Posted on 11/04/2011 4:28:40 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Chris Barnes, 11, is getting his latest round of vaccinations for measles and tetanus.
“It doesn’t really scare me as much as other people, it’s just a shot,” he said.
Without regular immunizations, Chris would be turned away at his pediatrician’s office.
Dr. Wayne Yankus refuses to see patients unless they follow the government recommended immunization schedule.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburgh.cbslocal.com ...
If you believe that then please answer the question I've asked of anti-vaxxers for many years and have never gotten a satisfactory response, or any, for that matter: If doctors and "bigpharma" were only interested in profiting at the expense of our children, why don't they forgo the vaccines and simply supply new, nasty meds to treat all the diseases that would make a comeback?
Sure is a whole lot of pressure to get shots these days.. how did we live before kids were required to get 10 shots a year per visit.
Many people didn't. Are you saying infant and child mortality rates were not higher 50 years ago than they are now?
“”People who give raw milk to young children, with vulnerable and still developing immune systems, are taking unnecessary chances for no good reason.””
Again Mase sees no contradiction here about “vulnerable and still developing immune system”. It’s ok to pump toxins and poisons into that same young child tho’!
I’m afraid our friend has spent too long at this today as he chastised you about Dr. Mercola and Dr. Sears when it was I who brought those two men up. He seems to think that Dr. Sears writes books to make money when he’s already a very successful pediatrician in Southern CA.
I don’t know if there’s a vaccine for confusion but he should seek it out ASAP if there is.
I was raised on raw milk and bought it wherever it was legal to do so in my adult life. Who knows? It may have gotten me and my siblings through the polio epidemics of the late ‘40’s and early ‘50’s. But personal experiences carry no weight with a lot of posters here today. Still a milk drinker in my middle ‘70’s.
“”Are you saying infant and child mortality rates were not higher 50 years ago than they are now?””
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted once today but I’ll post it again in answer to your question:
Infant mortality has risen in the US. In 1960, America ranked 12th in infant mortality among all nations of the world. By 2005, we ranked 30th.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“”have never gotten a satisfactory response, or any, for that matter: If doctors and “bigpharma” were only interested in profiting at the expense of our children, why don’t they forgo the vaccines and simply supply new, nasty meds to treat all the diseases that would make a comeback?””
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I doubt that ANY response would be satisfactory to you but I’ll take a stab at it. Perhaps there is more profit in treating children who become sick after vaccinations. Not that there’s much that can be done in the very serious cases, but why should that prevent them from making the public believe they have the answer? Do people not need the pediatricians to treat the allergies, asthma, ADD, ADHD (that’s only the “A’s”) and many other ailments that are epidemic today?
Your question would also imply that vaccines are cheap! I think you’ll find that is simply not the case.
Do you think pediatricians believe 100% in childhood or any other vaccine? If that was true, don’t you think they’d be willing to sign a statement accepting liability for damage done to a child? Why does the parent have to sign a statement authorizing a vaccine?
My complaint and others here today about profiting from vaccines was directed at the pharmaceutical industry - not the doctors - and the politicians who are bought and paid for by them.
By the way, are you going to volunteer your kids or grandkids for the Anthrax vaccine testing for children?
Infant mortality rates have risen in the US because we compile the numbers different from other countries and we are more aggressive in our attempts to save borderline neonates, not to mention the very high percentage of preterm births.
Odd, though, that ALL the other countries that are above us also have mandatory vaccination programs!
Ooops.
I doubt that ANY response would be satisfactory
And you didn't disappoint.
Perhaps there is more profit in treating children who become sick after vaccinations. Not that there’s much that can be done in the very serious cases, but why should that prevent them from making the public believe they have the answer? Do people not need the pediatricians to treat the allergies, asthma, ADD, ADHD (that’s only the “A’s”) and many other ailments that are epidemic today?
So now we have moved on from "too many vaccines (formerly thiomersal, which was formerly MMR, etc.) cause autism" to "too many vaccines cause pretty much any bad thing that happens to a kid". I'll be sure to let my kids know to call the lawyers when their skin breaks out.
Your question would also imply that vaccines are cheap! I think you’ll find that is simply not the case.
The cost of the entire vaccine schedule is less than a hospital stay for pertussis.
Do you think pediatricians believe 100% in childhood or any other vaccine? If that was true, don’t you think they’d be willing to sign a statement accepting liability for damage done to a child? Why does the parent have to sign a statement authorizing a vaccine?
Because no vaccine is 100% safe, and nobody says they are.
My complaint and others here today about profiting from vaccines was directed at the pharmaceutical industry - not the doctors - and the politicians who are bought and paid for by them.
But doctors MUST be complicit if the evidence against vaccines is as apparent as you say. How could they not be? And can you please elucidate on just how much "big pharma" makes on vaccines a year?
All I am saying is I am highly suspicious of the hype machine behind Vaccines. The need for this boat load of shots is highly questionable.. but once again who makes the money? Big Pharma.
The amount of shots they want to give children these days boggles the mind. I got perhaps one shot a year when I was a kid.. now I am hearing from friends that its 10 a year if you are lucky. Mortality rate or not, that is someone pushing fear to make money.
I actually think that the HIB, Polio, and dpt are the only shots needed. MMR? I think that they were diseases to have, and only the weakest of children sucumbed to complications. We have now changed the endangered group to infants who no longer receive mom’s antibodies, for mom had not had the disease.
Could you overstate this a bit more more please, I don't believe you've set off the requisite amount of panic.
Vaccines are not poison.
These vaccines are contaminated with God knows what in addition to containing DNA from aborted fetuses.
They do not contain DNA from aborted fetuses. If you're concerned that some old vaccines were developed using cells from aborted fetuses, you should know there are alternative versions that were not. A list of those is easily available from Right to Life and other pro-life organizations.
I think parents DO have the absolute right to refuse that crap
It's not crap. Parents do all manner to stupid things with their kids.
Denial of the science of vaccination, your perpetuation of myths and lies, puts everyone at risk. Most common vaccines depend on a high level of vaccination in the population to prevent outbreaks; it's called "herd immunity."
“”herd immunity.” “
These “Big Pharma” and “killer vaccine” conspiracy people are making me suspect what we have instead is “herd stupidity”.
Pretty certain; that if there were a vaccine for this variety of ignorance; these same; would not take it.
How much money? And again, how on earth is it more than actually treating the disease, a tremendously expensive endeavor?
The amount of shots they want to give children these days boggles the mind. I got perhaps one shot a year when I was a kid.. now I am hearing from friends that its 10 a year if you are lucky. Mortality rate or not, that is someone pushing fear to make money.
The only problem with your point is it is argued out of sheer ignorance. When you received your "shot a year", those vaccines contained more antigens than all the shots a child gets now. Now why should these more jabs be dangerous when the total antigens are less?
I’ve read that too. But, I recently had to point out to a completely anti-vaccine friend that vaccines do wear off. She posted on Facebook an article where, if I remember right, in Illinois there had been an outbreak of pertussis at one of the local high schools and it was confirmed that all the kids that got it had been vaccinated for pertussis as babies. So it was a big deal because it was proving that vaccines don’t work, blah blah blah. But it is known that that vaccine does lose effectiveness, it’s not that it doesn’t work. So it seems to be pretty common that, at least with that particular disease, that people do become susceptible to it and can help it spread.
As I’ve said a couple of times, I’m somewhere in the middle on vaccines. I think in general they’re safe, but I don’t think they’re safe for everyone. And if a parent doesn’t want to vaccinate their kid, then they shouldn’t, whether I think their reasons are reasonable or not. There are enough people that vaccinate that there should be an extremely minor affect on society as a whole. Most of the comments here have been of the all or nothing sort and I just can’t stand it. Conservatives are all about individual choice and individual responsibility, except when it comes to this?
Mumps is a danger to men past the age of puberty; if I recall correctly, they risk becoming infertile as a result.
Rubella is a danger to unborn babies, causing terrible birth defects--among them deafness, mental retardation, heart defects, or death.
I do question why kids are vaccinated against milder diseases, like chickenpox, which caused about 10 deaths a year before a vaccine was developed. But, in that case, my questioning has nothing to do with the safety of the vaccine, and more to do with whether the immune system is sufficiently challenged by fighting off a full case of a disease, rather than mini-challenged by a vaccine. But where diseases are deadly or highly injurious, I'm firmly for vaccination.
Few people have died of measles (note correct spelling), rather most have died of complications, such as encephalitis or pneumonia. High risk factors for death include immuno-compromised systems(like AIDS), malnutrition, or even Vitamin A deficiency.
When my child was young, many of the parents in our circle of friends would have measles parties. One kid would get measles and they’d throw a party so the other kids could get exposed and “come down” with measles. Then they would get the longest lasting, cheapest immunity to measles: measles.
You also commented about “made up stories about what is in vaccines”. Google will lead you to research in JAMA and other prestigious publications about peanut oil in vaccines. Maybe you are in need of researching the issue more thoroughly.
If you were the parent of one of those immunocompromised children bringing your kid in for a routine visit, and another child in the waiting room had one of those potentially deadly diseases that can be prevented by vaccine, you would panic.
Nice graphics, but where is the science?
“We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”
In reading that article, I found no mention made of whether those children had received the vaccine as an infant. All I found was an assessment of whether they had received the booster as per the (then) new recommendation. What I also saw in that article was that, during the full epidemic, only 36 people out of nearly 5000 students and faculty at that school developed pertussis, suggesting that a large number of people were still very effectively protected through their infant vaccinations. It is possible that those 36 never, in fact, had the vaccine. Another possibility is that they had been previously vaccinated, and the disease was milder as a result.
The very real science is illustrated in the graphics. Or would you rather see the same thing illustrated not in animations, but in tables of dry numbers analyzing transmission rates and incubation periods, which give specific "herd immunity" probabilities for each disease? For illustrating the concept, the cartoon is completely adequate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.