REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Sunday, December 31, 2006 05:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5059
PAGE 1 of 4

Sunday, December 3, 2006 6:46 AM

CANTTAKESKY


This is a continuation of the thread "Mandatory Vaccinations vs. right to choose" found here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494

There is a stereotype that those who do not vaccinate are ill-informed, superstitious intellectual hillbillies. What if they are actually educated or have suffered vaccine injuries/death or have genuine religious objections? Would you support their right to choose?

Let me throw out a new question. Specifically, of the following people, who should have the choice not to vaccinate? Some of them? None of them? All of them?

All these people are real non-vaccinating folks I've come across (not hypotheticals). Medical exemptions are not available for any of them.

-------
1. A mother has 2 autistic children who developed autism shortly after vaccination (they were completely social and interactive and normal before). She does not want to take that chance with her third child, and chose not to vaccinate.

2. The father is an MD, PhD (in immunology and physiology if I remember correctly), and the mother is an MPH (Masters of Public Health) getting her doctorate in Public Health. I have not met 2 people more highly educated on the question of vaccination. They do not say they will never vaccinate, but they had not vaccinated their 4 and 6 year olds yet, and did not intend to in the near future.

3. A Christian who believes God made our bodies with natural defenses against that should be supported by natural means, not vaccines with toxic ingredients. She also believes vaccines mess with a natural balance in the world that God has created.

4. A father believes that the government and pharm companies use vaccines, among other instruments, to make people sicker and more dependent on them.

5. A chemistry professor (PhD) and his chemist wife (MS, also teaches college) decide they will not vaccinate because of toxic ingredients in vaccines and because there is no good science proving that vaccines are effective or safe.

6. Amish people often eschew modern medical practices as well as other modern technology. Many of them do not vaccinate as part of their religious lifestyle, though there are increasing numbers who are choosing to vaccinate.
---------

If your answer is to grant choice to some of these people, but not to all, please explain why.

P.S. I'm still hammering away at the smallpox issue. Sorry for the delay.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
As well consult a butcher on the value of vegetarianism as a doctor on the worth of vaccination.
--George Bernard Shaw



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 3, 2006 10:01 PM

TKID


If someone is unwilling to get vaccinated there is little that can currently be done about them. The exception would be in some sort of plague situation where forced isolation of those who refuse preventative medical treatment can be initiated.

So long as you're willing to take the risks inherent with refusing vaccinations and agree to pay out of your pocket for any treatment necessary if you get sick from something that a vaccine could have prevented, I don't really care whether or not you get vaccinated.

I feel sorry for any kids who get sick/die of something they could have been vaccinated against, but otherwise ... meh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 4, 2006 5:01 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by tkid:
If someone is unwilling to get vaccinated there is little that can currently be done about them.

You can be prohibited from attending school in 2 states. In the other 48, you can claim a religious exemption. So whether one's refusal to vaccinate has to do with religion or not, one has to come up with a religious excuse for not vaccinating in order to send an unvaccinated kid to school. School includes public school, private school, and daycare.

The AMA wants to rescind all religious exemptions from all states. That is, the AMA wants to prevent all unvaccinated children (except for those who qualify for medical exemptions) from going to school.

I should clarify my question: Should any of the above people be allowed to refuse vaccination and still go to school? If so, which of those people would you allow to be exempt? Do you agree with the AMA that none of them should be allowed to attend school?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
To rely on the drug companies for unbiased evaluations of their products makes about as much sense as relying \on beer companies to teach us about alcoholism.
--Marcia Angell, MD, Executive Director, New England Journal of Medicine

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 4, 2006 8:40 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Has Smallpox Been Eradicated?

According to the WHO, the last case of smallpox occurred in 1977. In 1980, the WHO announced the first successful eradication of a disease/virus. By 1982, most countries had discontinued mass vaccination of smallpox.

There are two clinical presentations of smallpox: variola major and variola minor. They both have identical symptoms, but variola major is more severe and has a much higher mortality rate (reported at 25%) than variola minor (reported at 1%). The viruses that cause variola major and variola minor (also known as alastrim) can be distinguished in sequence analyses of genetic material (PCR assays). They both belong to the genus Orthopoxvirus, which also includes cowpow, camelpox, monkeypox, and vaccinia (the virus of unknown origin used in smallpox vaccines).

One of the characteristics of smallpox that made eradication conceivable is that smallpox is believed to have no animal reservoir; that is, it has no animal carriers. When the disease disappeared among humans, there is no fear that humans will be one day reinfected from an animal carrier.

In recent years, that fear is being revisited under the name of human monkeypox. Monkeypox produces a clinical disease indistinguishable from smallpox (8), described as of intermediate severity between variola minor and variola major (10). See pictures (4). The monkeypox virus can be distinguished with PCR assays (sequence analyses of genetic material).

Monkeypox was first identified in an outbreak amongst laboratory monkeys in 1958. It was first thought to be confined to lab monkeys and unknown in wild monkeys. In the 70's, smallpox was waning, smallpox-like outbreaks occurred in various smallpox-free regions of West and Central Africa. (12) They were identified as cases of human monkeypox, and the presence of monkeypox in wildlife was confirmed. (8) No one was particularly worried because it was believed that monkeypox required an animal vector and human-to-human transmission was negligible.

From 1981 to 1986, 338 cases of monkeypox were reported in the DRC, with a mortality rate of 9.8% amongst persons unvaccinated for smallpox. (1) In 1996-97, an outbreak of 511 cases of monkeypox occurred in the Dem. Rep. of the Congo (DRC) with a fatality ratio of 1.5% (2). In June 2003, six midwestern states in the USA experienced an outbreak of 71 cases of monkeypox (3).

Is monkeypox a variant of smallpox?

Some question whether monkeypox might fill an ecological vacancy left by smallpox (4). Others question whether monkeypox will cause more
human-to-human transmissions in addition to having an animal reservoir, which is a worse scenario than the original smallpox. (5)

I question why monkeypox is not called simine variola. [After all, there is ovine variola (sheep) and caprine variola (goats).] What exactly is so different between monkeypox and the two variola viruses that makes monkeypox a separate species instead of a variant of the variola species? That is the question I am still researching.

Monkeypox causes the same clinical disease as smallpox. It causes deaths, like smallpox. It is reported to respond to the smallpox vaccine, like smallpox.

Compare the case definitions provided by the CDC:
Smallpox case definition: An illness with acute onset of fever >101°F (38.3°C) followed by a rash characterized by firm, deep seated vesicles or pustules in the same stage of development without other apparent cause. Plus PCR assays.(6)
Monkeypox case definition. Rash (macular, papular, vesicular, or pustular;
generalized or localized; discrete or confluent), Fever (subjective or measured temperature of ?99.3°F [?37.4°C]). Plus PCR assays. (7)

Sure, monkeypox has clinical variations, but variola major itself causes clinical variations such as flat rash (instead of raised pustules) and hemorraghic smallpox. Sure, it requires PCR assays to distinguish it from variola viruses, but variola minor requires PCR assays to distinguish it from variola major. The fact that both types of variola have some genetic differences doesn't keep them from being both identified as "variola."

Wolfgang Joklik, Professor of Microbiology at Duke University Medical School, made an interesting comment when he argued against destroying the last two stocks of the variola virus in Atlanta and Moscow.(11)
Quote:

the destruction of smallpox in its two established locations provides only an illusory increment of safety because at least three additional potential sources of smallpox still exist. First, there are the cadavers of smallpox patients preserved in permafrost...Second, it is possible that the smallpox virus-containing specimens collected during the smallpox eradication campaign still exist, unclaimed and unidentified...Third, monkeypox virus causes a disease similar to smallpox...The major difference monkeypox virus and smallpox virus is that the monkeypox virus is transmitted poorly in humans...There is a distinct possibility that replacement of a single monkeypox virus gene with a corresponding smallpox virus gene could result in a virus with all the virulence characteristics for humans as the smallpox virus itself....In summary, the destruction of the smallpox virus isolates in the high-security laboratories in Atlanta and Moscow does not remove the threat of smallpox from the world.

How much human-to-human transmission is involved in monkeypox? Some researchers say that monkeypox is not as infectious as smallpox. To compare one has to examine infectiousness in both disease. Human-to-human transmission was reported for up to four generations for monkeypox (1), which makes monkeypox more infectious than some would believe. On the other hand, "smallpox is not as infectious as its reputation would suggest. Whether in Punjab, Bengal, or Europe, variola major was almost always transmitted at the bedside of the source, not at an external location." (9) One has to take into account that if smallpox were to exist today, with heightened awareness and better sanitation, it also may not be as infectious as it used to be. Using the bubonic plague as a model, it is easy to see how a highly infectious disease that killed a large portion of previous populations could retreat into an animal reservoir, only to sporadically infect humans today with very low transmission rates (12). The difference between monkeypox transmission and smallpox transmission may not be as large as currently believed.

The biggest difference I have found between monkeypox and smallpox is that monkeypox has an animal reservoir, and smallpox is believed to not have one.


Does smallpox have an animal reservoir in monkey, rodents, and camels?

In 1964, routine processing of lab monkeys in the Netherlands found two viruses indistinguishable from variola. They were called "whitepox" because when injected into chick embryos, they caused white pocks. In 1976, researchers found smallpox antibodies and isolated 4 viruses in monkeys and rodents in Central Africa that were indistinguishable from variola minor. They were added to the list of whitepox viruses found. (13) Russian researchers also found that when monkeypox was introduced to chick embryos, they cause the characteristic white pocks; they published 4 papers on monkeypox-derived whitepox. (16, 17, 18, 19) In 1972, researchers found a virus in camels in Iran that were indistinguishable from variola major, and concluded that more research was needed to rule out camels as an animal reservoir for smallpox. (12, 21)

Since it is a tenet of eradication that variola could not possibly be carried by animals, and there is always a possibility of laboratory contamination, some researchers concluded these whitepox viruses must be genuine variola that contaminated samples and did not actually occur in the animals tested.(14) These same researchers published findings that monkeypox-derived whitepox are distinguishable from original whitepox viruses upon closer DNA mapping. (20)

Every expert and authority will tell you without hesitation that smallpox does not have an animal reservoir. Smallpox has been eradicated. What we are facing now is monkeypox, which is a different species of virus. Even if the answers to my questions are resounding "NO's," the fact is we are still experiencing a clinical
disease identical to smallpox in outbreaks, which is still scarring and killing humans. As one observer said, it might matter to scientists that it is a different virus, but it doesn't much matter to victims.(15)

Quote:

"I hate to be accused of pushing the alarmist button, but for practical purposes, smallpox is back," says virologist Peter Jahrling of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Maryland.(5)


(1) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1988/Vol66-No4/bulletin_1988_66(4)_4
65-470.pdf

(2) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00050245.htm
(3) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5227a5.htm
(4) http://tinyurl.com/ygwcde
(5) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/277/5324/312?ijkey=ceb903ae
a13cb347361f83fef1081db02555513b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

(6) http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/diagnosis/casedefinition.asp
(7) http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/monkeypox/casedefinition.htm
(8) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1976/Vol53/Vol53-No4/bulletin_1976_5
3(4)_355-360.pdf

"In humans, the disease cannot be clinically distinguished from smallpox without isolation and characterization of the virus...The serological results provide the first laboratory evidence of a monkeypox reservoir in wild monkeys."
(9) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/5/460
(10) http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/643 (content is from text, not abstract). "The severity of monkeypox is intermediate between that of variola major and variola minor, with approximately 60% of the cases requiring medical care and an overall case-fatality rate of 1-13%."
(11) WK Joklik, B Moss, BN Fields, DH Bishop, and LS Sandakhchiev. Why the smallpox virus stocks should not be destroyed. Science 19 November 1993 262: 1225-1226. (No link available.)
(12) V Scheibner. Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research. New Atlantean Press, 1993.
(13) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1976/Vol53/Vol53-No4/bulletin_1976_5
3(4)_347-353.pdf

(14) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1982/Vol60-No3/bulletin_1982_60(3)_3
81-387.pdf

(15) http://www.whale.to/v/gaublomme4.html
(16) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d
opt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=213730&query_hl=28&itool=pubmed_docsum

(17) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d
opt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=91589&query_hl=28&itool=pubmed_docsum

(18) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d
opt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=35952&query_hl=28&itool=pubmed_docsum

(19) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d
opt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=211732&query_hl=28&itool=pubmed_docsum

(20) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d
opt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6248794&query_hl=28&itool=pubmed_docsum

(21) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pu
bmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=4117382



(I apologize for taking so long to post this. The more I researched, the more questions I had, and the deeper I went digging for the answers. I ended up reading every single original paper I was able to find, which took a while.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
All propaganda is a lie even when it's telling the truth.
--George Orwell


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 6:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'll get back to this at some point. I've been busy - got the main waterline replaced, signed a contract to landscape the front yard (my design, but the architect thinks it's good and the city approves - drought tolerant, low maintenance, bird-friendly and complete plant coverage - it's awesome, I'll be doing the heave-ho work), doing the holidays, and ... working ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 10:07 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Saw two interesting articles related to this discussion today, and had some thoughts I figure worth sharing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_he_me/research_ethics

This first one involves a federal researcher and some pretty damned harsh conflict of interest issues, something all too common, and mostly unenforced, particularly with the FDA.

http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/2005/02/24/cx_mh_0224fda.htm
l

http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/washington/17fda.html?
ex=1318737600&en=3b306118bd436f4d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(last link spaced to avoid window stretch)

The FDA in particular has had problems with conflict of interest concerning vaccine approval.
http://www.wcanews.com/archives/2000/Nov/nov0600e.htm

The whole Rotavirus "vaccine" mess left carnage in it's wake, and thus this Hep B vacc looks suspiciously similar with insufficient research, and more of a solution in need of a problem than anything else.

One good result is that due to conflicts of interest, and the CDC's seeming unwillingness to do much about them, they may well be in for a taste of real oversight by a seperate agency (although adding yet another bloat-a-bereau makes me just cringe at the thought) if only to inspect and verify their research.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219538,00.html

And now, the realllly interesting part.
You'll note, at the bottom that this story has been "re-edited" to the party line, that 'no clear evidence' exists, in spite of the story mentioning an independant study that does conclude a link.
Not really an issue, as newspapers as a general rule these days tend to avoid rocking boats, but what jumped out at me was this line, in respect to the second story I saw today.
Quote:

Still, Weldon questions whether the CDC's conclusions are based on enough sound, objective research, particularly in the area of mercury. Up until 2000, mercury-based thimerosal was used in all childhood vaccines as a preservative. Many blamed it for an increase in emerging autism cases.

Pharmaceutical companies stopped using thimerosal six years ago upon the recommendation of the federal government, even though the government never gave official acknowledgement that mercury levels in vaccines could cause developmental problems in children.

Government officials said that infants had not been exposed to high enough levels of mercury through the thimerosal, but its removal was done as "a precaution."


Sooo... no more Thimerosal, right ?

Wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061205/cm_usatoday/whyyourchildneed
saflushot


Now this just creeps me out, it really does come off as a (albeit well-meant) propaganda piece, and either this guy is woefully misinformed, which given his employment, he should not be - or they're still using Thimerosal in spite of the statement above - it'd be within reason to want to know which that is.

What really, totally creeps me is this -
Quote:

Indeed, recent studies have indicated that the shot might be less effective in children younger than 2 because of weaker immune reactions. Two shots appear to be necessary to achieve comparable results.

Did I just hear that correctly ? It doesn't work, so double the dose?!
This in spite of some damned good research which seems to conclude that the flu shot is all but worthless in children 2 and under.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912

I dunno, but it really doesn't strike ME as a good idea, just on common sense grounds.

And I doubt it's ever been researched, but with the callous, cattle-car, assembly line style of much modern medical practice, especially among state providers and/or providers who deal mainly with the poor, there's also cause to wonder about psychological trauma being inflicted with potentive long-lasting effects.
(Good site relative to this http://www.needlephobia.info/ )
This can manifest into a downright avoidance or automatic hostile response to medical personnel, so no matter where you stand, THAT issue should be considered and somehow dealt with in advance.

Proper nutrition and hygeine are also a factor in flu resistance, and should not be neglected in either case, also.

It just seems so much like a lottery to me, also - say, you get the flu shot, assume the risks... now IF you come into contact with the flu, AND it's a strain within a reasonable range similar to the one you've been protected against (no guarantee that) AND it hasn't mutated to overcome that resistance, you MIGHT throw it off.... hmm, I think i'll take my vitamin C and go wash my hands after counting the passengers money, prolly do about as much good.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 5:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CTS - I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

The pox viruses are genetically and antigenically distinct from each other. Variola viruses are most similar to camelpox, and more dissimilar with monkeypox. That is why monkeypox isn't put in the same family as variola.

Smallpox in an immunologically naive population - like the N and S American Indians - is a highly communicable and devastating disease. It wiped out an estimated 95 - 99% of Indians.

As we know from 'bird flu', viruses need to attach to cell receptors to infect the host. If the virus has the (genetically determined) proteins to attach to only one species its range of hosts will be limited. That is why smallpox virus (as determined by PCR) infects only humans. OTHER pox viruses with demonstrably different genetics do have a different host range.

Not anything to do with anything, but I find it interesting in general that viruses can seem to come out of nowhere. At the time, the flu pandemic of 1917 was just as mysterious in its sudden appearance as the "English sweating sickness" 1485 - 1551. (But with its recency to modern technology, the virus that caused the 1917 pandemic has had its geneology traced. So one great mystery has now been reduced to showing its humble origins.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 11:49 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Indeed, recent studies have indicated that the shot might be less effective in children younger than 2 because of weaker immune reactions. Two shots appear to be necessary to achieve comparable results.

Did I just hear that correctly ? It doesn't work, so double the dose?!

No you didn't, you heard what you wanted to hear. It says that in young children it is half as effective so to achieve the same results as in older children you have to double the dose.

No where does it say it doesn't work.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 12:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

No where does it say it doesn't work.


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912

I love how you demand I dig up the evidence, and then arbitrarily dismiss out of hand stuff I spent hours digging up, either look at it, or quit asking for it.

Also, this current hard push for flu shots right now, go have a gander at their reasoning behind it, look for yourself at what they are saying.

All doubletalk aside, THIS is the reasoning behind it.

"If pharma companies don't make enough profit, they won't stockpile the stuff, in case we have a pandemic or emergency."

Tell me, is Big Pharma's profit a substantive reason to give children without significant risk factors these shots ?
Especially children under 23 months, in whom it has virtually NO effect ?
And since it has virtually no effect, you should shoot em up twice ?

Pardon me if I think that whole chain of logic sucks.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 12:39 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

No where does it say it doesn't work.


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912

I love how you demand I dig up the evidence, and then arbitrarily dismiss out of hand stuff I spent hours digging up, either look at it, or quit asking for it.

Also, this current hard push for flu shots right now, go have a gander at their reasoning behind it, look for yourself at what they are saying.

All doubletalk aside, THIS is the reasoning behind it.

"If pharma companies don't make enough profit, they won't stockpile the stuff, in case we have a pandemic or emergency."

Tell me, is Big Pharma's profit a substantive reason to give children without significant risk factors these shots ?
Especially children under 23 months, in whom it has virtually NO effect ?
And since it has virtually no effect, you should shoot em up twice ?

Pardon me if I think that whole chain of logic sucks.

-Frem

I love how you say I'm saying something I'm very obviously not. I'm not dismissing your evidence, I haven't had time to look at it yet. I'm dismissing you obviously twisting a quote to parade it as saying something it is obviously not saying.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem,

I share your disgust with the FDA. It is now run by business for business. Any pretence at being an public agency charged with protecting citizens has been erased. But it wasn't too long ago that the FDA stood for something good. Do you remember David Kessler?

"His supporters, including public health advocates, contend that he has made FDA a more effective agency in protecting consumer safety and health. Detractors, such as those in the tobacco and medical device industries, argue that Kessler has favored too much government regulation, delaying drug and medical device development. Many in Congress agree with them and have launched efforts to reform FDA."

The anti-government, anti-regulation, pro-business fervor of the republican congress gave you everything you hate: good science and public policy killed in favor of private profit.

And as a further assault on science, university researchers who get pharmaceutical money are muzzled by their grantors.

And meanwhile, supplements are completely unregulated - you have no idea if they're pure, or safe, or effective. How's that for a complete abdication to profit?

----------------------------

BTW - have you noticed a big shift in medical drug policy since drug manufacturers have been allowed to directly plug their wares to you and me? ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT ...

... sotto voce (our bottom line).

And news openly reports on companies looking for the next big 'blockbuster' medicine - not one that necessarily solves an vital medical problem, but one that is under patent.

-----------------------------------------

No wonder you are cynical - companies are looking after their profit, and government is looking after the companies, and consumers are 'free' to chose whatever they want based on ads and propaganda.
---------------------------

There ARE some vaccines that are absolutely vital - rabies vaccines, polio vaccines (in areas where outbreaks still occur), tetanus and others. Unfortunately, because of the FDA's current perversion, you and I will have to rely on studies done in Europe and elsewhere - away from corrosive US business interests. There is probably no good information on new products, not just in terms of effectiveness studies, but safety studies as well.

-----------------

PS I think Congress's gutting of the FDA was a good model for Bush's gutting of HHS, NIH, NASA and especially the EPA. If you don't like the science - de-fund the agency, sack employees who don't go along with the 'proper' agenda, and restrict the rest.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Cit ?
Whafu ?!

Go back and READ what you just wrote, in light of your previous post!

Not to mention you originally demanded full evidence to back every statement, and then when I make comments related to that evidence, you dismiss the comment out of hand because you "didn't get around to looking at" the very evidence you demanded I provide.

Find your own damned links in the future.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Rue, the issue really boils down to a single word.

Credibility.

And given their actions past and present, Big Pharma scores a flat damn zero with me.
With most people in fact, go ask em.

And so when Big Pharma says "but you need this unresearched, potentially dangerous medication!" and the Medical Care Industry says "Yes, you do, otherwise Big Pharma will go broke and then where will we be ?!"...

They can jam that medication up their ass, cause I ain't goin anywhere near it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem, what is your solution?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 4:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Informed choice, same as prettymuch everything.

Think about it, your doctor, when you set up a medical procedure, sits down with you and fully explains the risks, benefits, possible complications, ect.. to you, and YOU make the call.

You don't have to look up or research jack shit, that's what you pay HIM for, that's why he deserves the substantive income he gets.
(Although, nothing wrong with backchecking for yourself, everyone is human and falllible)

Most docs are gonna play it 100% straight with you, the threat of a lawsuit (or in the case of one doc in particular, a bit more personal than that..) is enough to keep them pretty damned honest.

Same with medication or vaccines - they sit down with you, inform you to the best of their ability, and YOU make the call.

Anything else is asinine - and when the word "Mandatory" pops up, they've taken a patient-doctor decision out of the hands of the very people who need to be making it, and handed it to the unholy trinity of The Medical Care Establishment, Big Pharma, and The Government, three forces I wouldn't trust to pour piss out of a boot if the directions were stamped on the heel.

Add in collusion for mutual financial gain, and I would say you have a damned serious collision of ethics (which not one of the three even truly has in the first place, as being establishments rather than people) with a purely financial agenda.

Ergo, as soon as the word "Mandatory" enters the equation, I go anarchic-ballistic, because I know damned well abuse will follow.

Ain't the states decision, hell, ain't even the states goddamn business, it's between me and my doc, period.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 4:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem,

"Think about it, your doctor, when you set up a medical procedure, sits down with you and fully explains the risks, benefits, possible complications, ect.. to you, and YOU make the call."

From whence do those impartial facts come?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 10:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Rue, it's been my experience, as a general rule, that Doctors ain't stupid, and most of mine are actually better than me at sorting which studies are bullshit or invalid due to poor research, skewed sampling, etc.

Realistically, they read this stuff all the time, the frankensteins I have on my short-list do, and I say frankensteins as a compliment, when you're only 78% OEM parts, and have been written off by the medical establishment more than once, you really do want arrogant, well informed docs of a cussed, skeptical nature..
But I digress.

It's not that they're kind, benevolent human beings, only one really seems to be that, it's the full awareness that the consequences of shovelling bullshit aren't going to land on the head of big pharma, or the gov, those consequences are going to land on THEM, and they know it.

So pure self-interest is going to drive them to cover their ass as effectively as possible, the same principle behind giving two people a cake and telling them one gets to cut it, and the other takes piece of choice.. self interest LOOKS like cooperation or decency in such a case, but it ain't.

A lot of times you can turn human nature on itself to protect you, and this is one of em - the same way a brake mechanic isn't gonna do a halfass job because the consequences outweigh the risk, neither would any of the doctors on my short-list.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 1:12 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Go back and READ what you just wrote, in light of your previous post!

No you reread what I wrote, because your hearing what you want to hear just as you did with the quote I responded too. I don't need to read everything you wrote because I read everything pertinent to what I responded too, expecting me to read everything in your post in order to respond to one sentence is dishonest at best.

You took a quote (which I read) that essentially said "it's half as effective in young children so if you want full effect you need double the dose" as saying "It doesn't work at all so pump'em full of the stuff and pray!" I had no further thing to say on the rest of the evidence very much because I haven't read it. I merely pointed out your propagandising of a sentence and your twisting of it to say something you should know it doesn't say.

I quoted everything I was replying to and dealt with it directly in my post, because I didn't want to let lie such blatant propagandising while I dealt with the other evidence. You want to forcibly reinterpret that as dismissing your entire post go ahead, but I won't let you get away with propagandising quotes from me any more than I'll let you get away with it in the instance I replied to.
Quote:

Not to mention you originally demanded full evidence to back every statement, and then when I make comments related to that evidence, you dismiss the comment out of hand because you "didn't get around to looking at" the very evidence you demanded I provide.
Not once did I dismiss 'out of hand' all your evidence because I 'didn't get round to looking at' it. I took one sentence and one quote and said that what you portrayed the quote as saying was completely not what it was saying. You respond by doing the exact same thing again to me, taking what I said and portraying it as saying something completely different, is it deliberate? Did you bother to read the quote and lines of clarification before the sentence “No where does it say it doesn't work.”? I rather think not, since those outlined exactly what I was replying to and why, a simple fact you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp.
Quote:

Find your own damned links in the future.
I do, to back up my own argument. If you don't want to back up your own damn arguments in future that's your choice, and it'll hit your argument and your credibility, not mine so why should I give a damn?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 6:28 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
CTS - I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

Isn't that usually the case? ; )

I am saying, the same clinical disease as smallpox is still going around. One may make the case that smallpox (the virus) has been eradicated, based on a technicality. For practical purposes, the disease has NOT been eradicated.

This eventually begs the question, can diseases be genuinely eradicated through the use of mass vaccinations? Even if specific viruses are no longer in circulation, it appears there are plenty more to take their place.

Kind of like deposing a dictatorship in Iraq or Afghanistan. You send good soldiers who die for the war, and there are dozens of dictator-wanna-bes in the waiting. Is toppling third world dictators worth the effort, let alone a compulsory conscription into the war?

Quote:

It wiped out an estimated 95 - 99% of Indians.
I have read speculation of this. But what's the evidence for this theory? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks.

Quote:

As we know from 'bird flu', viruses need to attach to cell receptors to infect the host. If the virus has the (genetically determined) proteins to attach to only one species its range of hosts will be limited. That is why smallpox virus (as determined by PCR) infects only humans.
I would love to read anything about how the variola virus only has proteins to attach to only humans. If you have a reference, please post it. Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Doctors are worse than drug dealers--they do it with such piety.
--Emma Holister

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 6:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
From whence do those impartial facts come?

It is my humble opinion that there ARE no impartial facts when it comes to vaccines. All information out there is part of a global marketing and religious campaign on behalf of vaccines ("if we all vaccinate, we can get to eradication heaven"), or part of a bitter vaccination backlash. (As Michael Crichton said in "State of Fear": "Everyone has an agenda--except me.")

Parents have to sort through a lot of muddled, distorted, and biased information to tease out what they believe would be best for their children. That is why they need to be able to choose, and not let the manufacturers or the retailers of the product choose for them. That is why they cannot let the government, who we all know has been corrupted by the manufacturers and retailers, choose for them either. None of them have the best interests of the children at heart. PARENTS have to choose for the best interest of the children. No one else.

Michael Crichton actually has a lot of interesting things to say about global warming at the end of his book (State of Fear). I found myself agreeing with almost everything (including his proposal of a blinded funding mechanism for research). His position is simply: No one knows. I find this same position applicable to vaccine research, which appears to be every bit as politicized as global warming. No one knows.

There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving that vaccines are highly effective and highly safe. There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving that vaccines are completely ineffective and highly dangerous. In absence of conclusive evidence, people should be allowed to judge what evidence exists for themselves.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 6:56 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Most docs are gonna play it 100% straight with you, the threat of a lawsuit (or in the case of one doc in particular, a bit more personal than that..) is enough to keep them pretty damned honest.

Same with medication or vaccines - they sit down with you, inform you to the best of their ability, and YOU make the call.

They are as honest with you as they know to be. But I have found that most doctors buy into the vaccine religion so much they have never questioned it enough to read the research literature. So they don't really have very much real information to give.

I was informed when I got the flu vaccine that there is a negligible chance for developing Guillaine-Barre. But I was not informed that dozens, if not hundreds, of people report a clinical disorder commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome shortly after vaccination as adults (hep B, flu, tetanus, etc.). This information is out there, but swept under the rug by medical authorities and therefore not recognized by most vaccine administrators and physicians.

Now if one trust medical authority enough to not need any additional information, that is that person's choice. MY call would be to do additional research on my own.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 7:08 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Proper nutrition and hygeine are also a factor in flu resistance, and should not be neglected in either case, also.

And no one has ever done a study comparing the effectiveness of vaccines vs. nutritional interventions. To study effectiveness of a childhood vaccine, they always compare its effects with those of another vaccine.

Would it be so difficult to have one group be vaccinated, and another group get large doses of vitamin C, and still another group get lots of green vegetables? The fact that such a study has never been done make me wonder if they are afraid of what they might find.

Where would the pharm companies be if the green vegetable group had the lowest rates of the target disease?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
To rely on the drug companies for unbiased evaluations of their products makes about as much sense as relying \on beer companies to teach us about alcoholism.
--Marcia Angell, MD, Executive Director, New England Journal of Medicine


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 12:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Cit, the study clearly shows the effect of the vacc in children 23 months and under is virtually nil.

I referenced that, and you went all freaky on me cause you had not read it.

I was referencing solid data there, which you did not even bother to read.

And then, having not read it, you chose to take the statement out of context, and have a go ?

This is simple freakin logic here.

The study shows the effect of the vacc in children under 23 months is virtually nil, not half, nil.

Therefore doubling the dose is unlikely to have any realistic effect, and if they're still using the thimerosal base (to save a measly $4 a shot, at that) which apparently some providers are, then they're going way over the safety limit, any way you slice it.

Double of nothin is still nothin, and to exponentially compound the risk for no gain is flat out crazy.

As far as the italicized text, it's a summary of their argument for this current flu shot push, once you've stripped all the fluff away, which is exactly what I said - not a direct quote or I would have attributed it.

It's fairly obvious you're not one bit interested in the actual evidence, unless it supports your own viewpoint (and I know you're far from alone in that respect) so I see no further point in discussing it with you, nor wasting my time on it - if you're going to demand it be provided, ask me to spend my time digging it up, you can very well have the decency to read it, especially when it's being directly referenced.

I've burned about as much time and effort on this as I am going to bother to, especially since pointing out a logical, reasonable viewpoint, and the evidence behind it is "propagandizing" to you - you're just wasting my time anyway.

Like I said, I ain't interested in changin anyone elses viewpoint, I just don't want em forcing it on me via manipulation of the law, and I have some pretty good reasons for that.

So it's time to just put a fork in this whole damned discussion, far as i'm concerned.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 1:12 PM

CITIZEN


Whatever Frem, what I replied to and why was very clear, the fact you continue to lie about what I said and the reasons behind it speaks volumes.

Continue to lie as much as you like, the only person you're fooling is yourself.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:36 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi Frem

Just going down the thread so here goes:
"Rue, it's been my experience, as a general rule, that Doctors ain't stupid, and most of mine are actually better than me at sorting which studies are bullshit or invalid due to poor research, skewed sampling, etc."

That wasn't the exact direction I was going in. What I was thinking was that, as we both know, pharmaceutical companies will say all sorts of good things about their products and nothing bad about them. So, if there is no other source of information besides the pharmaceutical shills, we'd be rather stuck for any good information at all.

It takes money to fund basic research (what enzymes/ systems does this product work on), and population studies (how does the product work in real life/ who does it hurt more than helps). What I'm saying is that we need to do a better job making government work for US, rather than for the companies. We need to insist on powerful regulatory agencies that can independently do the research and run the studies, to provide valid information to doctors and consumers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 10, 2006 2:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CTS
"I am saying, the same clinical disease as smallpox is still going around. One may make the case that smallpox (the virus) has been eradicated, based on a technicality. For practical purposes, the disease has NOT been eradicated. ... Even if specific viruses are no longer in circulation, it appears there are plenty more to take their place."

No pox virus quite takes the place of smallpox. Smallpox was a feared disease because of its high mortality rate (25 - 99% depending on population). Monkeypox and variola minor cause less severe diease and have lower mortality rates. (monkeypox 0 - 10% depending on strain, variola minor < 1%). In addition, monkeypox doesn't seem to have sustained human to human transmission. The other pox viruses can cause limited pox on areas of skin contact with an infected animal (camelpox).

Unfortunately my sources either require paid subscription (NEJM) or are books. I'm looking for links you can use.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 10, 2006 2:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


host specificity due to specific cell-receptor binding


http://awi.vlaanderen.be/documenten/COST_B28_160205.pdf

In the genus Orthhopoxvirus (OPV) camelpox virus (CMPV) is most closely related to variola virus VAR (Gubser and Smith, 2002). Both viruses are host specific. The high frequency of genomic recombination in OPVs or simple mutations in the CMPV genes coding for the virus virulence factors or for virus coat proteins interacting with the cell receptor-binding sites could cause a breakthrough in the host species barrier.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 10, 2006 2:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Smallpox historically causing 95 - 99% mortality among Indians. "I have read speculation of this. But what's the evidence for this theory? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks."

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/162/16200504.pdf

"Guns, Germs and Steel" Jared Diamond

If you go to google you'll find easily accessible but potentially questionable sources for the impact of smallpox on native populations. Unfortunately, if you go to google scholar, you'll find more reliable but inaccessible sources. Go figure.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2006 3:59 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
We need to insist on powerful regulatory agencies that can independently do the research and run the studies, to provide valid information to doctors and consumers.

I agree on independent research that can provide valid information to doctors and consumers. I am not sure powerful regulatory agencies is the answer. That implies that only pharm companies have a motive to lie, that only they have an agenda. And that government agencies are pure of heart and look out for public interests, if only they had the power to do so. I disagree with this latter premise.

What we need are blinded funding mechanisms. Just as it is standard in most peer-review journals for the peer review to be blinded to control bias(the peers do not know who authored the study when they review it), we need to make it standard for researchers to conduct their studies without knowing who is funding them, to control bias.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2006 9:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think it's clear that mandatory smallpox vaccinations have eliminated the scourge of smallpox from around the globe. And they are close to eliminating the scourge of polio as well - even in areas of privation and poor sanitation.

This is a good thing - to free humankind of dreaded diseases that kill and cripple.

------------------------------

But if you think that I believe in the goodness of government per se you haven't been reading my posts. Even nominal democracies like the US can be - and have been - severely subverted by the monied. This subversion goes far beyond directly influencing individual researchers. Blinded funding as an answer is naïve at best. Whole areas study can be defunded so that NO ONE gets funding - ie stem cell research. Agencies can be crippled - by reducing staff, reducing budgets, limiting scope, even closing all research libraries - as has already been done to the USEPA. And groups that dole out research funds can fund politically expedient research while denying funds to others - as at the NIH.

The hard fact is, most research money comes from the US government. Most research money will continue to come from the US government. And most research is at the mercy of government funding.

With its great power of the purse, the US government is holding research hostage to political agendas; scientific merit be damned. It is that that we need to change. We need to INSIST on a government that represents US rather than the agenda of its owners. That is the only way we will get valid research.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2006 7:45 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


The day I voluntarily take a flu shot is the day that they find a vaccination for the stupidity epidemic that is sweeping not only our nation, but the entire world.

Anyone who tries to stick a needle in me will end up with it in their eye.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2006 10:34 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I think it's clear that mandatory smallpox vaccinations have eliminated the scourge of smallpox from around the globe.

And I think it is far from clear.
Quote:

This is a good thing - to free humankind of dreaded diseases that kill and cripple.
That's just it. We are NOT free of the dreaded diseases. The clinical disease indistinguishable in symptomatology from smallpox still infects and kills people in outbreaks. Acute flaccid paralysis still infects people in outbreaks. And as I said before, it is highly disingenous for vaccinations to take sole credit for the huge reduction in these diseases without considering confounding factors such as better nutrition, sanitation, and hygiene; the natural waning of diseases; and "control" diseases such as scarlet fever and the bubonic plague which also disappeared and/or no longer scourges humans as before.

When people say "smallpox is eradicated," they mostly mean they believe THIS



is not infecting and killing people anymore. In fact and practice, THIS is still occurring in outbreaks.



I think what IS clear is that the belief that the disease no longer exists is largely a myth. The victory over smallpox was declared on a technicality.
Quote:

We need to INSIST on a government that represents US rather than the agenda of its owners.
Hehe. Good luck with that. I've found insisting anything of government to be quite a futile effort.

And Rue, thanks for the pdfs. I'll read them later.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2006 10:41 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Zombie Mark love Big Brother.... Needs protection. Please put disease in my body... duh.... dribble... I go to watch TV now and feel happy on yummy fun good pills.... gurgle...weeeeeeeeeee

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2006 11:14 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Whatever Frem, what I replied to and why was very clear, the fact you continue to lie about what I said and the reasons behind it speaks volumes.

Continue to lie as much as you like, the only person you're fooling is yourself.


Frem's not lying you unrelenting asshat. The facts presented were referenced, you focused on a particular thing Frem said without reading the data behind it and tried to crucify Frem for it. You were called on in and your continued persistence to ignore what's right in front of your face is staggering.

Bottom line, Cit, if you want to let Big Pharm force feed you vaccines that don't work or aren't needed, that's your choice. Even if they do work, beyond a reasonable doubt (and that is a feat that has yet to be achieved), it's still not up to the state, the government, the schools, Big Pharm, or least of all you, what is put into my, and my children's bodies, end of story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2006 11:29 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by babywiththepower:
...it's still not up to the state, the government, the schools, Big Pharm, or least of all you, what is put into my, and my children's bodies, end of story.

You go, Baby!

And thanks to 6ixstring and Frem for speaking up for choice too. I appreciate every voice for choice.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
-------
We're prochoice on everything.
--The Libertarian Party

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:47 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


No need for thanks CTTS. I am for pro choice on EVERY issue. Well... lets say that I am against a centralized government in league with large businesses (in this specific case, pharmacutical companies) making these decisions for us. Following this path I believe that it will not be too long until it will be against the law for somebody to refuse vaccinations for any reson, religious or otherwise. Could you imagine a scenario where you're being charged with a felony for say something along the lines of "Conspiracy to Spread an Otherwise Preventable Disease", simply for refusing them to inject your kids with disease, poison, and who knows what else comes along with these shots?

I've had all of these shots when I was a kid and I'm mad as hell about it. I never made that choice for myself, and my parents belonged to a generation who questioned their government up until the point they had children of their own and then, for the most part, they all sold out.

A good example of my belief in personal choice is my answer to whether or not I am in support of abortion. In the most extreme of cases, say a girl being impregnated while being raped, then I can find sympathy in that otherwise horrific act of abortion if the girl chooses to go that route. As a human being, of course I am going to have feelings on this one way or another, and I realize that others will have differing opinions whether they be religious, moral or selfish or otherwise. Personally, I could never sit back and watch my future child be aborted. What really angers me on this topic is that if I was to get a girl pregnant that it is ultimately her choice alone and she can get an abortion without my consent because it's her body, and you bet your ass I would do anything within my power to prevent her from doing that. I think that perhaps a joint decision needs to be reached before a life decision like that is made. However, I would never dream of giving our centralized government the right to decide that for us, even if that meant losing my child in the process. This is my fault for sleeping with a girl who didn't share my vision. It is just not BigGov's place to decide this.

When one uses the arguement that BigGov has no right making a particular choice for them, they cannot claim that they are pro-choice on one issue because it is convenient and it fits their vision of right and wrong, only to abandon the freedom of choice on another topic when in no longer suits their agendas.

Please tell me that you are not one of those Anti-Smoking Nazis.... if you are, then you are no different than Citizen is, and we would just be pitted against each other when that thread comes along.

It's all or nothing. We really need to give power back to our communities and take it out of the hands of centralized governments.....

But the wheel in the sky keeps on turning and we all have reality TV to watch. That reminds me... I have to download the last episode of Battlestar when I get home.



"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Please tell me that you are not one of those Anti-Smoking Nazis...

I HATE cigarette smoke. I have left restaurants in the middle of my meal before because someone lit up in the smoking section! It makes me gag, and then I can't eat.

But like you with abortion (and me too), I would not legislate a ban on smoking. Laws (and force) need to be used sparingly, for crimes for which there is no other recourse: rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc.

I am prochoice on everything.

But you bring up a very important point. I am scratching my head over these staunchly prochoice folks on abortion like Rue and Citizen and Signy being antichoice on vaccinations. "Your body, your choice" applies to only one issue, it seems.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:39 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CTS,

You would be a flat-earth Holocaust denier if it supported your ideology.

There is no pox virus that comes close to smallpox in its fatality rate or infectivity. There is no single cause or combination of causes of acute flaccid paralysis that even come close to polio. By claiming otherwise, you put yourself in the category of anti-vaccination crackpots. In fact, you claim all sorts of patently absurd notions just because they support your manias. Good luck in the real world.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:36 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
CTS,

You would be a flat-earth Holocaust denier if it supported your ideology.

There is no pox virus that comes close to smallpox in its fatality rate or infectivity. There is no single cause or combination of causes of acute flaccid paralysis that even come close to polio. By claiming otherwise, you put yourself in the category of anti-vaccination crackpots. In fact, you claim all sorts of patently absurd notions just because they support your manias. Good luck in the real world.



Don't even bring Polio into it again. Has it already been forgotten that in the first incarnation of this thread that the major decline in polio outbreaks was due, in large part, to the redefinition of what was polio then to what polio was right after mass vaccination rather than the vaccination itself? You preach about facts but you seem to forget those that contradict your ideology, so your entire post was pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

Also, as stated above, this boils down to a matter of choice. And sorry, Rue, but you, and people like you, have no right to make my choices for me. End of story. If you want the vaccines, by all means take them, but don't try and force that decision on others. If there is some sort of pandemic, you will, afterall, be vaccinated. And if the vaccines are as good as you claim and preach them to be, than you should be safe, right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Baby,

You apparently wll believe any CLAIM made if it suits your agenda as well.

I posted many many links showing that even in places of squalor, where existing polio is confirmed by PCR, polio vaccines DO indeed eliminate all but a handful of AFP cases - which are confimed by PCR as well.

This is not some strange statistical trick from the US in the 1950's. It's a documented fact over decades of genetic AFP polio surveillance around the globe. How did you miss that? Oh that's right - you don't read things you disagree with.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Sheesh - it looks like the nutcases are crawling out of the woodwork now.

Look folks,

Its true that not everything the government does is right. It's also true that not everything the government does is wrong.

If you are so biased as to think the elimination of smallpox and polio are BAD things just because the government did them, you have a severe case of lunacy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:09 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
You apparently wll believe any CLAIM made if it suits your agenda as well.

I posted many many links showing that even in places of squalor, where existing polio is confirmed by PCR, polio vaccines DO indeed eliminate all but a handful of AFP cases - which are confimed by PCR as well.

This is not some strange statistical trick from the US in the 1950's. It's a documented fact over decades of genetic AFP polio surveillance around the globe. How did you miss that? Oh that's right - you don't read things you disagree with.



Nowhere in my post did I say that polio vaccinations don't work, all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio. It was missleading numbers that made the polio vaccine seem like a wonder drug when in fact, many people that were 'cured' were never infected to begin with. Now, how did you miss that? It seems you like to infer what you want out of a post when what you are going on about was never even implied to begin with. Thanks for skewing my words though. I like word games.

Oh, and it's not a 'claim' as you seem to believe. If you read the post regarding this, and the links that were issued, polio has been redefined by the WHO and similar organizations world wide. So, this 'claim' is in fact, fact. But then I guess the opinions of Big Pharm, with no unbiased studies to back them up, are more credible than facts when it suits ones purpose.

Listen, Rue. We can dance like this from here until the end of times, and it won't make a lick of difference. You obviously have no problem with an organization stripping you of your freedoms for 'the greater good' and I personally think you are a worthless piece of flesh for doing so, whereas you think you are a crusader for the health of the world (or some such) and I am an unrelenting piece of shit for not blindly following Big Pharm. I get that. And you know what? You know what's the greatest thing about this country? We are both within our rights to do so. So why don't we agree to disagree and leave it at that. Just keep your ing needles out of me and mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Baby,

"Nowhere in my post did I say that polio vaccinations don't work, all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio." You mean in the US, a looooong, long time ago, once.

What about the drop in polio around the globe? To the point where total annual polio cases can be counted in the hundreds (if that). That wasn't due to a redefinition. Nor was it due to an improvement in global poverty and sanitation. Nor was it due to misattribution. That was real, it was good, and it was done with polio vaccines. By governments. If you want to argue one small isolated statistical case b/c it proves your point, go right ahead. If you want to ignore a decades-long global success b/c you disagree with the politics, go ahead. You can deny the effectiveness of the polio vaccine all you want.

Arguing the SCIENCE of erradication is exactly what puts you in the nutcase category.



And BTW the lunar landing was faked. And the earth really is flat.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:19 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Sheesh - it looks like the nutcases are crawling out of the woodwork now.



You seem awfully quick to start calling people who disagree with you names. Maybe you should turn that self-righteous light inwards a little/

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
If you are so biased as to think the elimination of smallpox and polio are BAD things just because the government did them, you have a severe case of lunacy.



Never once have any of us said this is a bad thing. I just contest the numbers. Eliminating a disease is a great thing (though both diseases are still active in areas, by your accounts, so they were never in fact, eliminated), but forcing people to take vaccines that have questionable health risks involved when there is no indication or reasonable possability of another outbreak, is lunacy.

And the flu vaccine (as an example) is among the worst out there. The flu is a minor annoyance, sometimes not even requiring time off from work or school. But many people get sick when they get the flu shot because it weakens their immune systems for a time while they combat the 'dead' virus. So I ask you, where is the benefit? Either risk getting the flu or garuntee you're going to get sick. I'm a gambling man, so I'll risk the flu. And the same (or similar) can be said about other vaccines as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:23 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"though both diseases are still active in areas, by your accounts, so they were never in fact, eliminated"

No, by my accounts smallpox is gone. And polio nearly so.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio.
Bullshit.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:36 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


You seriously need to learn how to use the quote feature, it makes reading your drivel easier.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
You mean in the US, a looooong, long time ago, once.

What about the drop in polio around the globe? To the point where total annual polio cases can be counted in the hundreds (if that). That wasn't due to a redefinition. Nor was it due to an improvement in global poverty and sanitation. Nor was it due to misattribution. That was real, it was good, and it was done with polio vaccines. By governments. If you want to argue one small isolated statistical case b/c it proves your point, go right ahead. If you want to ignore a decades-long global success b/c you disagree with the politics, go ahead. You can deny the effectiveness of the polio vaccine all you want.

That's excatly what puts you in the nutcase category.




No, America wasn't the only one to do it, it was the WHO (World Health Organization, in case you didn't know) that redefined it as well, not just the FDA. So if you're going to be ignorant and debase an argument, please at least get the facts straight. Again, you pull a small snipet out of my post and disregard the rest of it in an attempt to vilify your rant, and it's getting quite amusing. Again, you are accusing me of saying the vaccines don't work, and never once have I said that. All I have said, in all my posts, is that the figures have been skewed to make these vaccines look better than they are. And since there is no impending threat of a global polio epidemic, why is it that I am forced to pump my children full of drugs that have questionable side effects for a disease my children will mostlikely never get? And that is the question you, citizen, and every other supporter for mandatory vaccinations has side stepped. Rather than answer it you throw figures in our faces or call us nutcases and think that ends it. It doesn't.

You think I'm a nutcase lady? Frankly I think you're batshit crazy. But you don't see me attacking you personally, largely in part to the fact that I'm not a child, but you continue to do whatever it is that works for you.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
And BTW the lunar landing was faked. And the earth really is flat.


So you think that by comparing my desire to keep legislation from forcing me and mine to get vaccines immediately lumps me in a group of conspiracy junkies? What does that make you? You seem to blindly accept the 'facts' presented by Big Pharm and their offhanded dismissals of the dangers of some of their drugs. Give me a factual, independant, unbiased study (if that is even possible) telling my that all the vaccines that are being force fed us today (not in the 1950s, today) work and I'll back down. Until then, keep your needles out of me. It's my body, and I have final say over what can be done with it. End of ing story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:39 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Bullshit.



Bullshit, huh? Maybe you didn't read this in the last thread, so let me put it here for reference:

Vaccine Effectiveness in Question

Prochoice activists question whether the effectiveness of vaccination has been exaggerated. It is not the first time someone exaggerates benefits of a product in order to sell it. If vaccines are not as effective as believed by authorities, herd immunity issues and public health threats blamed on the unvaccinated become less compelling.

Part 1: Polio

The polio vaccine is one of the main success stories of mass vaccination. Or is it?

Ninety-nine percent of polio causes no symptoms/flu symptoms (90%) and non-paralytic symptoms (9%). Of the remaining 1% that get paralysis, half recover fully within days or weeks. Only 0.5% of those who get polio die or remain with prolonged/permanent paralysis. Polio is mostly a benign disease, with even half the paralytic cases resolving themselves within days or weeks. Severe sequelae occurs in a very small fraction of sufferers.

In the 1950's, the normal incidence rate was around 20,000 a year. One year before the introduction of the vaccine, the incidence rates went up to 58,000 in 1952, and 35,000 in 1953. In 1953, Salk tested his vaccine, and mass vaccination was launched in 1955. By 1957, the incidence rate had gone down to 5600 cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio

Pretty impressive, right? Until you find out the definition of polio changed after the vaccine was introduced. Before the vaccine, anyone with non-paralytic symptoms and anyone with paralysis lasting at least 24 hours was diagnosed with polio. After the vaccine was introduced in 1955, the diagnosis was changed to only paralytic cases lasting at least 30 days. The good majority of polio cases, those with nonparalytic symptoms, were renamed something else. A big fraction of paralytic cases recover within days to 2 weeks, so this subset was automatically eliminated as polio cases as well.

People who would have been diagnosed with polio before 1995 were now labeled with Coxsackie virus or aseptic meningitis. Data available from a Los Angeles county during that period showed about an increase in aseptic meningitis very roughly matching the decrease in polio cases. http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf (pg 242)

When diagnostic criteria change, either people were misdiagnosed before, or misdiagnosed afterwards. Was the incidence of polio inflated before the vaccine because of misdiagnosis? Much of the acute flaccid paralysis cases (primary symptom of paralytic polio) is shown today to be not related to the poliovirus. Were they also not related back then, but was mistakenly attributed to polio, then was corrected after the vaccine? http://www.chronicillnet.org/articles/paralyticpolio.html

Was the success of the polio vaccine exaggerated by renaming the disease?

These questions are not to say the vaccine is ineffective. They simply cast reasonable doubt that the vaccine was as effective as it claimed. If the vaccine is less effective than purported, parents should be allowed to decide exactly what the benefits are and if they are worth the risks.

-------References below--------
Definition change in the USA:
Quote:

Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required.

In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

Bernard Greenberg, MD, biostatistics expert, chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s
Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on HR 10541. May 1962, pp. 94-112.
As quoted by Neil Z. Miller, http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf (pg 243)

Definition change in Canada:

Quote:

Paralytic cases were not distinguished from non-paralytic cases until a recommendation was made by the Dominion Council of Health in 1949- The LCDC figures provided from 1952 and onward represent this administrative change: recording only those cases adhering to the requirements for a diagnosis of paralytic poliomyelitis. In a report released in June of 1959, another adminis­trative change was recommended by the Dominion Council of Health, further altering the way in which apparent cases of poliomyelitis would be reported. All non-paralytic cases of poliomyelitis were to be henceforth recorded as "meningitis, viral or aseptic," a disease which itself only became reportable in 1952." These two administrative changes effectively reduced the apparent incidence of poliomyelitis. In particular, since the latter change is temporally correlative to the introduction of the polio vaccines, the vaccines appear to have been responsible for a reduction in poliomyelitis cases when it is entirely possible that the administrative changes are primarily responsible.

Catherine Diodati MA, Immunization History, Ethics, Law and Health, p116

Definition Change in Germany:

Quote:

L.: If I understand you correctly, before, everyone was counted, those with polio in their feces as well as those sick with polio, and that totaled 4,000. When they started the polio vaccination, they only counted those people who had been paralyzed for at least six weeks, is this right?
B.: Yes.

L.: So, this is how statistics improved from 4,000 to 400?

B.: Yes, exactly...

L.: Okay, that’s what I understood. When you say they changed the way the calculations were done, who were "they"? Was this a medical or a political decision?

B.: It is always the same group that decides... the World Health Organization (WHO).

Gerhard Buchwald, MD, German physician, about diagnosing polio in Germany when polio vaccines were introduced
Testimony before the Quebec College of Physicians Medical Board
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/buchwald9.html




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Oh please. This has been already argued - and since abandoned by CTS.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:47 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Oh please. This has been already argued - and since abandoned by CTS.


Regardless, the redefinition happened. Again, and let me be real clear this time. I DO NOT ARGUE THE FACT THAT THE POLIO VACCINE WORKED! I simply believe the figures were overblown. That is all.

What this whole thing boils down to, a fact you continue to ignore, is choice. All you've done is thrown page after page of government and pharmicutical studies at us without ever once telling us why, exactly, you think our civil liberties should be ignored so we can be pumped full of today's gauntlet of vaccines?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL