Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 i am sincerely at a loss as to why you would have trouble with the basic logic of this position. Quote
ClimbingPanther Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 It will be OK, kimmo, don't stress your poor brain with logic. We really just want to make sure everyone knows that you're statements are generally unfounded and should not be heeded as remotely legitimate medical advice, or better yet not even read in the first place. Quote
JayB Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 would quoting Tom Mack, smallpox expert, USC prof, change the equation? Â Not unless it's embedded within a paper that contains empirical proof sufficient to overwhelm the current scientific consensus concerning vaccines and autism - but go ahead. Â Â Â Quote
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 that comment was somewhat satirical, but a speech by him certainly made interesting reading. nothing to do with autism and vaccines (a specious connection, seemingly); more to do with his vast experience with smallpox in pakistan years ago. his analyses of the disease, the reasons for its periodic proliferation, his thoughts on the future, with or without vaccines for it. Â he also spoke out against the CDC's recent proposal for smallpox vaccinations (as did offit). i think his comments about smallpox have been taken by the "anti-vaccine" crowd as further proof of the non-necessity of vaccines.... Quote
AlpineK Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Just because your mom used to drop you on your head as an infant doesn't make it an acceptable practice for kids these days. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 FYI, I'm a chiropractor and I strongly believe that everyone should receive all of their vaccinations. The notion that babies immune systems will be overtaxed is absurd. 1st the virus and microorganism particles are attenuated or just pieces of the whole...not living. 2nd the second a baby is born it is exposed to about a trillion or so times more organisms than the shots it is about to receive. Study after study has found no link to autism or any harmful side effect, especially when compared to the risk of gettting the illness the shots are for! If your kid gets a disease because you didn't vaccinate him/her you should be put in jail, especially if they wind up infecting others. As for the additives...there isn't enough a.)at once b.) over a period of time to do damage. One friggin' crappy packed meal, water bottle, or outside harmful toxin (like smog or polluted water/fish) will probably triple the neurotoxicity of whatever is in the shot.  There are cases of harmful reactions, but given enough people, you'll find someone allergic to water.  Bottom line. Don't be an asshole, vaccinate your kids  Word.  "Methylmercury is found in low levels in water, infant formula and breast milk. Although it is clear that large quantities of mercury can damage the nervous system, there is no evidence that the small quantities contained in water, infant formula and breast milk do. An infant who is exclusively breastfed will ingest more than twice the quantity of mercury that was ever contained in vaccines and fifteen times the quantity of mercury contained in the influenza vaccine"  http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/hot-topics/thimerosal.html  And that is why its recommended to stick with tuna-free breast milk. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Â Â Hopefully Mommy isn't so fuckin' whacked. Â And, right on time: History of vaccination skepticism Edited January 21, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Kimmo, what exactly are you trying to say? I'm afraid I couldn't come to any of your conclusions based on the links you provided. Strange...  Can't read?  This quote from the CDC from one of Kimmo's links: That’s because the pertussis vaccine loses 15 percent of its effectiveness after the first five years, and drops even moreafter 10 years that it's necessary to get a booster.  So since the vaccine is at best 90% effective (CDC/WHO) and diminishes over time, I'd say the easy math says that at least 90% of the US population that has been properly vaccinated for Pertussis is NOT immune. Hence the call for a booster.  Of course, if you don't have contact with infants, (You know, you don't have any at home or you don't go out in public.) then you won't be risking infecting anyone else. Of course if you don't go out in public you won't risk getting it either. Quote
rob Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 smallpox innoculations may have even won us the revolutionary war. Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 So when are you going to admit what we're talking about here--not to let the thread drift back to its point--the dude out and out lied, it was an obvious lie, still many so-called google experts believed him (and ranted and raved and were otherwise totally full of shit), kids got sick and died, and in the end the asshole got caught. Â Nice, bringing it back to the beginning. The fraud is old news. Â IIRC in Wakefield's defense, he did not advocate getting no vaccines, but recommended getting Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines separately. Also if I recall, part of his whole scheme was to make money on the individual vaccines. So in reality because zealots misinterpreted his recommendations he is to blame? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 So when are you going to admit what we're talking about here--not to let the thread drift back to its point--the dude out and out lied, it was an obvious lie, still many so-called google experts believed him (and ranted and raved and were otherwise totally full of shit), kids got sick and died, and in the end the asshole got caught. Â Nice, bringing it back to the beginning. The fraud is old news. Â IIRC in Wakefield's defense, he did not advocate getting no vaccines, but recommended getting Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines separately. Also if I recall, part of his whole scheme was to make money on the individual vaccines. So in reality because zealots misinterpreted his recommendations he is to blame? Â His scheme was fraud. A lawyer filing anti-vaccine lawsuits greased his palm; causing the UK to revoke his license. It was a scam, plain and simple. Â Â Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) smallpox innoculations may have even won us the revolutionary war. Â The Founding Fathers intended for us all to be vaccinated. Edited January 21, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Generally children and the elderly are more susceptible to such illnesses than adults, and could die. Moreover as the caretaker for a child (who can not make decisions for himself) it is negligent not to protect the child from a preventable, serious illness. If I don't get booster shots for myself, well, I am the one who will bear the brunt of that decision, should I get sick. Â Once again, a little math: Pertussis vaccine is at best 90% effective. (CDC/WHO) Pertussis vaccine loses efficacy over time (CDC/WHO) Â So there is at least a 10% chance that you are not immune and could catch it. It also means that 1 in 10 children you come in contact with (higher if you consider that the vaccine may be only 85% effective, and that infants under 6 months are too young for the vaccine) are not immune. You could catch it and spread it to them, at Safeway for instance, increasing their chances of death. Â So when you make comments like this: Â Any parent that does not vaccinate their kid against that preventable disease should have the CPS pay them a visit. it makes you sound uninformed. Â Â Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 His scheme was fraud. Â Thanks for agreeing with me. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Generally children and the elderly are more susceptible to such illnesses than adults, and could die. Moreover as the caretaker for a child (who can not make decisions for himself) it is negligent not to protect the child from a preventable, serious illness. If I don't get booster shots for myself, well, I am the one who will bear the brunt of that decision, should I get sick. Â Once again, a little math: Pertussis vaccine is at best 90% effective. (CDC/WHO) Pertussis vaccine loses efficacy over time (CDC/WHO) Â So there is at least a 10% chance that you are not immune and could catch it. It also means that 1 in 10 children you come in contact with (higher if you consider that the vaccine may be only 85% effective, and that infants under 6 months are too young for the vaccine) are not immune. You could catch it and spread it to them, at Safeway for instance, increasing their chances of death. Â So when you make comments like this: Â Any parent that does not vaccinate their kid against that preventable disease should have the CPS pay them a visit. it makes you sound uninformed. Â Â Parents who do not vaccinate their children are negligent. Period. Â Â Â Â Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 You were right on one thing, anyway. The rest...pretty hard to tease a cogent point out of it, really. Quote
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 kevbone was dropped repeatedly on his head as a child, clearly nothing can harm kids. Â Hey Me too oh wait.. Quote
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I'm pro vaccine but I'm also busy and lazy. That said my daughter is certainly up to date on all of her vaccines. Â Quote
rob Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Generally children and the elderly are more susceptible to such illnesses than adults, and could die. Moreover as the caretaker for a child (who can not make decisions for himself) it is negligent not to protect the child from a preventable, serious illness. If I don't get booster shots for myself, well, I am the one who will bear the brunt of that decision, should I get sick. Â Once again, a little math: Pertussis vaccine is at best 90% effective. (CDC/WHO) Pertussis vaccine loses efficacy over time (CDC/WHO) Â So there is at least a 10% chance that you are not immune and could catch it. It also means that 1 in 10 children you come in contact with (higher if you consider that the vaccine may be only 85% effective, and that infants under 6 months are too young for the vaccine) are not immune. You could catch it and spread it to them, at Safeway for instance, increasing their chances of death. Â So when you make comments like this: Â Any parent that does not vaccinate their kid against that preventable disease should have the CPS pay them a visit. it makes you sound uninformed. Â Â 90% is better than 0%. Is that all you got? Pertussis is not 100% effective, therefore avoid vaccines? Quote
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 i'd find out what my kid was allergic to, wait, try a single shot, and go from there  a reasonable approach. although knowing if your kid is allergic to vaccine cultures is problematic until actually administering a vaccine.  btw, have you had your booster for pertussis?  I wish there were a "stupid" vaccine.  Your responses, which is what we have to go by here, indicate a lack of comprehension of the science of the issue.  every time you make something idiot proof, they just come out with a better idiot. Quote
rob Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Hell, seatbelts are not 100% effective either, I guess we should stop strapping infants in. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) When I see a baby I run the other direction. They frighten me. Edited January 21, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Hell, seatbelts are not 100% effective either, I guess we should stop strapping infants in. Â I'm a firm believer that we should re-institute survival of the fittest for everyone over 18. No more seatbelt laws for adults, no more warning labels on toothpaste. If you can kill yourself with tootpaste, you really shouldn't procreate.... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Hell, seatbelts are not 100% effective either, I guess we should stop strapping infants in. Â Â It's also true that just because you are exposed to an illness it is not 100% you will get it. Guess you should forgo the vaccination and "take a chance" (kind of like Russian Roulette). Â There's more to this than an individual's susceptibility to an illness. If the vaccine is effective for a large majority the laws of probability kick in and the spread of an illness is vastly reduced. If everyone is unvaccinated, it is easier to spread the illness and do so quickly. Â Is the smallpox vaccine 100% for all people? Because interestingly enough that illness was wiped off the planet thanks to the vaccine (except for a few government deep freezers...). And smallpox also requires booster shots for immunity. Â Â Â Â Quote
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Kimmo 1st rule of holes... when you're in one, stop digging. Â Everyone else remember the rule about wrestling with pigs. You get muddy and they like it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.