same virus which lies dormant in a nerve until something triggers it). :eek:

I read somewhere a theory that the reason so many kids today get a lot of ear infections (which kids in my generation rarely had), allergies, and other little "bugs" is because they get vaccinated for everything, they don't get measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc., so their immune system never fights those illnesses and gets built up. Anyone heard anything similar to that...?
Luckily, when I took my daughter for her 15 month shots, I told them that she was acting kind of sick and I had a doctor appointment scheduled for her. They decided to wait another month to give her the shots, since they don't give them to a child if they're very sick. As it turned out, she was diagnosed with neuroblastoma, a childhood cancer, and her immune system was already bottomed out. Had she gotten the shots, she could have developed one or more of the diseases that she was being vaccinated against, and it could have even been fatal. She didn't survive the cancer, but I did get to have her until she was 2 1/2 years old, which probably wouldn't have happened if she'd gotten her 15 month shots. At the very least, there would have been serious complications.
Everyone needs to know how important it is that their kids do not get vaccines when they are sick!
There are some folks who home school their children mainly because they refuse to get them the vaccines that public school requires.

Brett's Honey, my heart goes out to you for losing your daughter, and am happy to hear that you got more time with her than you might have. When we took our daughter for her shots (I don't see anything wrong with them) the chicken pox was optional. I opted out of it. I had them as a kid, VERY mild case, and my hubby has never had them despite being put in bed with a brother who did, to try to get him to get them. I usually get the flu shot because (until this years 'shortage') they were free thru work, and I figure it can't hurt. Didn't get one this year, yet didn't get influenza despite nursing my 2 yr old thru a very nasty case. I should have been sick as many times as I was coughed on :)

I only got them what the school system required. Let the immune system do the job it was made to do.

Also, use of those "hand sanitizers" and overuse of antibiotics is hurting us more than helping us. My Husband refuses to take antibiotics, and will gladly suffer through weeks of fever and sickness rather than give in and take the damn pills.

He gets sick way less often than I do, so I'm really starting to wonder if there's something to it.

Side note: He lost his first daughter at 3 days old because she had a strep infection when she was born. This may be why he is like this now.

I thought overuse of antibiotics promoted the development of new strains of bacteria. So if I don't use them properly and a new strain of TB is created as a result, your husband's past refusal to take antibiotics will have been for naught as he is no "stronger" against the new strain than I am.

The problem is a collective one. And even if they are used properly there is still no guarantee that a new strain won't develop that is resistant to the antibiotic used to treat it.

Mutations and adaptation will always supply the world with new drug-resistant strains of bacteria.

It's not for naught. Once he has endured his infection of a given strain, his body now has the ability to fight it off. That's not true if he took the antibiotics.

Agreed.

That's the most important reason not to overuse antibiotics, but on a personal level, your immune system does strengthen with use.

I believe that it is true in either event. Once his body finds the T-Cell, he's immune from that point forward regardless of whether he took an antibiotic or not. Since most antibiotics are ten day doses, not including the incubation period, his body probably had more than 2 weeks to find the T-Cell and, therefore, develop an immunity.

I think the "strength training for immune systems" theory has merit for kids, I'm not sure how valid it is for full-grown adults.

But, I readily admit that I'm no expert and will defer to those with more expertise.

Why not just occasionally lick a handrail?

I just hang out with mental patients with poor personal hygiene.

I haven't taken a sick day (for cold symptoms) in years.

I'm about to eat lunch, dude :vomit:

I'm medically unenlightened, but it seems to me that not taking antibiotics could possibly help when the mutated bugs came along. Your system, having developed antibodies to the old strain, has a more advantageous "starting point" in the fight against the new strain..right? Or is there no correlation?

I believe that people who live in modern clean environments with access to antibiotics and antimicrobal soap, etc. have generally weaker immune systems than people who live primitively. However, people who live primitively get sick and die more frequently. So there you go. Take your pick.

You don't have to take your pick really, you can use resources and common sense. Washing your hands with soap and (clean) water after you use the bathroom and before you prepare food is good - antibacterial soap is bad, as is skipping the washing altogether. Not letting your child lick the floor at McDonalds is a good idea, injecting them with GE virii, antifreeze and monkey blood to make them healthy... not so much.

Don't know if this is still a popular theory. But a few years ago there was research into whether one or more of the childhood vaccines had anything to do with the rise in autoimmune diseases.

There's a whole raft of these things, Crohn's disease (which I have), MS, Lupus, and Type 1A diabetes are all autoimmune diseases and they have all risen dramatically since the 1950s - about when they started automatically giving infants immunizations.

Well, another thing has cropped up. Apparently, autism is on the rise. From one in several thousand in the late 80s to one in 166 at present.

Screw vaccines, eat a magic nose goblin.
 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this little tidbit from over the summer. It was quite the hot topic at dinner tables worldwide for a few days.

Deadly Immunity

vaccines can be legally avoided

The medical establishment and the government would have you believe that the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the risks. The following links have information that will surprise and probably scare you. Their intent is to alert you to the dark side of vaccinations so that you can make an informed choice.

I think vaccines reak havoc on the immune system.
It's not just a problem with people, either.

At the vet I worked for 6 years ago, the vaccine companies were sending information to the veterinarians about how vaccinating every year isn't necessary and was causing tumors, cancer and immune system dysfunction, etc. The vets basically tossed it in the trash and kept urging people to bring their pets in for their yearly vaccines.

I could go on and on about this, but this post would get too long for anyone to read. Let's just say think for yourself- question authority, and yes, it's all about money.

Don't dismiss the millions and millions of people that have died from diseases we don't consider a problem anymore. Even today, people are dying in droves from things like the flu, in some parts of the world. :eyebrow:
I can remember very well the terror of Polio every summer. Had friends felled by it.

Right. But don't dismiss improvements in medicine, sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. Or the effects, known and unknown, of vaccine ingredients on the body. First, do no harm.

Disease is a symptom. You can treat the symptom, but another disease will take its place.

"The pathogen is nothing. The terrain is everything."
Louis Pasteur

I'd had more vaccinations than most, I spend more and more time in relatively inhospitable (medically) locations so the list includes HepA, B, Typhoid, Polio, Japanese Encephalitis, Rabies amongst others (at my arms at times have looked like a junkie) and plenty of courses of various antimalarials. As well as all the usual childhood ones. Has it done me any harm? Not that I'm aware of. Has any of them saved my ass? Possibly, I'll never know. That's the killer (ha. ha.) There's a fair chance I'd have caught malaria, I've had a few friends that have and it's not pretty. At the end of the day it is a risk calculation. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather take that risk than die of something that was completely preventable.

I have a pretty bulletproof immune system, partly the result I think of exposure to less-than-fantastic sanitation on a semi-regular basis.

i'm for them, and there is a new menigitis vaccine that is being recommended for teens:
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25208

I don't have a big problem with vaccines although we truly don't know enough about them and their side effects (allergies?). I think it is unwise that we cocktail childhood vaccines because we don't trust parents to come back to their dr. Of course my entire family unit is taking a dose of chloriquine (sp?) tonight... If it turns out we've given autism to a generation of kids because we really do not know what we're doing the trial lawyers are going to have a field day. If it turns out "we" knew I am going to support the death penalty.

Usually "we knew" means someone made a risk analysis. The question for me is whether it was made against the disease or the profit/liability. :eyebrow:

Call me a cynic, but I think its very obviously a financial issue. As this article explained, the use of thimerisol allows for a multi-dose vial which is cheaper than a single dose vial. That's the bottom line. There is no liability because of the 1986 law that created the NVICP (which paid out over a billion dollars in damages in taxpayer, not pharma co. money, in it's first 10 years).
DTP was cheaper to produce (by $9 a dose) than DTaP, and so its production/use was delayed in this country for decades despite the fact that the whole cell version contained toxins which caused brain damage and/or death in significant numbers. Same with OPV vs. IPV. OPV was the only cause of polio in this country for almost 20 years - but IPV costs nearly twice as much to produce.
Despite the costs, thimerisol has been [mostly/kinda/sorta] removed from vaccines, DTaP is the standard now, as is IPV... all with the assurance that there was nothing really wrong with the old versions. Yeah. Coughbullshitcough.

OPV is more effective than IPV, so it's not quite that simple.

Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005
 

S1873 and HR3970

This is lovely little bill, brought to us by Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the HELP Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness creates a true partnership between the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry. Essentially it would strip Americans of the right to a trial by jury if harmed by an experimental or licensed drug or vaccine that they are forced by government to take, whenever federal health officials declare a public health emergency.









Keep in mind that liability protection for vaccine makers, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed way back in 1986.


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgobblins, all of them imaginary" - H.L. Mencken

WHAT!?

Where did you get this info, Jinx? Can you give us a link? Un-fucking-believable! Such a step would be very bad science, horrendous medicine, and totalitarian government. I want to know more about this, so I can write the Colorado delgation in DC (for whatever good it will do)! :mad:

From here.

Thanks, Jinx. I like this part, too:

[Struck out->] `(3) CERTAIN COST PRINCIPLES AND COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost principles set forth under part 31 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, the cost accounting standards set forth under chapter 99 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, and the requirement for the submission of certified cost and pricing information under section 304A of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254b), shall not apply to any contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction entered into under the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-276).'. [<-Struck out]

So in other words, pharmaceutical and bio-tech companies can spend to their heart's content to the moon and beyond, be accountable to no one for the money they use, develop vaccines and drugs that no one knows about, experiment with these products on the rest of us, and not be responsible for whom they kill or injure in the process.

Saddam should have had it so good! :mad2:

Anybody feel safer?

Doesn't "struck out" mean it's been removed from the bill? :confused:

Jinx, post 40 has 4 quotes. They don't sound like they come from the bill. Where do they come from....who is saying this...er, that?

So one would think, Bruce, and in fact, at the very beginning of the bill it states that those parts marked "struck out" will be replaced by the following parts written in italics. Here's the italics for the part I quoted:

`(3) CERTAIN COST PRINCIPLES AND COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost principles set forth under part 31 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, the cost accounting standards set forth under chapter 99 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, and the requirement for the submission of certified cost and pricing information under section 304A of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254b), shall not apply to any contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction entered into under the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-276).'.

Looks the same to me. :eyebrow:

Did you go to the link? Is the entire bill removed from the bill then? That would be great...

Sorry Bruce, I was all over the place looking for info on this thing... NVIC, CNN, a white house press release.... I can look the links back up later if you want but I gotta head for school now.

I WISH the entire bill had been struck out - far from it. You have to scroll all the way down to the end and read the stuff in italics which is the revised bill as it now stands. Here's the italics for what you quoted, Jinx:

`(i) IN GENERAL- No cause of action shall exist against a person described in subsection (a) for claims for loss of property, personal injury, or death arising out of, reasonably relating to, or resulting from the design, development, clinical testing and investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or use of a security countermeasure or qualified pandemic or epidemic product distributed, sold, purchased, donated, dispensed, prescribed, administered, or used in anticipation of and preparation for, in defense against, or in response to, or recovery from an actual or potential public health emergency that is a designated security countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product by the Secretary in a declaration described in paragraph (2).

`(ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- For purposes of this section, the phrase `arising out of, reasonably relating to, or resulting from' shall not be construed to apply to loss of property, personal injury, or death that has no alleged or potential causal relationship with the design, development, clinical testing and investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or use of a product described in clause (i).

Nope, this nasty little bill is still working its way through Congress. :mad:

No, that's not what she quoted. That's probably what the quotes were referring to but her quotes were not in the legalese of a bill(law).
That's why I asked who was being quoted. :confused:

Sorry again Bruce, my bad. Too late to edit so, 1 & 2 are from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the second is Barbara Loe Fisher, President. Fisher is a voting member of the FDA vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
The third is George Bush.
The forth is from a CNN article.

The part I quoted from the actual bill appears to be the same with or without italics.

Great, thanks Jinx. I wanted to pass it along but I was sure to be questioned on the sources. Many won't wade through and try to interpret the legalese of the bill itself, at least until they're fired up. ;)