• 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]

There's suppose to be a study that states once you've had the flu, you'll be partially protected from future instances of the flu, shortening and/or lessening it's severity.

If I can find it, I'll post it.

Anecdotally, most people I know who've had the flu, only suffered from it once. But, most of my friends would never take a flu vaccine anyway.
The theory is fine. Inject a body with small amounts of inert virus and allow the body to build a natural resistance. One of our problems is that we arent letting our bodies build resistance. We are on drugs for EVERYTHING.
 
Are you referencing Andrew Wakefield?

Because Wakefield was not looking to discredit vaccines at all. His claim was because autistic children tend to have problems in the bowels, that there could be a link and even the source for autism.

No on said he was, what was state was that his work had been discredited. That is a fact. Do you deny it?
 
Flu vaccines worthless and dangerous | Vaccination Information Network

The CDC put out an advisory this year that 52% of the cases of influenza this year are from a strain that has 'drifted' from the vaccine strain so greatly that it will have no impact on recipients. The current years vaccines are ALWAYS made from the last years strain, meaning the efficacy is always questionable, depending on the level of mutation in the virus.

Im not anti-vaccine in general but I havent had a flu-shot in over 20 years. Ive had flu like symptoms a few times and my body has managed to fight them off.

Now...if they ever develop a vaccine against summer colds? I'm all over that!
Nowhere does that source (granting that we will stoop to calling a fear mongering website a source) state that the flu vaccine is a waste of time for 95% of the population. You just made that figure up out of thin air.

And by the way, the accuracy and truthfulness of the article you listed has been thoroughly disputed. Addtionally, the article cited in that source was in an opinion column, and is not actually a peer-reviewed study. Peter Doshi, the man behind the cited article, is neither a virologist nor a epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins. He conducted no research about influenza or vaccines at Johns Hopkins, nor does he speak for the university on that subject.

More bunk. Surprise surprise.
 
Last edited:
Just heard on the radio this morning on the way in to work that this year there have been less that 70 deaths this season in the US from flu.

That's good news. ( not for the families of those who died of course)

I know my grandson was hospitalized 2003 when he was under a year old and he was very ill.
 
Nowhere does that source (granting that we will stoop to calling a fear mongering website a source) state that the flu vaccine is a waste of time for 95% of the population. You just made that figure up out of thin air.

And by the way, the accuracy and truthfulness of the article you listed has been thoroughly disputed. Addtionally, the article cited in that source was in an opinion column, and is not actually a peer-reviewed study. Peter Doshi, the man behind the cited article, is neither a virologist nor a epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins. He conducted no research about influenza or vaccines at Johns Hopkins, nor does he speak for the university on that subject.

More bunk. Surprise surprise.
Got your panties twisted too I see. Theres a lot of that going around.

Nowhere did I offer the 95% figure. I was contributing to a conversation...and apparently to your butthurt status. You are responding like you own stock in a vaccine company. Re ****ing lax already.
 
The theory is fine. Inject a body with small amounts of inert virus and allow the body to build a natural resistance. One of our problems is that we arent letting our bodies build resistance. We are on drugs for EVERYTHING.

Actually, vaccines don't build natural resistance at all.
It's recently been proven that a lot of our immunity stems from the gut and the bacteria within it. Vaccines, on the other hand, circumvent that system because it's injected directly into muscle tissue.

Gut bacteria essential for immune cell development - Medical News Today
Gut bacteria instrumental to development of innate immune cells
In this latest study, published in the journal Cell Host & Microbe, they describe how they discovered that beneficial gut bacteria played a key role in the development of innate immune cells - specifically macrophages, monocytes and neutrophils - special white blood cells that provide a first line of defense against invading pathogens.

These white blood cells do not only circulate in the blood, they are also stored in the spleen and in bone marrow. When the team compared counts of white blood cells in these areas in mice born without gut bacteria - known as "germ-free" mice - and healthy mice with a normal gut bacteria population, they found the germ-free mice had fewer of them.

The germ-free mice also had fewer stemlike cells that can differentiate into some types of immune cells. Plus, their spleens contained defective innate immune cells whose populations never reached the size found in healthy mice with microbes in their gut.
 
No on said he was, what was state was that his work had been discredited. That is a fact. Do you deny it?

I question it, yes.
Was Andrew Wakefield right all along?
Conclusions
Although the PLOS One authors are careful to admit that further research is needed to confirm their results, and concede that their findings in ASD children may simply reflect an early phase of development of non-ASD-associated inflammatory bowel disease, their findings are hugely compelling. The evidence is mounting that there was very little wrong with the science performed by Andrew Wakefield’s group in 1998, and that an enormous effort was mounted to discredit him because of the threats his work presented to powerful interests. The sooner this truth is communicated to, and understood by, the public – the better.
 
I question it, yes.

Andrew Wakefield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism[6] or autism and gastrointestinal disease.[7] A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part,[8] and most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations.[9] The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues.[10] The investigation centred on Deer's numerous findings, including that children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures,[11] such as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.[12] The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.[13][14][15] The Lancet immediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified.[16] The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton said the paper was "utterly false" and that the journal had been "deceived".[17] Three months later, Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in The Lancet research,[18] and is barred from practising medicine in the UK.[19]

Please stop doing that. It's embarrassing.
 
If suddenly there is a true epidemic of a virulent plague and millions of people start dying, I'd probably consider getting vaccinated against that disease.
You'd consider it? Seriously?

So if there was a resurgence of smallpox, you'd wait until after it reaches epidemic status to consider taking the smallpox vaccine?


Until then, the extreme views on vaccination, including taking away a person's right to choose, are totally hyperbolic.
Unless they aren't.

This is not an individual health issue, it's also a community health issue. There are many people who are unable to receive vaccines, because their health doesn't allow it or their immune systems are compromised. Vaccines are also highly effective, but not 100%; among other factors, the immunity can wear off. The more people who are immunized, the smaller the vectors for transmission.

Plus, we know that mandatory vaccinations have completely eradicated certain diseases, such as smallpox and polio. I have no doubt that for those diseases, compulsory vaccination was the best available option.


And when it comes to things like the flu vaccine, I don't trust corporate interests.
Good news! Flu vaccines aren't all that profitable. The profit margins are lower than other drugs, and they have to destroy all unused stock at the end of the year. They make a lot more money on boner pills and drugs to thicken your eyelashes than flu vaccines.


The root of epidemic disease is unhealthy populations with inadequate resources.
Please, spare us such nonsense.

Specific diseases are spread by poor conditions -- e.g. cholera will spread in communities without adequate water supplies. Chickenpox, for example, is airborne and highly contagious; prior to the vaccine, it routinely spread throughout otherwise healthy people, including in affluent communities.


Look at the average American diet and waistline and tell me that we have healthy immune systems.
You don't get the chickenpox from eating Frosted Flakes. Before the chicken pox vaccine was issued in 1995, and long before Americans were as fat as they are today, chickenpox routinely spread throughout affluent communities.


Vaccines are a patch for a symptom that is part of a MUCH bigger problem. Nature will always adapt in order to cull the weak.
What is this, the Horatio Alger story?

Polio didn't spread because of sugar, or big waist lines, or video games, or a lack of resources. Polio wasn't stopped by kids exercising outside and eating right. Polio was eradicated in the US because of a vaccine.

Obviously, certain specific diseases are rare today because of better diets (scurvy) and running water (cholera). However, vaccination keeps a disease like the measles in check. The potential harms of the vaccines are extremely small, and vastly outweighed by the harms of a failure to vaccinate.
 
Got your panties twisted too I see. Theres a lot of that going around.

Nowhere did I offer the 95% figure. I was contributing to a conversation...and apparently to your butthurt status. You are responding like you own stock in a vaccine company. Re ****ing lax already.
Then your response was irrelevant to the post you quoted and you shouldn't have used the quote function.

Regardless, the rest of my post proved your link was a load of garbage.
 
Actually, vaccines don't build natural resistance at all.
It's recently been proven that a lot of our immunity stems from the gut and the bacteria within it. Vaccines, on the other hand, circumvent that system because it's injected directly into muscle tissue.
Just because gut bacteria help build resistance doesn't mean that vaccines don't. That is invalid reasoning my friend.
 
Actually, the real question is how often do people experience complications from the vaccine vs the complications experience from actually having measles, particular in developed countries where vaccines are ubiquitous.

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.

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.

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:
 
There goes driving, playing football and eating spicy food. Damn you are a buzz kill to life.

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?
 
Actually, vaccines don't build natural resistance at all.
It's recently been proven that a lot of our immunity stems from the gut and the bacteria within it. Vaccines, on the other hand, circumvent that system because it's injected directly into muscle tissue.

They build a superior artificial resistance to that particular virus. Natural =/= better.

I mean, you're not trying to suggest that exposing people to three viruses naturally is better, are you? Because I got a scoreboard for you to look at.
 
Last edited:
I wish vaccinations were mandatory. Public health is not an individual choice, unfortunately, but a social right.
 
Stop doing what? Questioning that idea that autism and gut issues are link? Because that's what I'm doing.

Even that research was discredited. Do you have anything else to add?
 
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.

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.

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:
Take all the risks you wish. By doing so are also placing others at risk. And that is not a right.
 
What is it about measles vaccines? Vaccines for measles didn't exist when I was going to school. You got the disease, of which there were 2 versions, one lasted for 3 days, and the other, the bad one lasted for about 2 weeks. Then you were immune for life. Our parents and grandparents had all had measles, and nobody worried about it, nor did anybody ever die of it. What has happened? Was measles so eradicated that no one now has any immunity toward it?
 
I wish vaccinations were mandatory. Public health is not an individual choice, unfortunately, but a social right.

The government definitely should dictate every meal for every person and regulate all physical activities because public health is not an individual choice.

Unvaccinated people do not endanger anyone vaccinated - unless you concede vaccinations don't work. Thus, there is no PUBLIC health issue, only an individual health issue.
 
Then your response was irrelevant to the post you quoted and you shouldn't have used the quote function.

Regardless, the rest of my post proved your link was a load of garbage.
Your butthurt is noted as is your apparent lack of ability to engage in conversation.
 
Take all the risks you wish. By doing so are also placing others at risk. And that is not a right.

How does an unvaccinated person put a vaccinated person at risk? Explain it. No one else has. They just keep chanting a nonsensical slogan.
 
What is it about measles vaccines? Vaccines for measles didn't exist when I was going to school. You got the disease, of which there were 2 versions, one lasted for 3 days, and the other, the bad one lasted for about 2 weeks. Then you were immune for life. Our parents and grandparents had all had measles, and nobody worried about it, nor did anybody ever die of it. What has happened? Was measles so eradicated that no one now has any immunity toward it?

Most people who were vaccinated are immune to it.

The outbreaks occur in populations with a lower vaccination rate. However, vaccines can wear off over time or sometimes the immunity doesn't take hold in the first place so a few vaccinated people can get sick here and there.
 
What is it about measles vaccines? Vaccines for measles didn't exist when I was going to school. You got the disease, of which there were 2 versions, one lasted for 3 days, and the other, the bad one lasted for about 2 weeks. Then you were immune for life. Our parents and grandparents had all had measles, and nobody worried about it, nor did anybody ever die of it. What has happened? Was measles so eradicated that no one now has any immunity toward it?

What happened is that people die from complications due to measles. Measles is pretty rare in the US given the headway MMR vaccinations have been able to make against it.

The government definitely should dictate every meal for every person and regulate all physical activities because public health is not an individual choice.

I also think that the government should provide a robust public health awareness program that includes regulation of the food industry and promotion of healthy lifestyles, so you're close.

Unvaccinated people do not endanger anyone vaccinated - unless you concede vaccinations don't work. Thus, there is no PUBLIC health issue, only an individual health issue.

Completely ignorant response. Not surprising coming from someone that would take such a stance.

Why Worry About the Unvaccinated? | Shot of Prevention
 
What is it about measles vaccines? Vaccines for measles didn't exist when I was going to school. You got the disease, of which there were 2 versions, one lasted for 3 days, and the other, the bad one lasted for about 2 weeks. Then you were immune for life. Our parents and grandparents had all had measles, and nobody worried about it, nor did anybody ever die of it. What has happened? Was measles so eradicated that no one now has any immunity toward it?

Problem is people do die from it
In 2011, the WHO estimated that there were about 158,000 deaths caused by measles. This is down from 630,000 deaths in 1990.[54] In developed countries, death occurs in 1 to 2 cases out of every 1,000 (0.1% - 0.2%).[55] In populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate healthcare, mortality can be as high as 10%. In cases with complications, the rate may rise to 20–30%.[56] Increased immunization has led to an estimated 78% drop in measles deaths among UN member states.[57][58] This reduction made up 25% of the decline in mortality in children under five during this period.[citation needed]
Even in countries where vaccination has been introduced, rates may remain high. In Ireland, vaccination was introduced in 1985. There were 99,903 cases that year. Within two years, the number of cases had fallen to 201, but this fall was not sustained. Measles is a leading cause of vaccine-preventable childhood mortality. Worldwide, the fatality rate has been significantly reduced by a vaccination campaign led by partners in the Measles Initiative: the American Red Cross, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United Nations Foundation, UNICEF and the WHO. Globally, measles fell 60% from an estimated 873,000 deaths in 1999 to 345,000 in 2005.[34] Estimates for 2008 indicate deaths fell further to 164,000 globally, with 77% of the remaining measles deaths in 2008 occurring within the Southeast Asian region.[63]
Measles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then we have complications which compound the problem
Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from mild complications such as diarrhea to serious complications such as pneumonia (either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia),[10] otitis media,[11] acute brain inflammation[12] (and very rarely SSPE—subacute sclerosing panencephalitis),[13] and corneal ulceration (leading to corneal scarring).[14] Complications are usually more severe in adults who catch the virus.[15] The death rate in the 1920s was around 30% for measles pneumonia.[16]

Between 1987 and 2000, the case fatality rate across the United States was three measles-attributable deaths per 1000 cases, or 0.3%.[17] In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates have been as high as 28%.[17] In immunocompromised persons (e.g., people with AIDS) the fatality rate is approximately 30%.[18] Risk factors for severe measles and its complications include: malnutrition;[19][20] underlying immunodeficiency;[19] pregnancy;[19][21] and vitamin A deficiency.[19][22]
Measles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom