Rich, White and Unvaccinated

[calamity]

I guess we should add stupid to the list too.

White, wealthy and unvaccinated - CNN.com

But some vaccine refusers remain unswayed. In February, Dr. Jack Wolfson, an Arizona cardiologist, told CNN he did not vaccinate his two sons and that he could live with himself if his unvaccinated child got another child gravely ill.

"It's an unfortunate thing that people die, but people die. I'm not going to put my child at risk to save another child," Wolfson said.

Vaccines put a child at risk? Where did this moron get his medical degree?

 

[TNAR]

Where did this moron get his medical degree?

Possibly the same place where you got yours. You should ask him.

 

[calamity]

Possibly the same place where you got yours. You should ask him.

Apparently his MD is about as useless as mine too.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I guess we should add stupid to the list too.

Vaccines put a child at risk? Where did this moron get his medical degree?

Vaccines obviously go a long way toward eradicating dangerous diseases. Are they 100% risk-free? No.

Because medical science has not yet determined statistical factors such as high vaccine rates coinciding with higher infant mortality rates, there is still no way to make the claim that vaccines are safe for ALL children. We know they are safe for most.

You understand the significance of "peer-review," I hope.
Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

I have a question for you about the snippet you quoted -- so, I'm going to requote it here for clarity.

But some vaccine refusers remain unswayed. In February, Dr. Jack Wolfson, an Arizona cardiologist, told CNN he did not vaccinate his two sons and that he could live with himself if his unvaccinated child got another child gravely ill.

"It's an unfortunate thing that people die, but people die. I'm not going to put my child at risk to save another child," Wolfson said.

My question to you is how could Dr. Wolfson's unvaccinated child get another child gravely ill -- unless -- that other child was not vaccinated?

 

[minnie616]

Vaccines obviously go a long way toward eradicating dangerous diseases. Are they 100% risk-free? No.

Because medical science has not yet determined statistical factors such as high vaccine rates coinciding with higher infant mortality rates, there is still no way to make the claim that vaccines are safe for ALL children. We know they are safe for most.

You understand the significance of "peer-review," I hope.
Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

I have a question for you about the snippet you quoted -- so, I'm going to requote it here for clarity.



My question to you is how could Dr. Wolfson's unvaccinated child get another child gravely ill -- unless -- that other child was not vaccinated?

His child could kill a child who got the disease even though that child had been vaccinated but whose immune system is not working properly because of cancer treatments.

Cancer treatments can make a vaccination ineffective during treatment and for a while afterward.

 

[HowardBThiname]

His child could kill a child who got the disease even though that child had been vaccinated but whose immune system is not working properly because of cancer treatments.

Cancer treatments can make a vaccination ineffective during treatment and for a while afterward.

The flu can kill a person with reduced immunity who is undergoing cancer treatment, whether that person is a child or an adult. The families of cancer victims are made aware of that and (typically) do not expose those patients unduly. Since the influenza vaccine only covers the strains experts "expect" to be most common in any year, a vaccinated child can still catch a flu virus and expose a child who is being treated for cancer. There is no guarantee of eliminating that risk, is there?

The risk, however, is minuscule given the fact that childhood cancer is rare.

I'm not against vaccines. My kids were vaccinated. What I'm against is 'shaming' parents who understand that there is a small risk from vaccinating into vaccinating. As long as there is even a tiny risk from vaccinating, we have to allow parents to make their own choices.

That is not to say we cannot exclude those children from taxpayer-funded-venues, such as public schools or government-funded daycares. But, we should always offer parents the choice to opt-out if they are fearful.

 

[HowardBThiname]

His child could kill a child who got the disease even though that child had been vaccinated but whose immune system is not working properly because of cancer treatments.

I think we should also revise, "His child could kill a child..." to "His child could 'expose' a child..."

 

[minnie616]

I think we should also revise, "His child could kill a child..." to "His child could 'expose' a child..."

I will agree with that revision.
I was just answering the question the way you originally phased it.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I will agree with that revision.
I was just answering the question the way you originally phased it.

Yes, I know. I just added that as an afterward.

My thoughts are that as long as we cannot show that vaccines are 100% safe - we have to allow people to make their own choices. The vast majority will vaccinate their children.

And, you know me, I'm a HUGE supporter of personal choice.

 

[minnie616]

The flu can kill a person with reduced immunity who is undergoing cancer treatment, whether that person is a child or an adult. The families of cancer victims are made aware of that and (typically) do not expose those patients unduly. Since the influenza vaccine only covers the strains experts "expect" to be most common in any year, a vaccinated child can still catch a flu virus and expose a child who is being treated for cancer. There is no guarantee of eliminating that risk, is there?

The risk, however, is minuscule given the fact that childhood cancer is rare.

I'm not against vaccines. My kids were vaccinated. What I'm against is 'shaming' parents who understand that there is a small risk from vaccinating into vaccinating. As long as there is even a tiny risk from vaccinating, we have to allow parents to make their own choices.

That is not to say we cannot exclude those children from taxpayer-funded-venues, such as public schools or government-funded daycares. But, we should always offer parents the choice to opt-out if they are fearful.

I agree with most your most your statement but I disagree and feel that those children not vaccinated against childhood illnesses can be excluded from public schools.( with Exceptions for health issues )

It was decided by the Supreme Court back in the 1940s or 1950s IIRC.

As a child attending school in the 1950s , my parents had to provide proof I was vaccinated against small pox. Also in the 1950s public health nurses ( including my Aunt) went to public schools and gave vaccinations to all of the children attending.


Actually (after researching ) that Supreme Court case was decided in 1905.

But it’s instructive to remember that the Supreme Court settled the question of compulsory vaccinations more than 100 years ago. And just last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which sits in Manhattan, cited that century-old precedent in rejecting a constitutional challenge to a New York law requiring that all kids attending public schools be vaccinated.

Read more:

https://newrepublic.com/article/120...governments-constitutional-right-vaccine-laws

 

[joG]

I guess we should add stupid to the list too.

White, wealthy and unvaccinated - CNN.com



Vaccines put a child at risk? Where did this moron get his medical degree?

There is no doubt that immunizations can have a number of different dangerous effects from mild to deadly. These conditions are not very frequent, but it can happen. And think how you would feel, if you gave your kid a shot and it killed or maimed the child

 

[calamity]

There is no doubt that immunizations can have a number of different dangerous effects from mild to deadly. These conditions are not very frequent, but it can happen. And think how you would feel, if you gave your kid a shot and it killed or maimed the child

I'd feel worse if I didn't get them the shot because of a 1-10,000 chance that something may go wrong and they then later died or became blind from complications of measles.

 

[minnie616]

Yes, I know. I just added that as an afterward.

My thoughts are that as long as we cannot show that vaccines are 100% safe - we have to allow people to make their own choices. The vast majority will vaccinate their children.

And, you know me, I'm a HUGE supporter of personal choice.

I support personal choice and if parents choose not vaccinate their children they can send to a private school that accepts non vaccinated children or they can home school their child.

Required vaccinations is about protecting the health of our public school children against childhood illness when possible.

 

[joG]

I'd feel worse if I didn't get them the shot because of a 1-10,000 chance that something may go wrong and they then later died or became blind from complications of measles.

Dead is dead.

 

[minnie616]

I support personal choice and if parents choose not vaccinate their children they can send to a private school that accepts non vaccinated children or they can home school their child.

Required vaccinations is about protecting the health of our public school children against childhood illness when possible.

1905 Supreme Court ruling about public school vaccinations

JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS case text

https://casetext.com/case/henning-jacobson-v-commonwealth-of-massachusetts

 

[calamity]

Vaccines obviously go a long way toward eradicating dangerous diseases. Are they 100% risk-free? No.

Because medical science has not yet determined statistical factors such as high vaccine rates coinciding with higher infant mortality rates, there is still no way to make the claim that vaccines are safe for ALL children. We know they are safe for most.

You understand the significance of "peer-review," I hope.
Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

I have a question for you about the snippet you quoted -- so, I'm going to requote it here for clarity.



My question to you is how could Dr. Wolfson's unvaccinated child get another child gravely ill -- unless -- that other child was not vaccinated?

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that vaccines do not make everyone who gets a shot immune to said disease, but rather they create a herd immunity, meaning that if everyone is vaccinated, enough of them are immune that the chances of a person who is not immune coming into contact with the disease is greatly reduced.

 

[calamity]

Dead is dead.

Gotta play the odds. If a child has a 1 in a million chance of dying from a vaccine or a 1 in 10 chance of catching some horrible disease if not vaccinated, I know where I'm placing my bets.

 

[Andalublue]

My question to you is how could Dr. Wolfson's unvaccinated child get another child gravely ill -- unless -- that other child was not vaccinated?

Well, if this Wolfson idiot is setting himself up as medical poster-boy for the anti-vaccinators, it's not difficult to believe that some people might take his brain-dead advice and not vaccinate their kids. There, that wasn't such a difficult question to answer, was it?

This reminds me of that criminal crank and fraudster, Andrew Wakefield. Wouldn't surprise me if Wolfson was following Wakefield's idea for a major money-making con like this...

Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing".

 

[joG]

I support personal choice and if parents choose not vaccinate their children they can send to a private school that accepts non vaccinated children or they can home school their child.

Required vaccinations is about protecting the health of our public school children against childhood illness when possible.

What is the probability in a 99 percent immunized population that an unimmunized individual will catch the the illness and then infect others?

The negative reaction to persons that do not act as the group demands is typical of natural peer group pressure as a reaction to suspicion. You see similar behavior in some other species under certain circumstances.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I support personal choice and if parents choose not vaccinate their children they can send to a private school that accepts non vaccinated children or they can home school their child.

Required vaccinations is about protecting the health of our public school children against childhood illness when possible.

I am in complete agreement.

 

[joG]

Gotta play the odds. If a child has a 1 in a million chance of dying from a vaccine or a 1 in 10 chance of catching some horrible disease if not vaccinated, I know where I'm placing my bets.

You think the probability of catching say small pox in a population that is 98 percent immunized is that high?

 

[HowardBThiname]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that vaccines do not make everyone who gets a shot immune to said disease, but rather they create a herd immunity, meaning that if everyone is vaccinated, enough of them are immune that the chances of a person who is not immune coming into contact with the disease is greatly reduced.

I'm not an expert, either, and I've heard of "herd immunity," and from what I can tell, it makes sense.

My point is that - as long as there is some risk (and there is) to children who are vaccinated (including a small risk of death), we have to allow parents to opt-out.

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Side Effects

I agree with Minnie that they should be excluded from public schools.

 

[joG]

I am in complete agreement.

The thing is that if your kid is immunized along with 99 percent of the kids, you don't own enough zeros to describe the tiny probability of your kid being infected by one of the ones not immunized. What is an aggravation to people is the free rider problem and probably a behavioral atavism takes hold.

 

[HowardBThiname]

The thing is that if your kid is immunized along with 99 percent of the kids, you don't own enough zeros to describe the tiny probability of your kid being infected by one of the ones not immunized. What is an aggravation to people is the free rider problem and probably a behavioral atavism takes hold.

Probably correct, but since we live in a society funded by taxpayers, we have some responsibility to the majority.

It's like public schooling. Not everyone like it - and if they don't - there are options they can take advantage of (private school/homeschool) but they can't really expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for those. (I know, some places have voucher programs, but that's not my point.0.

My point is that we need not make a law that forces parents to vaccinate, but at the same time, we can require them (at a state level, if need be) to keep their children out of public school if they voluntarily opt-out. This is already being done in some places. When outbreaks are going around, some schools ask unvaccinated kids to stay home (usually to protect themselves as well as other students). Some districts allow unvaccinated kids and some do not.

It's like the land I own. I can drive out here without wearing a seat belt and I can hunt my own land any time of year (I'm not a hunter, and not all states permit that). But, if I drive on public roadways, I have to buckle my seat belt and drive on the right side of the road. I have to obey traffic rules because they're designed to protect the public at large. I might very well be able to speed through a school zone and not hurt anyone, but I don't get to do that.

Likewise, I should have the right not to vaccinate my kids, but if I do, I can't expect the public to welcome them with open arms.

 

[minnie616]

The thing is that if your kid is immunized along with 99 percent of the kids, you don't own enough zeros to describe the tiny probability of your kid being infected by one of the ones not immunized. What is an aggravation to people is the free rider problem and probably a behavioral atavism takes hold.

The problem is too many parents have opted out.
There are public school districts ( in California for example ) where we know for a fact about 5percent or more of children have not been vaccinated because their parents opted out.

From a Washington Post article:

Back in 2000, only 0.77 percent of California kindergartners had personal belief exemptions from vaccines. By 2013, that percentage had more than quadrupled to 3.15 percent.

The scale on these maps tops off at 5 percent. But in some individual school districts, the actual PBE rate is much, much higher. At River Springs Charter School in Temecula, California, nearly a quarter of the 556 kindergartners had personal belief exemptions this year. A third of the kindergartners at the Visions in Education public school in Carmichael hold PBEs, as do 51 percent of kindergartners at Ocean Grove Charter School in Boulder Creek. At a handful of private schools, the PBE rate is 75 percent or more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...alifornias-epidemic-of-vaccine-denial-mapped/