• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles [W:1210]

Your butthurt is noted as is your apparent lack of ability to engage in conversation.
Coming from the guy who calls people butthurt instead of addressing the actual argument :roll:

Move along.
 
How does an unvaccinated person put a vaccinated person at risk? Explain it. No one else has. They just keep chanting a nonsensical slogan.

It has been explained on a number of posts- elderly - those with immune disorders - those receiving cancer treatments - those that are to young for vaccinations - vaccination degrade over time - vaccinations are not 100 % effective.
 
How does an unvaccinated person put a vaccinated person at risk? Explain it. No one else has. They just keep chanting a nonsensical slogan.
Well that's been explained multiple times, but to reiterate from other posters here is a link that helps explain it.
Why Worry About the Unvaccinated? | Shot of Prevention

Vaccines are not 100% effective. Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients. So an unvaccinated person very much puts vaccinated people at risk, because for some vaccinated individuals the vaccine will be ineffective.
 
No, the other question is who gets to decide which risk to take?

Many here say it's the government. Maybe the governments should have people at casinos dictating which bet to place calculating the odds.

Many people no longer grasp the concept of INDIVIDUAL risk taking, that it's MY risk to decide, not the government's or the collective hive mentality.

All that's fine, but what you're not admitting here is your decision to take a risk also puts a great many more at risk who didn't get to weigh in on your decision. Let's assume your own child will survive the disease because of good health, diet, and access to medical care. The problem is he or she can go to McD, infect a child, who infects a father, who visits his wife in the ICU getting chemo and whose immunity is severely compromised.

Those risks are tiny today, but only because the vast majority of people over decades have been responsible, and contribute to the public health in the big picture, by getting vaccinated. And the anti-vaxers rely on those individual who were responsible and got vaccinated to protect themselves and THEIR loved ones from these totally preventable and nearly eradicated diseases. It's really very selfish.

Just as a personal example, I take a drug that is intended to and does suppress my immune system. The side effects are I am more susceptible for diseases of all kinds, including those I've been vaccinated against. I had to get tested for some of these before the first dose because my current immune system bolstered by vaccinations protected me. The drug upsets that balance. Anyway, some kid with measles poses a risk to me, and more significantly THROUGH ME to my elderly mother in law who simply would not survive a serious illness at this point in her life.

Most vaccinations are a disease they are injecting into the person. No tests are done on the person before this. No information of where or how it is was made. Just 50 needles with diseases, some with many blended together, for which those of the collective hive mentality declare the big pharma has successfully assured the government it's safe - and thus only a lunatic would dare question it.

Interesting you call those who rely on all the scientific evidence as having a "collective hive mentality." What the science tells us in crystal clear terms is the risk of the diseases overwhelms the real but miniscule risk of vaccination. We don't have to guess what vaccination has accomplished - nearly eradicated diseases that used to seriously sicken and kill

And all the experts swore Iraq had WMDs too. To everyone. To the whole world. And MOST people believed them. It's not like government and corporations ever lie to anyone. :roll:

That's a fair point, but how long did it take for the truth about WMDs to come out? And the truth did quickly emerge even given the (we'll assume) large incentives for government to keep those truths hidden. What you're suggesting is essentially a conspiracy theory participated in by nearly all the world's health professionals and all the world's most influential healthcare organizations. The reason they all support vaccinations is on a risk/reward basis there probably isn't an easier no brainer in all of science - vaccinate a population and public health will DRAMATICALLY improve, nearly overnight. The living examples are every population that has been vaccinated and measures of public health before and after.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

But it is back. In 2014, there were 644 cases in 27 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Should the pace set in January continue, the numbers could go still higher in 2015. While no one is known to have died in the new outbreaks, the lethal possibilities cannot be shrugged off. If the past is a guide, one or two of every 1,000 infected people will not survive.

To explore how matters reached this pass, Retro Report, a series of video documentaries studying major news stories of the past and their consequences, offers this special episode. It turns on a seminal moment in anti-vaccination resistance. This was an announcement in 1998 by a British doctor who said he had found a relationship between the M.M.R. vaccine — measles, mumps, rubella — and the onset of autism.
 
Coming from the guy who calls people butthurt instead of addressing the actual argument :roll:

Move along.
You should definitely try putting some ice on where it hurts.

I didnt offer the '95%' figure but as the CDC itself admitted that its current vaccine is inefficient.
The current vaccine is known to be ineffective for aprox 52% of the current strain of flu virus.
Flu shot may not be enough protection this season - CBS News
HAN Archive - 00374|Health Alert Network (HAN)
The absolute risk reduction between the vaccines for senior citizens was 0.46% (1.89%-1.43%) even after increasing the dosage by four times the initial amount. Its sold as being 24% more effective than the ORIGINAL vaccine...which was determined to be ineffective.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/818438
Navy study indicates 96% of flu sufferers received flu shots.
Navy Proves Flu Shot Doesn't Work

None of this is to suggest vaccines are bad or ineffective, just that they are not always the panacea some might think they are.
 
It has been explained on a number of posts- elderly - those with immune disorders - those receiving cancer treatments - those that are to young for vaccinations - vaccination degrade over time - vaccinations are not 100 % effective.

Is that who has been contracting the measles during this latest outbreak?
 
Given your lack of compassion, I am glad you are not the one deciding vaccination policy for the nation. .

Wait... :lol: I am the one worried about innocent children being subjected to vaccine adverse reactions and I am the one lacking compassion? What a crock of ****. :lol:

Nope... the ones that don't seem to give a **** that my daughter almost died or that she should be an accepted loss are the ****ing pieces of **** that lack compassion, my young uneducated friend.
 
Unless she had an allergic reaction no she didn't. There is no connection between vaccines and ADHD or SIDS.

Well, she did. Sorry to break it to you bud. And she did not have SIDS and does not have ADHD either...
 
What is weird is that it is the Liberals blindly defending vaccines here... In the area where we had our kids it was very liberal and those were the ones staunchly against vaccines... :lol:

I don't see it as a liberal/conservative issue at all.

It's an idiot versus normal issue.
 
Wait... :lol: I am the one worried about innocent children being subjected to vaccine adverse reactions and I am the one lacking compassion?
I wouldn't say you lack compassion. What you lack is perspective and rationality.

Your child apparently got hit by an adverse reaction that is so rare, her doctors didn't recognize it. Statistically, even given your allegations of underreporting, it is far safer to vaccinate than not.
 
Hmm...

Along side ADHD rates increasing, the rate of kids watching TV has increased.

The rate of kids eating fast food has increased.

The rate of kids playing video games increased.

The rate of kids using the internet increased.

The rate of kids having access to tablets and smartphones increased

Amongst other things...

Better keep your kids away from TV, video games, fast food, the internet, electronics, amongst other things since all those things have been increasing as well then it must be treated as if they cause ADHD until it can be proven 100% that they don't.

Correlation doesn't equal causation

I already stated that rising ADHD rates are most likely due to poor diet.
 
Care to make any other bogus statistic up, or are we done?

Those are facts. Additionally the two times I did get the flu vaccine... I got the flu that week. Only two times that I got the flu in that decade.
 
Is that who has been contracting the measles during this latest outbreak?
Perhaps reply to the question that was asked
I did not ask but feel free to call them.
 
Wait... :lol: I am the one worried about innocent children being subjected to vaccine adverse reactions and I am the one lacking compassion? What a crock of ****. :lol:

Nope... the ones that don't seem to give a **** that my daughter almost died or that she should be an accepted loss are the ****ing pieces of **** that lack compassion, my young uneducated friend.

There are obviously risks to the vaccines, but the way to evaluate "compassion" with vaccines is in comparing a world without them and with them, and the fact that I don't think you dispute is the health of the population improves dramatically with vaccines, FAR fewer people get sick and die, and at risks that are lower than taking Tylenol.

It's obviously unfair to trivialize the risks that you apparently experienced through your children, but it would still be uncompassionate, and borderline evil, to acknowledge that real risk and advise others to avoid vaccines because of it. If that advice was widely followed, for example if a poor country in Africa decided against vaccines because of the adverse events, many, many more men, women and children would get sick and die of totally preventable disease.
 
Perhaps reply to the question that was asked
I did not ask but feel free to call them.

You listed specific categories of people that are susceptible. We have an ongoing outbreak. I asked if, since you listed the susceptible groups, they are in fact the ones contracting the measles. Wouldnt it have been much more direct and honest for you to have said "you know...I simply dont know the answer to that question"? I mean...that IS what you said...
 
Only if you live in a black and white world where everything must be allowed or the government has to ban everything dangerous.

I don't live there. Do you?

Cars are regulated. How they're built and operated are regulated to provide reasonable safety standards to protect the people. Why aren't you railing against those fascist speed limits?

Incorrect analogy. Cars are regulated but not that you have to operate one. Are there any regulations that people have to do something? Regulated to normal free people and not convicts or mentally disabled patients?
 
There are obviously risks to the vaccines, but the way to evaluate "compassion" with vaccines is in comparing a world without them and with them, and the fact that I don't think you dispute is the health of the population improves dramatically with vaccines, FAR fewer people get sick and die, and at risks that are lower than taking Tylenol.

It's obviously unfair to trivialize the risks that you apparently experienced through your children, but it would still be uncompassionate, and borderline evil, to acknowledge that real risk and advise others to avoid vaccines because of it. If that advice was widely followed, for example if a poor country in Africa decided against vaccines because of the adverse events, many, many more men, women and children would get sick and die of totally preventable disease.

I am for vaccines and would never tell a person to not vaccinate their child... I am simply discussing risks real and potential that many here refuse to accept as a remote possibility or that they do exist but are irrelevant and that some parents need to just "take one for the team". That's all... vaccines should NEVER be mandatory.
 
I don't see it as a liberal/conservative issue at all.

It's an idiot versus normal issue.

I don't see it that way either... it was an observation based off of past experience, that's all.
 
I wouldn't say you lack compassion. What you lack is perspective and rationality.

Perhaps you should read more of my comments before make such an assertion...
 
You should definitely try putting some ice on where it hurts.

I didnt offer the '95%' figure but as the CDC itself admitted that its current vaccine is inefficient.
The current vaccine is known to be ineffective for aprox 52% of the current strain of flu virus.
Flu shot may not be enough protection this season - CBS News
HAN Archive - 00374|Health Alert Network (HAN)
The absolute risk reduction between the vaccines for senior citizens was 0.46% (1.89%-1.43%) even after increasing the dosage by four times the initial amount. Its sold as being 24% more effective than the ORIGINAL vaccine...which was determined to be ineffective.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/818438
Navy study indicates 96% of flu sufferers received flu shots.
Navy Proves Flu Shot Doesn't Work

None of this is to suggest vaccines are bad or ineffective, just that they are not always the panacea some might think they are.
I never said vaccines were a panacea or 100% effective. I merely refuted the claim by another poster that flu vaccines were 95% ineffective. Then you replied to that refutation with a source that failed to address the refutation, and that was shown to be total bunk regardless.

Is that who has been contracting the measles during this latest outbreak?
You should really read the posts people are responding to before jumping into their conversations. Nobody said anything about the elderly contracting measles during this latest outbreak, nor does that have anything to do with how unvaccinated people put vaccinated people at risk, which was what the line of discussion was about.
 
Those are facts. Additionally the two times I did get the flu vaccine... I got the flu that week. Only two times that I got the flu in that decade.
Please show me the source that confirms that the flu vaccine is a waste of time and money for 95% of people. That sounds an awful lot like an opinion with a bogus made-up statistic thrown in just for kicks.
 
I never said vaccines were a panacea or 100% effective. I merely refuted the claim by another poster that flu vaccines were 95% ineffective. Then you replied to that refutation with a source that failed to address the refutation, and that was shown to be total bunk regardless.


You should really read the posts people are responding to before jumping into their conversations. Nobody said anything about the elderly contracting measles during this latest outbreak, nor does that have anything to do with how unvaccinated people put vaccinated people at risk, which was what the line of discussion was about.

I was not defending the 95% remark. I DID show that the CDC by their own admission stated that their only sometime reliable vaccine is ineffective on 52% of the current strains seen this year. I was engaging in what a lot of people like to call a 'conversation' and you responded like you caught your own pubes in your zipper.

Annnnnnnnnnd you did it AGAIN with this latest round. Dood stated an array of people that are susceptible to the measles. I asked a QUESTION...is that who is contracting the measles during the current outbreak. Thats it. Again...CONVERSATION.

Stop kicking yourself in the groin and try it some time.
 
Please show me the source that confirms that the flu vaccine is a waste of time and money for 95% of people. That sounds an awful lot like an opinion with a bogus made-up statistic thrown in just for kicks.

There are sources all over the place that claim that the flu shots as 60% effective and more... in my age group I would say they are 95%. They are a waste of time for most people accept the elderly.

It is a bit of opinion based off of facts. Think what you like though, all good.
 
I was not defending the 95% remark. I DID show that the CDC by their own admission stated that their only sometime reliable vaccine is ineffective on 52% of the current strains seen this year. I was engaging in what a lot of people like to call a 'conversation' and you responded like you caught your own pubes in your zipper.

Annnnnnnnnnd you did it AGAIN with this latest round. Dood stated an array of people that are susceptible to the measles. I asked a QUESTION...is that who is contracting the measles during the current outbreak. Thats it. Again...CONVERSATION.

Stop kicking yourself in the groin and try it some time.
Judging by your immature rants after every reply to your posts, I don't think you understand what a conversation is any more than you understand vaccines.
 
Back
Top Bottom