The Cost of Not Vaccinating

Xcalibur254
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

It's true that the influenza vaccine is largely a guessing game. Scientists pretty much have to predict a year beforehand what the major strains of the next year will be. That said, unless you've had a severe reaction to the flu vaccine there is no reason not to receive it. Despite the popular claim that the flu vaccine causes the flu, this simply isn't true. The height of flu season occurs months after most people have received the flu shot. So what reason is there not to get it if the only side effect you can most likely expect is a sore arm for a day or two?

Please provide the peer reviewed evidence of your claim that there is no reason to not receive a flu vaccine. From what I located most of the people NOT BEING PAID BY THE PHARMA INDUSTRY do not agree that these flu (not influenza) vaccines do much of anything to mitigate the flu from spreading.

What I got from your statement is that because there is a minimal chance in preventing getting the flu people should jump at the chance to receive a vaccine that itself has a minimal chance of being properly targeted.

Or am I completely misinterpreting this?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Yes, there is some guess work involved. However if we look at this year's flu shot we see that it includes the H1N1 variant. So far this has been the most prevalent strain this year. This means the vaccine producers made an appropriate vaccine and a large number of people will have some form of protection against the flu. For most of the vast majority of these people the worst side effect they experienced was a sore arm. So if the flu vaccine can protect you from one of the worst strains of the flu (the same one involved in the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918) with minimal side effects why would you not opt to get it?

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Yeah I will complain hat you didn't address a single thing from the OP and if you didn't understand the gist of what I was saying about your articles then I will make it simple. They were misleading garbage not worth chasing.
Serriously the article "Bill Gates On 'Vaccines To Reduce Population'" is enough to see the quality of your research.
Run along little rabbit I am not going to chase everytime you hop in a different direction.

So essentially what you are saying is that you cannot refute any of the claims made by actual scientists cited in my posts.

Got it.

Why not respond to the CDC response to discovery of the swine 'flu' vaccine increasing miscarriages and complications in the pregnant women who received it?

That certainly has something to do with the cost of not getting a vaccination.

Calling something misleading garbage and not providing any evidence to support your claim simply means you cannot find anything to counter the legitimate claims made by ACTUAL DOCTORS.

You are just shilling for a topic you know nothing about and are not willing to investigate anything that could harm the pristine image you hold of it in your mind.

Its sad because a single google search actually linked to blogs which make attempts to discredit such claims and some of them actually point out legitimate issues with the claims made, but they do not disprove them. Most just muddy the waters further.

If you think anti-vaccine loons are just crunchy left-wing New Agers, think again
scienceblogs.com...

After these rumours were spread, attempts were made to analyse TT vaccines for the presence of hCG. The vaccines were sent to hospital laboratories and tested using pregnancy test kits which are developed for use on serum and urine specimens and are not appropriate for use on a vaccine such as TT, which contains a special preservative (merthiolate) and an adjuvant (aluminum salt). As a result of using these inappropriate tests, low levels of hCG-like activity were found in some samples of TT vaccine. The laboratories themselves recognised the significance of these results, which were below the reliable detection capabilities of the adjuvant or other substances in the the vaccine and the test kit. However, these results were misrepresented by ‘pro-life groups with the resulting disruption of immunisation programmes.

When the vaccines were tested in laboratories which used properly validated test systems, the results showed that the vaccines clearly did not contain hCG.

Of course they do not address why these women developed such issues in the first place and so in terms of scientific validity the claims on both sides are still lacking.


Tetanus vaccine may be laced with anti-fertility drug. International / developing countries.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Scribd the above journal and it is not too difficult to find.

Your tactics are lame and probably work well at /r atheism or /r vaccine . . . ATS occasionally asks for evidence though.

-FBB

Xcalibur254
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Yes, there is some guess work involved. However if we look at this year's flu shot we see that it includes the H1N1 variant. So far this has been the most prevalent strain this year. This means the vaccine producers made an appropriate vaccine and a large number of people will have some form of protection against the flu. For most of the vast majority of these people the worst side effect they experienced was a sore arm. So if the flu vaccine can protect you from one of the worst strains of the flu (the same one involved in the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918) with minimal side effects why would you not opt to get it?

By this year do mean 2013 or 2014? Because in 2012 it was the H3N2 and there was 26 times the reported cases of the previous year and one of the largest ever reported with around 22,000 cases. This comes out to about 1.4 x 10^-4 %. That is less than 1% of the population getting the flu in one of the worst years.

Also these cases tend to affect the children and elderly, unfortunately the data shows that vaccination of the elderly is very much ineffective in protecting them from getting the virus.

2013-2014 Influenza Season Week 1 ending January 4, 2014
www.cdc.gov...

Don't get me wrong, I got the meningitis vaccination and was extremely grateful as I actually know an individual who was infected by it and it was bad stuff.

I take issue with the fear mongering and shame parties being thrown for crap like 'flu' vaccines that proven largely ineffective for those most affected by the 'flu' and its symptoms.

I know several people involved in the health industry and the valid concern of diseases being spread has seriously driven them into manic panics because they know just how bad things COULD get. They care for people and want to protect them in any way they can, but they tend to go overboard with their paranoia.


Besides are there not too many people on this planet already? Like the ASU geneticist stated earlier a massive die off from viral infection would be a good thing.

I have seen many calls by certain individuals involved in this thread about there being too many people, why would they try to force people to get a vaccination that could possibly save them from such an outbreak when not vaccinating them would solve 'one of the biggest problems' facing the planet?

-FBB

EDIT

H1N1 makes up more than 90% of flu cases in Quebec so far
Flu season is business as usual, says Public Health Director Horacio Arruda

This year's flu season is just like any other, says Quebec's Director of Public Health Horacio Arruda — even if the majority of the 969 cases already reported are H1N1.

“We are not in a pandemic situation," Arruda said Tuesday afternoon.

Hospital overcrowding graph

INFOGRAPHIC: Overcrowding in Montreal hospitals

He said that since the 2009 outbreak of H1N1, people have had the chance to build up a resistance to the strain, meaning it's far less deadly than it was five years ago.

However, it is spreading quickly.

Forty cases of the H1N1 strain of influenza were reported in the Eastern Townships on Monday, and the number of cases of influenza province-wide was pegged at 969 on Tuesday afternoon.

Arruda said more than 90 per cent of reported cases of the flu are H1N1.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


As your post just stated the primary strain this year is H1N1. This is the same strain that killed 5% of the entire population of the world between 1918 and 1921. While our medical facilities have improved over the past ~100 years this is still a very dangerous strain of flu. Do you have any legitimate reason not to protect yourself against this strain?

Xcalibur254
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

As your post just stated the primary strain this year is H1N1. This is the same strain that killed 5% of the entire population of the world between 1918 and 1921. While our medical facilities have improved over the past ~100 years this is still a very dangerous strain of flu. Do you have any legitimate reason not to protect yourself against this strain?

EDIT
To directly answer your question, yes I do have a legitimate reason to not 'protect' myself against this strain. I can find no evidence that a pandemic mutation of this strain would be protected against by the current vaccine . . . .

The mortality and contraction rate for this strain are extremely low relative to the population and as cited by other doctors most people are already developing immunities against it.

Love the fear mongering though as the chances of me suffering an unexpected aneurism are greater than catching the potential pandemic mutation of the H1N1 virus which currently has no vaccine.
/EDIT

This one?

1918 flu pandemic
en.wikipedia.org...

The global mortality rate from the 1918/1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died. With about a third of the world population infected, this case-fatality ratio means 3% to 6% of the entire global population died.[29] Influenza may have killed as many as 25 million people in its first 25 weeks. Older estimates say it killed 40–50 million people,[4] while current estimates say 50–100 million people worldwide were killed.

. . . .

The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza, but the virus also killed people directly, causing massive hemorrhages and edema in the lung.

. . .

Another oddity was that the outbreak was widespread in the summer and autumn (in the Northern Hemisphere); influenza is usually worse in winter.

The 1918 pandemic was notable for the cytokine storm reaction which it induced. I am having a tough time finding any literature from the CDC or otherwise suggesting that a mutation of H1N1 which induces such a response in individuals would be prevented by any current H1N1 vaccine.

At most they suggest that an H1N1 vaccination would possibly provide a more broad resistance to general strains of the virus.

Here is an article for the H5N1 virus which does address the issue;
Confronting Potential Influenza A (H5N1) Pandemic with Better Vaccines
wwwnc.cdc.gov...

In the event of a pandemic, vaccination against influenza (H5N1) could limit the impact of infection at a public health level.
However, no evidence exists that available vaccines would be protective against the pandemic strain of the virus. We comment on some of the limitations of currently available vaccines and propose novel strategies to improve vaccine formulations against influenza (H5N1).

Honestly having a difficult time fitting your fear mongering into the modern reality being addressed by virologists and health professionals. Yes, I agree that it would be a very scary and fear inspiring event to occur if that is what you were trying to get across.

Do you have any articles or journals you would like to link me to further justify whatever it is you are trying say?

-FBB

My 2 cents beyond just being sarcastic about some people attitudes.

The wildly swinging weather patterns are going to cause mutations well beyond the predictions of the experts this year. Virus and bacteria do not generally like their walking petri dishes to be exposed to such random environments. But the surviving mutations are so much more aggressive.

In my opinion, no current shot will help.

Getting on top of secondary infections with both amoxicillin and metronidazole will save more lives than anything.

reply to post by Grimpachi

its my choice and it only affects me.

So, you are suggesting forced vaccinations against peoples will?

What are you going to do? Jail them if they don't vaccinate?

reply to post by ENrgLee

I am sure I never suggested forced anything.

In another thread I have spoke that it should be a requirement for anyone traveling into the US from other nations to be vaccinated based off the fact that most outbreaks in recent times in the US are due to unvaccinated people carrying a disease from other countries to the US.

It is their choice to come to the US so it still isn't forced.

reply to post by Grimpachi


IF the vaccines don't protect you from the disease...

Then what is the point of them?

reply to post by ENrgLee


Well the vaccines do protect people that IS the point.

But not everyone around you can take the vaccines some can't for medical reasons herd immunity is what has protected them but every time some group chooses not to that heard immunity is weakened.

Here is an example from the OP.

879 people were exposed, most of these were vaccinated so only 12 secondary cases occurred, all in unvaccinated children. Nine of these children were deliberately unvaccinated, but three of them were too young to have received the vaccine.

As you can see the vaccine did work the only people who were infected were those who were not vaccinated if the 9 hadn't purposely not vaccinated the three that couldn't probably wouldn't have been infected. That is how heard immunity is supposed to work. In fact if the 7 year old had been vaccinated then he would have never transmitted the disease back to the states and there wouldn't have been an outbreak at all.

I think a Medical Advisory Board made up of normal GPs and Integrative Medicine Doctors needs to be set up.

A group that helps fill the information gap between the "no vacs ever" loonies and the big pharma marketers.


The average person has little chance of getting balance views on essential and no-essential vacs . When the left and right both act like religious nutters.

thedeadtruth
... the information gap between the "no vacs ever" loonies and the big pharma marketers.

Fair and balanced.

Maybe people will take a look at what's going on around them. Though the incidence rate was low this year ... and it's falling off at this point ... the effects of flu should be evident.

Just came back from a morning meeting where this was the #1 topic of discussion. Biggest point was that the vaccine developed for this year was specifically on-target and the herd will survive.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Well the vaccines do protect people that IS the point.

Then why complain about people who don't want to be "Protected"?

ENrgLee
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Well the vaccines do protect people that IS the point.

Then why complain about people who don't want to be "Protected"?

Because its not how the science or numbers work. No matter what opinion we have on the subject.

Viruses do not respect your opinion.


If a certain % of the population are not vaccinated against something. It can spread very easily. Why is that an issue...?

Because every new case is an evolutionary chance for the virus to mutate ( your own immune systen can actually cause this ). So the question really becomes. Why would you put everyone else at risk . Why would you not want to minimize this risk instead ?


As I stated. This evolutionary mutation process is a fact. I have not yet heard an anti-vac person state otherwise. They simply want to wish it away.

Funny, dangerous people.

ENrgLee
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Well the vaccines do protect people that IS the point.

Then why complain about people who don't want to be "Protected"?

Well I guess I didn't explain it clearly enough for you.

OK so assuming you read the OP you realize that

48 children too young to be vaccinated were quarantined at an average family cost of $775 per child.

There was

a net public-sector cost of $10 376 per case.

Also, three children to young to vaccinate were infected one being a three-month-old had to be hospitalized all because one purposely unvaccinated 7 year old brought back a disease from Europe.

Not vaccinating has harmed others both medically and financially their decision affects more than just them.

I hope I explained it well enough for you.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So, I should be forced at gunpoint, to give my money to other men with guns, so that they can force other people to get injections that they don't want...........

Because a child got sick.

Is that about right?

reply to post by ENrgLee


Are you SICK?

How the hell did you come up with that.

Explain!!!!

reply to post by Grimpachi

Are you SICK?

How the hell did you come up with that.

Explain!!!!

Aren't you in favor of mandatory vaccinations?

reply to post by ENrgLee


I already answered that.

You seem to be having a hard time remembering things such as the OP and my answers to you.

Are you SICK?