sirdroseph wrote: 
no, necessarily a massive outbreak, but putting infants (who are too young to be vaccinated) and people who cannot be immunized at risk. Considering that encephalitis can occur with exposure I'd like kids to be vaccinated. that's my take.

 meower wrote: 
How do you force people to have their kids vaccinated? Why don't we force mentally ill people to take their meds. If we did that, we might reduce the number of murders. It seems that the guy that killed the 3 Muslims the other day should have been medicated. The guy that killed Chris Kyle should have been medicated. Why don't we medicate by force?
 
By the way, I am for vaccinating. 

 meower wrote: 

Just to preface, I get it, not getting vaccinations for most of the established known diseases is not the smart way to go. However again, other than the exceptions Scott listed below as long as a child is vaccinated would they not be affected by these unvaccinated children?  It is not the same as sending children with infectious diseases out into the public to be infected.  For the most part, only non protected children will be affected, something that their parents knowingly took the risk not to do.  In other words, as long as most people get vaccinated which we are assuming is probably the case, then there is no risk of a massive outbreak.  None of these diseases death toll will ever reach that of the flu for instance under any circumstances.

 kurtster wrote: 

voluntary, just don't send your kid to school, amusement parks, doctor's offices, church (unless the rest of your church does as you do,) hospitals, daycare, babies, sick people or malls if you've decided not to.

 kurtster wrote: 
:sigh: It's just black or white, is it?

So we can talk about this until the cows come home or the sun goes super nova and accomplish nothing ...

It all comes down to one question and only one question.

Here we are right now ...

Voluntary or involuntary ?

Stand up and be counted, no explanations wanted.

Me ... voluntary 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Genesis 1:3

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

Now I know that I am not the smartest tool in the shed, but I do have a tongue, a cheek and a sense of humor to go along with elements of truth.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Of course there are always going to be people who cannot get the vaccine due to other issues, and young children don't get their booster shot until they're headed for kindergarten. So people who are trying to take every precaution are still at risk of being infected by idiots.

 sirdroseph wrote: 


Damn, I wish I said that, would've saved me a lot of trouble.

I'ma outta here, too. 

The only input that I have on this whole subject is that if vaccinations do their job, as long as you vaccinate your children you should be safe, right?  Meaning those that do not vaccinate their children will only have a possible adverse affect on other children whose parents choose not to have them vaccinated.  Well, shouldn't this make the intellectual, informed people happy,? That way they can achieve their Eugenics dream of a master, intellectual (presumably .gov subservient) race?  You know Darwinism and all? Scurries out of this thread.......

I defer to the posted enlightenment.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Mumps can be a mild disease, but it is often quite uncomfortable and complications are not rare. These include meningitis; testicular inflammation in males who have reached puberty, among whom about half experience some degree of testicular atrophy; inflammation of the ovaries or breasts in females who have reached puberty; and permanent deafness in one or both ears. Before the development of a mumps vaccine, the disease was one of the major causes of deafness in children.

The virus is spread by respiratory droplets. These can become airborne when an infected person coughs, sneezes, and talks. Additionally, a person can contract the virus by touching surfaces that are contaminated with infected droplets. Infected individuals are considered most contagious during a period starting several days before the appearance of parotitis (if it occurs), and running through the fifth day after it first appears. To keep a patient from spreading the virus to others, isolation is recommended for five days after parotitis begins.

In the United States, cases of mumps have dropped by 99% since the introduction of a vaccine in 1967. Unlike measles and rubella, however, mumps has not yet been eliminated in the United States. Recent large outbreaks have occurred among college students (2006, more than 6,500 cases) and in a tradition-observant Jewish community, sparked by a boy who returned from a trip to the United Kingdom and began showing mumps symptoms while at a summer camp (2009-2010, more than 3,400 cases).

Mumps cases typically peak in late winter or early spring.

Source 

---

 
 Japanese researchers say mumps-related hearing loss in children may be 20 times more common than previously suggested.

---

 
the vaccine is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, a list of the most important medication needed in a basic health system. 

---

 
IIRC one of the major drivers in pushing for these vaccines (aside from the obvious health issue) was the economy and women in the workforce. Imagine each of your children coming down with mumps and requiring isolation for 5 days in addition to the time you'd need to take off before and after ... probably two weeks each. It was possibly less of an issue up until the mid-60s, or at least no one in 1948 gave a second thought to firing a working mom who needed to take a month off to care for/isolate each of her kids as they contracted the disease in succession. So, yes, here we go: people who advocate just letting kids catch these "minor" diseases rather than vaccinate are also advocating having mom stay home barefoot and pregnant. That might be unfair, but it's what I've seen.

 999_99_999 wrote: 
So not only was Wakefield a fraud for faking medical research records and a charlatan for trying to discredit one vaccine so that his patented "safe" alternative vaccine would have a potentially huge market, he was also apparently deluded for thinking that there was real money to be made in vaccines.

 

 999_99_999 wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 

But that argument is historically unfounded. Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs."

In fact, vaccines were so unprofitable that some companies stopped making them altogether. In 1967, there were 26 vaccine manufactures. That number dropped to 17 by 1980. Ten years ago, the financial incentives to produce vaccines were so weak that there was growing concern that pharmaceutical companies were abandoning the vaccine business for selling more-profitable daily drug treatments. Compared with drugs that require daily doses, vaccines are only administered once a year or a lifetime. The pharmaceutical company Wyeth (which has since been acquired by Pfizer) reported that they stopped making the flu vaccine because the margins were so low.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/

 kurtster wrote: 
FYT

 aflanigan wrote: 
Hey, I did say that the controversy was about him.  I did say that he was defrocked.  Just relayed what he himself said.

Like I said and your link made clear he is litigious and he is at war with Merck.  He says he has some whistleblower stuff.  We'll see if he is vindicated or further disgraced.  Could go either way ... there is a huge pile of money at stake here.

It was just timely to hear this guy speak in his own defense. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Quite ironic to hear Andrew Wakeman (whose license to practice medicine has been revoked in the UK) accusing Merck of fraud. He engaged in fraud himself and that's why his paper was retracted and he lost his license.

Andrew Wakefield's Fraud 

Talk about projection!

So I listened to Coast to Coast last night.  The entire 4 hours were dedicated discussing the current fuss over vaccinations.  I made through the first 2 1/2 hours.

 Vaccine Special

Of special interest to me was hearing the defrocked British MD at the heart of all the autism brouhaha speak in his own words and own defense.  

Dr. Andrew Wakefield who faced controversy and fraud charges for his paper that supported the claim that there's a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism, suggested there's been a concerted effort to silence dissent when it comes to vaccine safety. He did say that one could make a good case for vaccinating children against measles, but that multiple inoculations like MMR were dangerous, and the mumps vaccine is no longer even necessary.

 He spoke at length and he is definitely in favor of vaccines, just not everyone that comes down the road.  His primary problem lies with the MMR vaccine and how it is the combination dose vaccine that is the problem.  He has taken on Merck over this and has been squashed like a bug to shut him up.  He is not going quietly though, he has successfully started a whistleblower suit against Merck.  While you cannot sue a vaccine maker for harm caused by the vaccine, you can sue them for fraud and in this case fraudulent claims about dosage and effectiveness.  It appears that Merck is the only manufacturer of a mumps vaccine and found the way to kill competition from single purpose vaccines was to incorporate their mumps vaccine with the other readily available single purpose vaccines and knock the single purpose vaccines off the table.  Merck has succeeded in both the UK and the USA.

Wakefield went on to mention that in Japan the Merck type MMR vaccine was recalled because it resulted in too many cases of meningitis.  While it was not actually the Merck vaccine it was called MMR nonetheless and this appears to be where all this began, back in 1993, well over 20 years ago.  And urban legend has taken over a real discussion of a real problem.

Merck has successfully managed a fake debate, so they walk away with a pot of money selling an unnecessary vaccine that apparently really is not all that safe either or made as advertised.  Newer is not always better.  Again Dr Wakefield was a strong proponent of single purpose vaccines, just not the Merck MMR.  We shall see as his lawsuits progress.