Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Doctors will not see patients with anti-vaccine views
  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother


 

Post Sat, Jan 31 2015, 11:44 pm
yogabird wrote:
I know 2 women who are paraplegic because they got vaccines when they were younger...


And yet at the height of the polio epidemic here, close to 50% of those who got it either died or remained paralyzed, including my mother's older sister, who tragically was paralyzed and then died.

Are you implying that the vaccine causes (G-d forbid!) paraplegia in 50% of those who receive it?

If you lived in the 1950s, which odds would you bet on?
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sat, Jan 31 2015, 11:46 pm
amother wrote:
And yet at the height of the polio epidemic here, close to 50% of those who got it either died or remained paralyzed, including my mother's older sister, who tragically was paralyzed and then died.

Are you implying that the vaccine causes (G-d forbid!) paraplegia in 50% of those who receive it?

If you lived in the 1950s, which odds would you bet on?


I didn't see any suggestion of such statistics. She implied nothing. Just a random statement; just like the random statement she responded to.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sat, Jan 31 2015, 11:58 pm
amother wrote:
I didn't see any suggestion of such statistics. She implied nothing. Just a random statement; just like the random statement she responded to.


Well, no.

The first "random statement" was an anecdote which described the experience of close to 50% of the population of polio victims.

The second "random statement" offered up a "parallel" anecdote, which in that context was meant to suggest that for every story of a paralyzed polio survivor, she can offer one of a paralyzed vaccine victim.

Since we all know that this is patently untrue, using that particular debate tactic was highly dishonest and only serves to highlight the weakness of her position.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 12:04 am
I love in South Africa and there is no herd immunity.
For a variety of reasons my one year old hasn't had any vaccinations yet. She had reflux terrible allergies multiple ear and chest infections. Anyway I've finally started her on her Immunizations. And my maid is so relieved. She shouts at me all the time about injections. Mostly because in Zimbabwe where she comes from people are always dying of these things.
In the past year alone I've been exposed to hep b, rubella, whooping cough and measles.
Now you are thinking well you live in Africa, so that's why, but in most of these instances I flew around the world with multiple stop overs after exposure but before I knew about it. So these diseases can quickly become global issues.
And btw my other maid who grew up in rural Africa and didn't have vaccines as a child. She is 50+, and has allergies. Except she doesn't call it that. She just told me that if she eats pineapple she stops breathing. So I said oh are you allergic? She said. No. I just think I will die if I eat pineapple again.

Anyway, I think people really don't understand how global our world truly is, and they feel secure in their little bubbles.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 12:06 am
amother wrote:
Well, no.

The first "random statement" was an anecdote which described the experience of close to 50% of the population of polio victims.

The second "random statement" offered up a "parallel" anecdote, which in that context was meant to suggest that for every story of a paralyzed polio survivor, she can offer one of a paralyzed vaccine victim.

Since we all know that this is patently untrue, using that particular debate tactic was highly dishonest and only serves to highlight the weakness of her position.


LOL! YOU brought up the 50% figure. Neither anecdote-teller brought any statistics into it at all. Each shared a random observation. Random in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Either does your comment for that matter. But my point is that you are putting words into others' mouths. Not very fair.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 12:09 am
Ok, everyone, this thread title is about doctors seeing patients...

So I would be thrilled to hear that my doctor is keeping unvaccinated children out of his waiting room.

Whoever is upset about this because they don't vaccinate, I hope you all find supportive doctors because no child should suffer from lack of healthcare because of their parents' decisions. I just prefer not having my child at increased risk (vaccines are not 100% foolproof) from being around yours.

I feel very strongly about parents who choose to "protect" their children from miniscule dangers in vaccines, and leech off my (and most parents') willingness to expose my child to the slight but nevertheless existent risk. It is the herd immunity we provide for their children that keeps them safe from death.

In the end, their shortsighted selfish decision exposes their own, as well as my, children to even greater risk because they weaken the protective circle. It makes me so angry, I have a hard time using civil words.

(None of the above refers to those who have legitimate medical reason, such as allergy or family history of dangerous reactions, to not vaccinate.)
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 12:36 am
Here are some questions about this topic that are bothering me:
When you go into a doctors office, it is likely that some of the people you'll find there in the waiting room are sick, do you think it's ok to sue a vaccinated child who spread a disease to you? Is it ok to sue a vaccinated child's working parent who sent their child to school sick and spread a disease to another child? can we sue parents for sending their kids to school sick? If we should be allowed to sue parents who don't vaccinate, why can't we sue parents who send there kids to school sick?
Apparently vaccinated people can catch illnesses they are vaccinated against and spread those diseases too. There were vaccinated people who caught the measles from Disneyland. I would actually love to find out how many of them were vaccinated. And if it even started with someone who was vaccinated. If vaccinated people didn't catch these diseases, why are they so afraid of the unvaccinated? And if they do catch the diseases, what good is the vaccine?
There was a good question on another thread that wasn't responded to; Do you ask your housekeepers and nannies for their immunization records. They are exposed to your children everyday. Are you sure they are vaccinated?
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 12:46 am
I don't see how your question is relevant. I do think twice before taking a healthy child along to the doctor with a sick one because of all the nasty bugs in the waiting room. With the sick child I don't have a choice, since home visits by doctors ended a few decades ago...

I don't ask my cleaning woman for her immunization records, it honestly never occurred to me. Perhaps because she has almost no physical contact with the kids, and children do tend to interact closely with other children. I also don't make my friends take bloodwork to prove their immunity hasn't worn off. Why would I go to such extremes? I am asking that those who voluntarily destroy the protective wall be forced to face some consequence of their selfishness.

I take offense at parents who benefit from the protection that I risk to provide them with and refuse to take part in the risk. I think some social pressure is appropriate and necessary.

Who is talking about suing? Who is interested to test and prove the likelihood of anyone dying of preventable diseases when they are, um, preventable?
Back to top

baschabad




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 12:47 am
Can I just make one point here? Herd immunity is not the same as herd vaccination. No vaccine is 100% efficient at assuring immunity and for many it requires multiple doses to confer even that partial immunity. Whooping cough outbreaks have occurred in communities with a high vaccination rate.

This premise is the most misunderstood part of the vaccine debate and is really at the core of the issue.

Take a few minutes to google about herd immunity and vaccines and try to read at least one article from both viewpoints.
Back to top

LittleDucky




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:00 am
If you don't believe the doctors hae your best interest in mind, are not well educated, and are putting your child at risk,
WHY are you sending your child there? WHY should you trust anything the doctor has to say? Go find a different doctor who shares the same belief system as you! Maybe your boy's leg isn't broken and the doctor only wants to make extra $$$ by casting it. How can you trust the pediatrician on anything if you don't trust him/her about vaccines??

And at the same time please don't expose my little one to your Petri dish family!!
Back to top

Dandelion1




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:05 am
amother wrote:
Here are some questions about this topic that are bothering me:
When you go into a doctors office, it is likely that some of the people you'll find there in the waiting room are sick, do you think it's ok to sue a vaccinated child who spread a disease to you? Is it ok to sue a vaccinated child's working parent who sent their child to school sick and spread a disease to another child? can we sue parents for sending their kids to school sick? If we should be allowed to sue parents who don't vaccinate, why can't we sue parents who send there kids to school sick?
Apparently vaccinated people can catch illnesses they are vaccinated against and spread those diseases too. There were vaccinated people who caught the measles from Disneyland. I would actually love to find out how many of them were vaccinated. And if it even started with someone who was vaccinated. If vaccinated people didn't catch these diseases, why are they so afraid of the unvaccinated? And if they do catch the diseases, what good is the vaccine?
There was a good question on another thread that wasn't responded to; Do you ask your housekeepers and nannies for their immunization records. They are exposed to your children everyday. Are you sure they are vaccinated?


1. We are concerned about those who are too young to have yet had the vaccine.
2. We are concerned about those who would like to be vaccinated but cannot due to illness.
3. We are concerned that these horrible mostly eradicated diseases stay eradicated, because then everybody is safe, including the unvaccinated infants, those who are unvaccinated due to illness or compromised immune systems, and that percentage of vaccinated people for whom the vaccine is not working for whatever reason. But that protection can only be afforded to those who have no choice, if those who DO have a choice, make the fair and moral decision not to exempt themselves from a public health imperative.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:14 am
It's not a fair decision to take away the right of a person to decide what goes into their body.
I'm interested to hear why people aren't careful to make sure everyone they interact with is vaccinated (adults and cleaning help included). Making sure everyone in their child's school and in the doctors office is vaccinated seems just as extreme. Cleaning help touch everything in the house, breathe on things, might cough and spread germs in the air. It's very possible for a disease to spread that way. What about people with nannies who do have direct contact with children?
Back to top

eastsidemother




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:16 am
amother wrote:
Here are some questions about this topic that are bothering me:
When you go into a doctors office, it is likely that some of the people you'll find there in the waiting room are sick, do you think it's ok to sue a vaccinated child who spread a disease to you? Is it ok to sue a vaccinated child's working parent who sent their child to school sick and spread a disease to another child? can we sue parents for sending their kids to school sick? If we should be allowed to sue parents who don't vaccinate, why can't we sue parents who send there kids to school sick?
Apparently vaccinated people can catch illnesses they are vaccinated against and spread those diseases too. There were vaccinated people who caught the measles from Disneyland. I would actually love to find out how many of them were vaccinated. And if it even started with someone who was vaccinated. If vaccinated people didn't catch these diseases, why are they so afraid of the unvaccinated? And if they do catch the diseases, what good is the vaccine?
There was a good question on another thread that wasn't responded to; Do you ask your housekeepers and nannies for their immunization records. They are exposed to your children everyday. Are you sure they are vaccinated?


My children's housekeeper is vaccinated. So is their nanny. Both are me. Wouldn't have it any other way, although your question is posed in such a way as to limit the audience you may be trying to reach. HOWEVER, if I had a nanny/housekeeper, I would insist that they be vaccinated--no doubt.

The Disneyland outbreak was likely started by someone who came from outside the U.S. and visited the park. Here are the answers to your questions in the paragraph above the housekeeper/nanny question.

http://fortune.com/2015/01/30/.....dult/

By the way, I work in a children's hospital and get annual titers done for vaccine-preventable illnesses. I was fully vaccinated as a child, including the MMR vaccine doses. At my titer done two years ago, I showed normal immunity except as to one disease: measles. My immunity had waned over time (we are talking 40 years here--I had an acceptable titer the year before). I had to get two booster MMR shots and get a new titer drawn to confirm immunity. This is to protect the sick kids in the hospital as much as it was to protect me. My mother is a schoolteacher and had a whooping cough titer drawn after a local outbreak in her public school. Her immunity had also waned. It is likely that with some vaccines a booster is required at some point. It doesn't mean they "don't work". It means that over time the full effect may wear off. I still showed antibodies to measles, just not enough to confer full immunity.

As for suing, you can sue anyone for anything, really. The difficult thing is proving the direct cause of the harm (unvaccinated child A gave child B measles). Eventually, it will happen somewhere in California, I'm convinced. There are lots of personal injury lawyers there with nothing else to do, and the atmosphere for it is changing. Wait until one of the neighboring states has to combat a measles outbreak and decides to sue California for its overly permissive vaccine prevention exemptions. I am convinced that one is going to happen sooner rather than later if California doesn't tie up its exemption laws.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:19 am
The questions may not seem relevant to you. But the answers interest me. It bothers me that people who are so pro vax are so focused on school children being vaccinated and seem to ignore everyone else who may not be.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:23 am
amother wrote:
It's not a fair decision to take away the right of a person to decide what goes into their body.
I'm interested to hear why people aren't careful to make sure everyone they interact with is vaccinated (adults and cleaning help included). Making sure everyone in their child's school and in the doctors office is vaccinated seems just as extreme. Cleaning help touch everything in the house, breathe on things, might cough and spread germs in the air. It's very possible for a disease to spread that way. What about people with nannies who do have direct contact with children?


I guess I think of it in terms of herd immunity being a public good.

For example, you can't make people passing your street contribute money for using the streetlight in front of your apartment building, so the government collects taxes and builds and maintains it for us. The cost and benefits of this public good is more fairly divided this way.

To build and maintain public immunity to vaccine preventable diseases, the government demands this contribution: that all healthy children be vaccinated to contribute towards this goal of herd immunity.

You are shirking your duty and benefitting from my contribution.

Morally and ethically wrong.

I don't see y'all moving to a pristine island to avoid taking pollutants into your body.

ETA: maybe doctors should check adults' immunity and refuse as patients those who refuse to update their immunity with booster shots.

If we can come up with an enforceable way to get adults immunized, maybe we should.

Remember, if vaccinations would be at 95%+ rate, adults with worn off immunity would not pose as much a risk to those most vulnerable.
Back to top

Dolly Welsh




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:31 am
" If vaccinated people didn't catch these diseases, why are they so afraid of the unvaccinated? "

Because the unvaccinated can be reservoirs of new strains of the diseases that the vaccines do not combat. The goal is to eradicate the disease, or keep it very rare.

Nature does not stay put.

New cases of the disease give the disease an opportunity to change genetically and produce new strains of itself.


Last edited by Dolly Welsh on Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

ora_43




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:31 am
aleph wrote:
This "debate" is so silly. If G-d forbid, there was an Ebola epidemic here, on the same scale as the polio epidemic of past generations, and there was a vaccine available, these rich "educated" 1%ers would be mowing down the rest of us in a mad rush to make sure they and their kids got vaccinated first. And we'd be reading articles about how the rich and famous were abusing their wealth and power to get the vaccine ahead of everyone else.

It is only in times of peace and abundance that people with too much time and resources at their disposal have the luxury of creating problems where there are none.

I think it has less to do with peace and abundance and more to do with our ability to see the problem. Like, literally see it.

If there's an outbreak, people can see "hey look, someone sick. He looks awful." It's clear to their brain that there is sickness. A cure, or vaccine, is a tangible good.

But if it's just "take this or there might be sickness, at some point in the future" - a vaccine is no longer a tangible good. In fact, since it tends to make people feel temporarily sick, our brains can easily start to perceive it as a threat.

This is a problem even in poor areas, even with deadly diseases. It's sometimes hard to convince people to take HIV meds if they feel perfectly healthy, and the meds make them feel sick. The brain senses a healthy person becoming sick because of the meds, and naturally feels averse to taking them. You need to be really intellectually convinced that taking the meds is the right thing (something which is difficult davka in poor parts of the world where HIV meds aren't common) in order to overcome that natural aversion.

Here too - when people see healthy kids feeling sick because of a shot (even just a bit sick, for a couple days), they need to be really intellectually convinced it's the right thing to do in order to overcome that aversion to repeating actions that (seem to) lead to sickness.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:34 am
amother wrote:
LOL! YOU brought up the 50% figure. Neither anecdote-teller brought any statistics into it at all. Each shared a random observation. Random in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Either does your comment for that matter. But my point is that you are putting words into others' mouths. Not very fair.


No, I don't believe that I am.

For example, if we were debating the merits of using seatbelts, and one person said "I know someone who wasn't seatbelted, and died in a car crash." And then the second person offers the response "I know someone who used a seatbelt and died because the seatbelt harmed them."

The second statement is being brought to refute the validity of the first. As in, You may say that not wearing a seatbelt caused someone's death, but I will offer an example of when wearing a seatbelt caused a person's death.

As if the two occur with the same frequency. As if the dangers posed by wearing a seatbelt outweigh the dangers of not wearing a seatbelt.

The same was done above. As if the dangers of the vaccine are commensurate with the dangers of having the disease itself.

Its a common strategy used in debate and it is dishonest and used to confuse the point.
Back to top

Dolly Welsh




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:35 am
Yes. It is hard to think about the lesser of evils.

It is easy to think of one's self as omnipotent.

Or it is comforting to think of one's self as omnipotent if one has deep fears.

"I can cure disease with vitamins" is a self-comforting statement.

There must be a lot of fear.

I am not mocking fear. I have plenty of my own.
Back to top

eastsidemother




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:03 am
amother wrote:
It's not a fair decision to take away the right of a person to decide what goes into their body.


I am a strong proponent of patient autonomy and the right to make your own decisions about your medical care and treatment. With very few exceptions I think that is the way it should be. Strong public health concerns are one of the exceptions.

By the way, immunizations are generally not mandatory in and of themselves in the U.S., a decidedly more liberal policy than in many other countries. Immunizations are only mandatory if you are planning to have your child use the public school system. You are free not to immunize your children just as you are free not to use the public school system.

In many Central and South American countries, centralized healthcare, free vaccines, and COMPULSORY immunizations have raised their immunization rates to better than that of the U.S. In Mexico if you do not show up for your child's routine scheduled immunizations, a health care worker will show up at your house and immunize your child right there.

With respect to other public health concerns--take TB. Persons can and have been jailed for failure to treat their TB by taking antibiotics on the prescribed timetable. Public health concern of great importance trumps individual rights.

Does anyone remember this person? http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....ejMW8

He was diagnosed with drug resistant TB and told he needed to start treatment right away but decided instead to go through with his overseas international wedding plans instead. During the course of his fun travels, he took multiple commercial flights and then snuck back into the country in a rented car. His efforts bought him a police escort and a mandatory isolation order while he was treated. He was rewarded with multiple lawsuits by his fellow passengers on the flights he took.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH.....s_law

Incidentally, after all the hoopla of him not wanting to postpone his wedding, his bride ended up divorcing him anyway.
Back to top
Page 5 of 8   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Hives after vaccine
by amother
0 Sun, Mar 17 2024, 1:41 am View last post
Vaccine and eye sight
by amother
1 Wed, Mar 13 2024, 12:32 pm View last post
Facial moisturizer- anti-aging, sensitive, dry skin
by amother
1 Tue, Mar 05 2024, 12:29 pm View last post
Has anyone tried AHAVA skin care products- anti aging?
by amother
6 Sun, Mar 03 2024, 12:16 am View last post
Anti-Semitism in hiring
by amother
2 Tue, Feb 06 2024, 9:35 pm View last post