A vaccination question..

Why do people with kids that are vaccinated, worry and have such a strong oppinion about parents that don't vaccinate?
If vaccinations work, and your loved ones are indeed vaccinated, why the stress and anger?

Am I missing something?

Really curious.

a reply to: Jefferton

Because there is an underlying reason why they want people to submit to vaccines so badly. All kinds of interesting things can be put inside vaccines. The information is out there. All you have to do is jump down the rabbit hole. But take a light. It's dark down there.

a reply to: Jefferton

Because vaccines really only work when a critical mass of the population are taking them if only 5% of the population for example were to be vaccinated then the load on public services for example would be strenuous and that 5% would mostly be taking the load. Also some people who might want to be vaccinated cannot because of allergies for instance and then when you have some who have not been vaccinated those people then become at risk. The idea is called "herd immunity" its a big part of vaccination programs

Also not vaccinating a child in my view could amount to neglect or abuse. If I saw you hitting your child in public I would probably intervene, wilfully leaving your kid open to getting various nasty viruses is pretty much the same.

I also abhorrer wilful ignorance and people who deny simple facts like the earth is round, the sun is bright, a orange is orange and vaccines protect people.

Two things.

One, some children have diseases or weakened immune systems which prevent them from being able to receive a vaccination. They depend on the rest of us being immune in order to avoid these diseases.

B), Sometimes the vaccines don't work and even immunized persons contract the disease. There was a pretty bad mumps outbreak this past winter where many of the people who contracted mumps were in fact immunized.

3.14 - I am NOT pro vaccine.

a reply to: Jefferton

a reply to: Jefferton

Because a vaccination isn't 100% safe from being sick, vaccinated children and adults, can still catch the sickness they are vaccinated against.

Look up herd immunity and that will answer your question.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Jefferton

Because vaccines really only work when a critical mass of the population are taking them if only 5% of the population for example were to be vaccinated then the load on public services for example would be strenuous and that 5% would mostly be taking the load. Also some people who might want to be vaccinated cannot because of allergies for instance and then when you have some who have not been vaccinated those people then become at risk. The idea is called "herd immunity" its a big part of vaccination programs

Also not vaccinating a child in my view could amount to neglect or abuse. If I saw you hitting your child in public I would probably intervene, wilfully leaving your kid open to getting various nasty viruses is pretty much the same.

I also abhorrer wilful ignorance and people who deny simple facts like the earth is round, the sun is bright, a orange is orange and vaccines protect people.

I hope you do not really believe that crap. If a vaccine protects you against a disease, it protects you. The fact is they do not protect people like people think. Some of the vaccines years ago worked well, if you got the vaccine, it was extremely rare that you would ever get the disease.

Flu vaccines are not like that, if you are vaccinated, you still get the disease, you supposedly fight it quicker but the thing is that the vaccine can mutate quickly in ones body, as soon as it attaches to a cell there is a mutation. Your vaccination may not fight the mutation that is created. The Flu vaccine is a poor vaccine. It will never work to lower flu in the world. I read some pretty indepth information on why these vaccines for flu do not work. I do not think the Pharma companies are making excuses either, I think what I am talking about may be the truth. These vaccines actually mutate quickly, they also have gene expression abilities to alter their makeup. The antigen based resistance does not work well with flu vaccines.

So they all need to be vaccinated for it to work? (Maybe?)

Still sounds fishy to me.

a reply to: Jefferton

Newborn children are not vaccinated until at least a month has gone by, and are therefore prone to infection from those who are not vaccinated.

It is the height of selfishness to not vaccinate yourself. If you don't care about yourself, at least care for those too young to protect themselves from you.

a reply to: Jefferton

Because you cannot get rid of a disease causing organism while ever there are unwise people who choose to host it and allow its population to bloom.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Jefferton

Because there is an underlying reason why they want people to submit to vaccines so badly. All kinds of interesting things can be put inside vaccines. The information is out there. All you have to do is jump down the rabbit hole. But take a light. It's dark down there.

Please, don't leave us in the dark. Tell us what these 'things' are and exactly what effects they have.

Otherwise, we will assume you are just talking bovine excrement.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Jefferton

Because vaccines really only work when a critical mass of the population are taking them if only 5% of the population for example were to be vaccinated then the load on public services for example would be strenuous and that 5% would mostly be taking the load. Also some people who might want to be vaccinated cannot because of allergies for instance and then when you have some who have not been vaccinated those people then become at risk. The idea is called "herd immunity" its a big part of vaccination programs

Also not vaccinating a child in my view could amount to neglect or abuse. If I saw you hitting your child in public I would probably intervene, wilfully leaving your kid open to getting various nasty viruses is pretty much the same.

I also abhorrer wilful ignorance and people who deny simple facts like the earth is round, the sun is bright, a orange is orange and vaccines protect people.

I hope you do not really believe that crap. If a vaccine protects you against a disease, it protects you. The fact is they do not protect people like people think. Some of the vaccines years ago worked well, if you got the vaccine, it was extremely rare that you would ever get the disease.

Flu vaccines are not like that, if you are vaccinated, you still get the disease, you supposedly fight it quicker but the thing is that the vaccine can mutate quickly in ones body, as soon as it attaches to a cell there is a mutation. Your vaccination may not fight the mutation that is created. The Flu vaccine is a poor vaccine. It will never work to lower flu in the world. I read some pretty indepth information on why these vaccines for flu do not work. I do not think the Pharma companies are making excuses either, I think what I am talking about may be the truth. These vaccines actually mutate quickly, they also have gene expression abilities to alter their makeup. The antigen based resistance does not work well with flu vaccines.

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, but their effectiveness rises as the disease vector is reduced.

The vaccine does not kill the disease, it only tells our immune systems what to look for.

If we get a disease after being immunised, it is the fault of our immune system being inadequate to fight the pathogen.

Vaccinations are more effective at reducing disease, than nothing.

a reply to: rickymouse

Do you guys take lessons in posting BS or is it just a natural born skill I am not blessed with?

I mean let's take this little nugget of "wisdom"

The Flu vaccine is a poor vaccine

You say it like it's a absolute fact, when really it's just nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that. According to the American journal of public health

An overall and substantial decline in influenza-classed mortality was observed during the 20th century, from an average seasonal rate of 10.2 deaths per 100 000 population in the 1940s to 0.56 per 100 000 by the 1990s. The 1918–1919 pandemic stands out as an exceptional outlier.

Conclusion; the flu vaccine is a pretty epic vaccine in terms of reducing mortality

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: Jefferton

Newborn children are not vaccinated until at least a month has gone by, and are therefore prone to infection from those who are not vaccinated.

It is the height of selfishness to not vaccinate yourself. If you don't care about yourself, at least care for those too young to protect themselves from you.

Newborns are protected in the short term by inherited immunity from their mothers. If their mothers are un-vaccinated, the newborns are similarly not immune.

Immunizations are usually repeated at intervals as immune response fades over time if not challenged by exposure to disease vectors. Immunizations carry the markers of disease vectors, allowing immune response without exposure to the actual disease vector itself.

a reply to: rickymouse

You can only make a vaccine so effective before you start getting into the question of making it toxic or infectious to the organism.

Most vaccines are going to have a very high rate of effectiveness 80%+ but none are going to ever be 100% for this reason. 100% is going to be as bad as catching to disease, maybe worse. Making a vaccine is the balancing act between increasing effectiveness and keeping it safe where only those who are allergic or those who are going to react badly (you cannot make a medication that will not have this population) are the ones who need to worry.

The problem I think we have is that it has been so long since deadly disease has run rampant through most modern populations that we forget what that is like. So it is easier to point at the few victims of vaccines because you never see the ones vaccines have saved. It's like attempting to prove/disprove a negative.

You can find those who reacted badly to the vaccine, but I cannot find those ones alive thanks to the polio vaccine. So my argument is and remains always a hypothetical that people must take on faith until public trust in vaccines erodes so badly that we see an outbreak of polio again and remember why we all got those shots in the first place.

a reply to: ketsuko

I should add the the reason why you are never going to get as vaccine that is 100% is that what a vaccine does is provoke an immune response from the body.

The stronger the immune response provoked, the more likely you are to create real medical issues.

If you study the Spanish Flu epidemic, you will learn that the Flu itself didn't actually kill most victims. Their own immune systems did. The flu took the young with strong, healthy immune systems because it was a novel strain of the virus that unprepared immune systems had not seen before. As a result, those immune systems went overboard in their response and ended up killing the bodies they were trying to protect.

This is what they have to be careful with trying to prevent when making a vaccine. They cannot trigger an immune response so strong that it will kill a healthy immune system, but they have to make it strong enough to protect weaker ones too. As I said, a balancing act.

It just sounds like so many people with really strong opinions, based on very little actual knowledge.

Wrong?

originally posted by: Jefferton
It just sounds like so many people with really strong opinions, based on very little actual knowledge.

Wrong?

I don't know. My husband has been making vaccines for almost 20 years now. It's his career and profession. He works in quality control ... well, he did for 15 years of that career, but within the past couple of weeks he's moved out into regulatory affairs.

So my knowledge is second-hand.

I've been watching a series about vaccines titled Vaccines Revealed.

If you really want to learn the truth about vaccines, there are doctors, scientists, biologists, parents, and whistle blowers telling their story in this 9-part series.

You will see how the studies shown to doctors are not correct; people who tried to warn the public were 'silenced', and how family after family has been ruined from some of the vaccines 'they' force on children.

And, don't you find it odd that the studies done by the FDA on the vaccines were all working for the pharmaceutical companies?

There is also a really good show about the flu vaccine.

It was free to watch all 9 shows, but tonight is the last one, I think. You can click on the link at the top and see if you can still watch it. At least, maybe you can see tonight's show.

I RECOMMEND EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH THIS.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ketsuko

I should add the the reason why you are never going to get as vaccine that is 100% is that what a vaccine does is provoke an immune response from the body.

The stronger the immune response provoked, the more likely you are to create real medical issues.

If you study the Spanish Flu epidemic, you will learn that the Flu itself didn't actually kill most victims. Their own immune systems did. The flu took the young with strong, healthy immune systems because it was a novel strain of the virus that unprepared immune systems had not seen before. As a result, those immune systems went overboard in their response and ended up killing the bodies they were trying to protect.

This is what they have to be careful with trying to prevent when making a vaccine. They cannot trigger an immune response so strong that it will kill a healthy immune system, but they have to make it strong enough to protect weaker ones too. As I said, a balancing act.

Yes, the Spanish Influenza was so deadly because of the immune response triggering excessive cell apoptosis but no-one would distribute an immunization that killed people. They'd look for an immunisation that may not be as effective but was safe.

If there was such a thing as a 'flu shot available in the 1800's, it would most likely have saved many because the 'flu would not have gotten a foothold either in individuals or the population. The 'extreme immune response' would have killed the 'flu before it exceeded deadly thresholds and therefore, many who did die, would probably have lived.

As an argument against immunization, it isn't. As a proof of the science that supports immunization, it is.