Beaker wrote: 
Overall this is correct. I'm not sure when exactly the vaccination issue became associated with left/right polarization, because my feeling has always been that it's driven by hippies. Although my co-worker who is rabid right is also hyper nuts over vaccines and voodoo herbal crap too. To quote something I literally just now heard, "I cancelled her shots appointment this weekend," talking about her 8-month old girl. When the flu started going around, she gave everyone in the family "silver biotics." (Note that it says they claim that their product is non-toxic, even when taken at doses 100-200 times the recommended adult dose... which means it's just water).

My hunch is that actual science is ignored by a politically diverse array of people, who make their judgements based on arbitrary factors like peer pressure, religion, and the all-powerful "just want it to be true (or not true)" plus a natural resistance to change in belief that we're all subject to.

Some of the article is nevertheless written *as* red meat, designed to get the audience to cheer and mock, but overall, it's right. I think it stumbles (for example) when it says fracking is safe, no question. If the author wants to accept preliminary data as settled science, that's his business, but I think a wiser person would be a bit hesitant to throw in 100% with either side right now. 

 kurtster wrote: 
I know what you mean, and before the NIH existed all of the research had to come from the military or private entities and scientists (e.g. Jonas Salk). What troubles me is prospective candidates using the vaccination issues as political fodder.   It seems there are a number of people out there who desire polarity among the masses, I guess they have their reasons.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Most is a dicey word I admit.  I am quite confident that our military as well as most other sophisticated militaries conduct experiments on a regular basis, with entire divisions or groups dedicated to that task.  I will reaffirm my thought that most modern research is based from the military's initial and ongoing studies when national security does not get in the way.

Let us not forget the Hughes Institute with its now $10 billion endowment from Howard Hughes.  It does more than the CDC and NIH combined and in the pursuit of pure science sans agenda.

This entire conversation appears to be nothing more than fear driven by a current event with the usual mob mentality and pandering for a quick fix as opposed to a real and lasting fix.  This discussion has been going on long before Ms. McCarthy showed up.  It will soon fade away into the wood work until the next out break of something.  Same old story and the only thing that happens is a greater divide and increased polarity amongst the masses.

 kurtster wrote:
I provided this link previously. Read it if you truly do want to understand.

Herd Immunity 

 Proclivities wrote: 

Are you trying to assuage fears?  Cause if you are.......

 kurtster wrote: 
Most research on infectious disease in the United States is undertaken by the CDC and The National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).  

 edieraye wrote: 
Thank you.  You make a good case.

My basic concern is only the safety of these vaccines.

 oldviolin wrote: 
  It is relevant because so much of our knowledge of infectious disease and treatment including vaccinations is based upon the military's research. 

Not to jack the relevant discussion, but this is how they do it in Basic Training. I'm here to signify
Those air guns will cut you if you flinch. I can prove it.

So now that Rand Paul is out of the way ...

Vaccinations, hmmmm ...

So is it that we want to force them on everyone regardless of any concerns ?  Is that what we are talking about ?  No quarter for those who object ?

Someone please explain.

What I don't get is that some choose not to get vaccinated (and let's keep small pox out of this discussion because that is a time tested vaccine that has been proven safe and does work).  So what ?  So an unvaccinated kid gets measles.  Who else is in danger besides the kid ?  Only those others who don't get vaccinated, right ?  So what's the big deal ?

The only vaccinations I received to the best of my recollection are: smallpox, polio (I remember the 3 part Sabin polio vaccine being brand new and the long lines for free public inoculations) and tetanus.  Those were the only ones available when I was a kid.  I got the mumps, measles and chicken pox like most others and survived like most others.  Back then they were called childhood diseases and it was part of growing up.

My awareness of vaccinations and potential problems with them began during the war in Nam, when the were issues with draftees refusing forced vaccinations.  They had vaccinations forced on them and some of which were untested, like the Anthrax vaccine for one.  They were brand new and potentially dangerous to a more than small part of the population, yet Uncle Sam said that he owned you and could do what ever he wanted to do with you, even if he only owned you for two years.  He could force something on you that may outright kill you or cause harm to you for the rest of your life.  But we also know that Uncle Sam would never lie to you about things that they forced on you.  We obediently trust Uncle Sam.  Remember Agent Orange ?

Moving on.  So what do we expect to get out of these vaccinations that we are currently discussing ?  100% assurance that once inoculated we are guaranteed protection from these diseases ?  Are we trying to permanently eradicate these diseases ?  What ?  There is nothing that is 100% guaranteed other than death.

If these vaccines are so safe, then why are the companies making them immune from any legal action against them should they cause lasting harm or even death ?  The diseases themselves can cause lasting harm or death.  So what if the number of people at risk is the same size for the vaccinated or the unvaccinated ?  Aren't all things equal then ?

I was recently faced with the choice of receiving the shingles vaccine after my transplant in a clinical trial.   After much discussion and research, along with research by my stem cell mate buddy who spoke with a friend deep into pharmacology, we both decided against it, even though we both were at a higher risk for getting shingles after our transplants.  We were both lobbied hard to participate.  Should the vaccination been mandatory for us ?

Finally, in case one is not aware, most research on infectious diseases are under taken by our military.  Most information used today is still based on this research.  Do you trust our military to be the one who decides what works and what doesn't ? 

 The annals of military preventive medicine provides a remarkable record of achievement extending from Beaumont to Billings to Sternberg, Reed, Strong, Siler, Simmons, and so many more. Their work was a culmination of intelligent thought and scientific innovation all aimed at solving problems that arose from those social forces and political upheavals that involve society as a whole. So often, there has been productive interaction between military and civilian scientists. Their combined opinions and collective funds of knowledge have helped determine just what should be done and how it might be accomplished, all with the aim to better maintain the highest standards of health in military personnel.

 islander wrote: 
well we've known that war is a bad idea for eons

yet we initiate mass violence and make an industry out of it

you may disagree, but you're going to sponsor it (and other really bad ideas) or else

these are all symptoms

so what's the problem?

the root cause?

how could people make the same mistake over and over again?

hmmm....

cross-stolen from the strips thread:
RichardPrins wrote: 
This is what bugs me the most. We learned this lesson already. How can we go backwards on something so important? 

 buzz wrote: 
My grooming habits are none of your business. 

 buzz wrote: 
Woooo! Immunized hugs for e'er'body! 

 AliGator wrote: 

 buzz wrote: 
If I told you I was vaxed, could I hug you? 

AliGator wrote: 
 howdy stranger
 
get vaxed

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I just needed to quote Dr. Evil! 

 kurtster wrote: 
Ya know, I'd love to go back to 2010 if there was a way that Trey Grayson could win the primary in Kentucky. He would have beaten Jack Conway for Senate, just like Rand Paul did. But we wouldn't have this crazypants fringe that surrounds Rand Paul. As a constituent of both Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, my filthy* liberal hands are tied. 

And if you want to talk about abortion (which I don't, and this is clearly not the thread for it, but I just have to say this), sure, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, but that monumental piece of legislation is being chipped away at a state level. Abortion may be legal in the U.S., but it sure isn't easy to obtain. I don't care if you think that's how it should be. It's a legal medical procedure that should be available to all women, no matter their location or income level.

Also, vaccinate your kids. Just to get this thread back on track.  

* "filthy" 

 AliGator wrote: