Get your shots.

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Get your shots.

Postby OmegaFrost » Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:36 am

Image

Daleks from another dimension!

"Mark... Mark... Mark... there are not ninjas following you around acting like their going to kill you... Just one! His name is Roger and hes really pissed!"
User avatar
OmegaFrost
Frost Scientist
Frost Scientist
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:53 am
Location: My own World

Postby tsian » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:10 am

Yes... but realistically speaking, when 'logic' and 'reason' fly in the face of religious beliefs, religion usually wins.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby shahmask » Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:43 am

i can't believe that moron, probably knowing he hasn't had a vaccinatin(s) went to a third world country where many such diseases haven't been nearly wiped out as they have been here. and for the most part, as much as i hate to impose on religious freedom and the 1 in a billion chance that vacciones cause autism, all ppl should get vaccines. the reason the US, and other western countries, have nearly irradicated such devistating diseases that very easily become epidemics, is because nearly everyone has the vaccines.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Gigafrost » Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:00 pm

tsian wrote:Yes... but realistically speaking, when 'logic' and 'reason' fly in the face of religious beliefs, religion usually wins.

What makes getting vaccinated a matter of logic and reason?
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby shahmask » Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:16 pm

these diseases regularly cause death, infertility, mental retardation, blindness, and during the sickness, intense pain. does it not follow by reason that if there is a way to 99.99% prevent this and is 99.99% safe, to do whatever this is? that, btw, is vaccination.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Gigafrost » Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:43 pm

Your numbers sound very exaggerated. What are your sources?

Recall that the following assumptions underly your statement:

a) That the disease is indeed this harmful
(This site seems helpful)
http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/thediseases.php

b) That the vaccination is as safe as you say
(Same site)

c) That it truely immunizes
(Same site)

---------------
Of course, you should be very aware that the vaccination in no way immunizes you. Outbreaks still occur in people who have had MMR, and you should still be aware of even this since the number of required MMR shots has been increasing.

It should be interesting to note that Japan stopped using the MMR vaccine. (I think they picked up single-jabbed stuff, though).
http://www.whale.to/v/mmrjapan1.html

I, personally, find it discomforting to know that they're injecting Hepatitis B Vaccine into day-old infants, especially since the immunization is only expected to last seven years. It's spread by IV sharing and sex. I fail to see how this disease is so important that we'd use a vaccine on infants whose immune (and neural, for that matter) system isn't even fully developed.

The materials in vaccines aren't necessarily safe, either. Thiomersal was quite common. Are you aware that it's half mercury? The hepatitis B vaccine contained it. Fortunately, they've taken it out. Unfortunately, they put aluminum in its place. Aluminum is another neurotoxin associated with Alzheimer's.
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/page_11.htm

It's also laughable that they want to immunize people against Chicken Pox. They're now making it out to be a super-deadly disease.
http://www.whale.to/a/ch.html

Also, do take note of the CDC's Chicken Pox points and the pro-MMR's points up above...namely that these diseases are more harmful when you're contract them when older...more risks, etc. Vaccination does not provide life-long protection. Perhaps coming down with the disease doesn't either (I seem to recall this being debated earlier, thus I'll not leave it as an absolute) but it sure as hell does a much better job than vaccination.

----------------------------------------------------------

Actually, at this point I'd like to know where you got your information. I'd like Tsian's too, since the entire assumption here seems to be that there's no logical reason to not have a vaccination. Seems to me that there's logical reasoning going both ways and blanket condescending statements that you and Tsian have made are unjustified.

In fact, this now makes an interesting addition to my question. How is getting vaccinated a matter of logic and reason when the methods for getting people to follow through on them involve scaring them into submission or forcing by law?

----------------------------------------------------------

Other links I put in here but I guess I'm not using them...

http://www.informedparent.co.uk/graphMeasles.html
http://www.healthsentinel.com/Vaccines/ ... edData.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000476.htm

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/510741.html

http://www.crosswinds.net/~vaxchoice/risks/death.html
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby tsian » Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:48 pm

It's spread by IV sharing and sex

You mean it is shared by the exchange of bodily fluids.

Sort of like AIDS, and if there were a way to immunize infants for AIDS, I would think that would be just as worthwhile.

Also, do take note of the CDC's Chicken Pox points and the pro-MMR's points up above...namely that these diseases are more harmful when you're contract them when older...more risks, etc. Vaccination does not provide life-long protection. Perhaps coming down with the disease doesn't either (I seem to recall this being debated earlier, thus I'll not leave it as an absolute) but it sure as hell does a much better job than vaccination.

Well yes, though vaccination is essentially coming down with the disease... of course vaccinations don't last forever, that is why people get boosters.

I think it is logical to get vaccinated mainly because of the large number of physicians and scientists who say that vaccinations represnt e highly beneficial way fighting illness. Afterall, haven't we basically gotten rid of Small Pox? Isn't that a worthwhile and logical end to achieve with other diseases?

And my arguement was not necessarily that vaccinations are logical (I happen to believe they are, but thats irrelevant) but rather that, generally speaking, when something that is 'logically sound' contradicts religious doctrine, someone who is highly religious will side with the religious doctrine.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Gigafrost » Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:04 am

I could see how your statement could have been intended to say that, but I suppose it reads different to me in a thread titled "Get your shots."
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby tsian » Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:09 am

True. In this case I would argue that the CDC should have probably exercised (or had the ability to exercise) their ability to quaranteen an individual who is knowingly infectious and returning against CDC reccomendation.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby shahmask » Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:52 am

sorry for my horrible response here but it is late, i really need to continue working on this paper due on monday since i will be out of town during the weekend, and im exhausted. because of all this, it will probably not be until next week before i can even get a chance to read all the articles you have given.

but, here goes

a) That the disease is indeed this harmful
giga, from the reading i did of the first website you gave, everything i said is in there. i don't see what your point of that website posting was.

http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/measlesdis.php
http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/mumpsdis.php
http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/rubelladis.php
Congenital rubella syndrome - babies can be born with:
deafness
blindness
heart problems
brain damage
other serious problems.

in fact, the chances of death from these diseases is far more prevelent than any adverse reactions to the vaccine. all this provided by the website u showed.

b) That the vaccination is as safe as you say
the vaccination has to be safe, or it wouldn't be federally mandated. also, remember, 99.99 percent means there is still a chance of having complications, but it means that that is 1 in 10,000. would u feel better if i said 1 in 5,000 ppl?
In any case, from what i found, only about one in a million ppl suffer a severe allergic reaction. a few of the granola ppl, u know, the midwive and DO types, believe it causes other extremely severe problems (autism, deafness, etc), but the occurances are so extremely rare, they can't even correlate it. in fact, the report by this nut that created this uproar, dr. wakefield, the Lancet and Sunday times pretty much have invalidated his study.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine

c) That it truely immunizes
Most children who get their MMR shots will not getthese diseases. Many more children would get themif we stopped vaccinating
straight from the cdc
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf
as with any medicine proven to work, there is the slight chance that it won't. nothing is 100 percent. however, i still don't understand your logic behind not immunizing.

mmr does truly immunize nearly everyone that gets it. that is the reason they have nearly been wiped out in the united states and devoped countries
again, your first website and the website i posted.

most of your other concerns were addressed in my answer to your b in terms of the safety of the vaccine

as for the chicken pox vaccine, im indifferent on that one. i would probably get that for my child as it frees the child up from a week or 2 of misery and another possible week or 2 of misery in the event they might catch it again..

i would also probably get the hepatitus vaccine. and as tsian said, it is not just iv and sex. plus, should my child some how end up being molested/raped or somehow ends up coming into a situation favorable for contraction, that it is very most likely immune. same if there were an aids vaccine and if there were a comprehensive cold vaccine. i already get the flu vaccine every year.

the logical reason for getting the vaccine is there is about a 1 in 1 million chance or less my child would have an adverse reaction to it. it also continues to ensure that these diseases continue to stay as ultra rare in the us as they are. it will help to ensure that if my child comes into contact with anyone from a country that doesn't vaccinate and may be contagious, that my child will have an ultra low chance of contracting it. it will help to ensure that if my child comes into contact with one of the few americans that aren't vaccinated and somehow became infected, that my child will most probably not contract it. it is essentially super ultra low cost yet super ultra high grade insurance. plus, the pain, symptoms, and complications from the diseases are thousands of times greater chances of occuring, should the child contract the diseases.

if u lived in alabama 3 years ago(when it wasn't required by law), would u have bought car insurance? if u buy full coverage, it helps keep your car in good shape should there ever be an accident. if u buy liability, it covers u in case a lawsuit is brought up. but u don't need it. plus, shots are way way way way cheaper.

i appologize to yall that this was so long, and i also really appologize to giga for not having the time to look at all the articles. if u put snipets u think are important, id be more than halppy to read them.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Gigafrost » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:42 pm

giga, from the reading i did of the first website you gave, everything i said is in there. i don't see what your point of that website posting was.
To provide a link to the other side. Actually, I'm looking at their graph...
http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/common.php
The measles vaccine was first introduced in 1963. If you look at the MMRFact's statistic, they point to the near-1970 drop that started. What they're not mentioning here is that the first measles vaccine FAILED. Also of interest is the CDC's website, which cannot give a consistent report of how many people came down with measles per year.
450,000 per year
3-4 million per year

Anyways, where do these sites get their death rates from? I'd like to see a CDC page which shows the measle death rate from 1900+, but they don't put it with their measles page. Why? This site draws its statistics from the Vital Statistics of the United States and clearly shows that, prior to 1963, the death rate of measles was much smaller than 450/450000, significantly smaller than 450/3000000, and still smaller than even 450/4000000 and 450/5000000 (This would be 9/100000, which was much bigger than the death rates post-1930.) Why would the CDC want to exaggerate the death rates for measles prior to vaccinations? Or even at the very least admit that there was a significant drop? Personally, I think this would be a nice time to look through the statistics myself instead of making this blatant assumption that they're right and that they're only in this for our good.

the vaccination has to be safe, or it wouldn't be federally mandated.
This seems more like a baseless assumption.

mmr does truly immunize nearly everyone that gets it.
Then why up the number of required boosts? When we think we've reached immunization, we find out that it wasn't as effective.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby shahmask » Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:50 am

i still don't see your reasoning for not getting the shot. yes, u have shown that it isn't perfect. but why not get it?

also, measles aren't the only worry. mumps and rubella are included in the mmr. and death isn't the only symptom/effect. there can be intense pain, blindness, deafness, and others from these diseases.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Gigafrost » Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:57 am

My point is that it shouldn't be forced on people, not that people shouldn't get it. You have argued purely on the side that not immunizing is illogical and everybody should be vaccinated.

Unfortunately, your argument isn't so appealing given that our only sources that we've covered that I thought might have been reliable aren't shaping up to be as reliable as I would have hoped.

So, why not do it? Because apparently the facts haven't been ironed out. The finnish study quoted so often as proving MMR's safety is full of flaws, many of which are pointed out here. Incidently, one of the responders lists problems with the quoted swedish study.

So, at this point I don't think it should be up to a few people to decide that everybody should be immunized...I think it should be left to the individual person.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby OmegaFrost » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:23 pm

sorry but this is starting to become a debat... Off to the Twilight zone for you!
Image

Daleks from another dimension!

"Mark... Mark... Mark... there are not ninjas following you around acting like their going to kill you... Just one! His name is Roger and hes really pissed!"
User avatar
OmegaFrost
Frost Scientist
Frost Scientist
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:53 am
Location: My own World

Postby shahmask » Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:29 pm

giga, sorry, i completely didn't realize what u were arguing for. i can see a point for your saying it shouldn't be forced. if i were in power, i would force it on everyone, and to my own disgust of myself in terms of upholding freedom of religion and such, even on people that don't believe in gettiing them. but then again, im the same person wanting to implant birth control devices in every child born (male and female, though a male product isn't reliable yet). i concede on your point of people should have the choice.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron