That b***h fight about Vaccination

Do you Believe in Vaccination?

Yes, They are good	82.6%	[ 71 ]
No, They do not work	8.1%	[ 7 ]
Neutral.	9.3%	[ 8 ]
Total Votes:			[ 86 ]

[Mister Okami]

fun giraffe

Mister Okami

fun giraffe

Mister Okami

fun giraffe

you're completely missing the point. medical terminology changes. the flu may be the flu but perhaps a hundred years ago they called it the plague. suddenly they make a vaccine and start using the word 'flu' and it only appears that a vaccine ended the plague. that's just an example i'm making up.

Medical terminology changes as new breakthroughs in medicine are discovered. But typically criteria for diseases tends to not change very much. Hence why instead of just changing the criteria for influenza, there's several strains. Same with pneumonia and meningitis.

Also your example is terrible

way to say nothing meaningful.

It's not meaningful to you because you can't make a poorly constructed straw man against it.

seriously, it was meaningless to this discussion...

so you admit medical terminology changes but are just gonna throw out there that names of diseases or criteria for disease never do? with no basis in anything? leave the discussion immediately and don't come back w/o something to back that up arrow

Or maybe you should just learn to read.

[piparminttukaramelli]

fun giraffe

piparminttukaramelli

fun giraffe

"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis.......According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"---Viera Scheibner

Okay, so poliomyelitis and meningitis are not the same thing. Poliomyelitis is caused specifically by the enterovirus poliovirus (PV). Viral meningitis can be caused by a broad number of viruses because viral meningitis literally just refers to an inflammation of the meninges caused by a virus. It isn't specifically, and isn't usually, caused by poliovirus (coxsackieviruses and echoviruses seem to be the most common, which are enteroviruses that are not poliovirus). So if the person who wrote the article thinks poliomyelitis and viral meningitis are the exact same thing under a new definition, I can confirm they have no clue what they're talking about and cannot be taken seriously.

You can vaccinate for poliomyelitis because you're targeting one specific strain of enterovirus. You can't vaccinate for viral meningitis unless you vaccinate against echoviruses and herpes and influenza and pretty much any virus that exists. So no, of course you can't eradicate viral meningitis completely. Did people always diagnose these diseases correctly in the past? Probably not. Does it mean that immunizations aren't effective against polio? Nope.


Also, our pub trivia team is made up of all public health masters and PhD students and we called ourselves Vaccines Cause Autism because it's a pretty big joke in our field that a bunk article whose main supporter was a Playboy bunny attracted such a following of concerned crunchy moms.

The only kids who should avoid vaccines are the ones who have allergies to the vaccines or to the solution in which the vaccines are suspended (is it still peanut oil? such a terrible choice of vehicle; there must be other lipophiles that aren't major allergens).

she's not saying they are the same thing. whether they are or not is irrelevant. do you realize medical terminology changes?

>Did people always diagnose these diseases correctly in the past? Probably not. Does it mean that immunizations aren't effective against polio? Nope.

how do you know?

what relevance does someone being a playboy bunny have to do with anything? you sound like a stuck up b***h.

Well, if being proud that I'm not an idiot about herd immunity makes me a stuck-up b***h, I will embrace my bitchiness to the fullest. emotion_dowant

But that's exactly what she's claiming, and what you're claiming by saying medical terms change. "Those 40,000 cases of polio didn't go away, they just call them meningitis now!" Do you realize that the RNA of viruses remains similar enough that we are able to classify it over multiple decades, maybe adding a strain here or there as viruses evolve? Someone with viral meningitis in the 1950s might have had a strain of influenza that caused their symptoms and not poliovirus, same as today. Poliovirus and viral meningitis have never been and are not now the same thing, although, again, misdiagnosis occurred more before our technology was as accurate as it is these days. Before you ask me to 'prove it', I don't necessarily have samples of patients' blood and a way to sequence the RNA of the viruses contained within. (Pretty sure if you sequence the RNA of the viruses in people who have viral meningitis nowadays, it's not going to be poliovirus like what's contained in polio vaccine.) We usually look to case reports for this sort of thing because there are people with these technologies who post their findings online. (Here's one now! Flaviviruses/West Nile causing viral meningitis, not poliovirus. Wow, crazy.)

And if you're suggestion they've changed the definition of polio to include all meningitis-causing viruses instead of just poliovirus, I don't know where you heard that, but it's not something that happens. Doctors don't make the diagnosis of "polio", something that's been eradicated in the US for decades, without a media shitstorm. If you're claiming the reverse, the virus causing meningitis has no effect on the doctors dubbing it viral meningitis. If you've got a virus making your meninges swell whether it's poliovirus or not, it's viral meningitis. It's just that it's hardly ever poliovirus causing viral meningitis because it's been managed by vaccines.


How do I know vaccines are effective? Well, just a feeling but...

It's ridiculous she gained such a following because she was a Playboy bunny, actress, a mother and nothing else. She's one of those 'mommy knows best' people who hop on bandwagons without delving into the scientific aspects of popular topics. If she was a doctor AND a Playboy bunny, cool, awesome, those are two really different careers but go, Jenny McCarthy! But no. I mean, she bought into that article that was later debunked and used that as the basis of her anti-vaccination papers. Generally, people go to school to study things and learn how to critically read information to determine how reliable it is. Not to commit a logical fallacy by saying that the professionals know best and can do no wrong, but between someone who's studied immunology and a stripper, I'm generally picking the former.

[Valheita]

fun giraffe

Valheita

fun giraffe

Valheita

fun giraffe

Valheita

Hmm, but that would be making proof for a claim that I didn't make. I only corrected you on how vaccines work, as per our current understanding of human biology.

I'm curious, do you have evidence to support your original claim that it weakens the immune system? I'll accept a peer reviewed scientific journal if you have one.

our current understanding of biology is based on what i wanted proof of

http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1626

"Results Vaccinated women had significantly fewer IgG antibodies (geometric mean titre 779 (95% confidence interval 581 to 1045) mIU/ml) than did naturally immune women (2687 (2126 to 3373) mIU/ml) (P<0.001)."

I'm still reading through the entirety of the article itself, but to address your point quoted...

That comparison compares two kinds of immune women, it doesn't compare at all the strength of their immune system compared to someone who isn't immune, i.e. someone who hasn't either caught the disease or been immunised against it.

While that finding may be a net loss in strength compared to someone who caught and survived the virus, it's a net gain for someone who had no immunity in the first place, so the vaccination is still an increase in protective ability of the immune system.

And just as a personal observation, I think I'll take the needle over actually having to try and fight off the measles, especially given how awful my body is at recovering from disease. Even if it's less effective than getting sick, some protection is better than none at all.

Anyway, reading is ongoing, I'll get back to you once I finish it all.

it doesn't say either way if women who never caught the disease were included.

Well, that's not entirely true. Naturally immune women are women who caught the disease and survived it.

That said, the study itself is actually about the anti-bodies passed to the children more so than the strength of the anti-bodies in the adults bloodstream. I think you'll find that you've drawn very different conclusions to what the study actually says.

not necessarily

i think you're reaching a little bit here

Funny, since I think you're reaching. Aside from that one line, there's not really anything to suggest that the immune system is weaker. The rest of the study talks about how vaccination based anti-bodies aren't passed to children for as long as naturally-immune anti-bodies.

[freelance lover]

Do you believe it? Believe what? That it's a b***h fight?

Do you support vaccination or you don't? Yes vax x100000. Antivaxers make me so mad. There's a reason so many diseases have been eradicated in the first world (and why they're coming back with this trend). Also, they don't seem to really have their facts straight. They're worried about chemicals but vaccines have much lower rates of the chemicals than things you encounter daily.

What about those vitamin K shots that are given to babies? I don't know anything about that so I don't really have an opinion.

[Roy Cura]

Group A uses science and statistics to show how and why vaccination works. Group B uses pseudoscience and worst-case scenarios to show how and why it doesn't work. I'm casting my lot with Group A.

[Red the Alien]

You know what's funny? A lot of anti-vaxxers cite autism as the reason they don't want to vaccinate their kids, when there is absolutely no hard scientific evidence suggesting a link between vaccines and autism. Prenatal exposure to various commercial pesticides, however, HAS been shown to significantly increase the risk of autism and other developmental disorders (one study here, too lazy to pull up more on my phone). Now, where are the mothers railing against Big Agriculture? Where are the anti-pesticiders? Where are the celebrities speaking out against the chemicals used on farms that have proved harmful to local ecosystems and to humans as well? Jim Carey, are you going to talk about this?

*sits back and waits patiently*

[IIYuuki_ChanII]

Mister Okami

IIYuuki_ChanII

Are you nuts? There are animal all around us. Animals like deer, bat, rabbit, squirrel? need I say much? Even if rabies is not mandatory when you don't get bitten, it is mandatory when you are. s**t happens when you don't except it.

The least you could do is list some animals that are commonly known to carry the virus.

Also:

Quote:

High-risk animal contacts for transmission of rabies are bats, raccoons, fox, skunks, and feral cats. Lower-risk animals are dogs, cats, coyote, deer, bear, horses, cattle, pigs, and other non-rodent wild animal species. The disease is almost never contracted from squirrels, rats, mice, or rabbits.

s**t happens sure but in this case, you're more likely to be hit by a bus than bitten by rabid squirrels.

Bats and fox. That one.
And no, the area around I live has very little bus transportation. However, there are lots of swamp and woods that has all sorts of animal. And we do have have walk on trails that goes inside it. So yah, there is a chance of getting bitten more then getting hit by bus. But however I do get what you are saying. It is not a requirement. But you do have to get it if you are bitten. And trust me, some shitty parents won't even give their kids that life saving vaccination. I'm not talking about those flu shot once.
Sorry, but If I see that you don't want to give your kids life saving vaccination like TB, Polio etc, I will think you are misguided douche.

[IIYuuki_ChanII]

fun giraffe

IIYuuki_ChanII

fun giraffe

IIYuuki_ChanII

fun giraffe

IIYuuki_ChanII

When we talk about vaccination, we talk about the really needed one. Whenever their is a out break, you really need to get one. Example, look at bird flu outbreak, and now look at the ebola out break. Yah, when ever their is a state warning, you really should get one in favor of both yourself and for people around you. There are actually people who can't get vaccinated due to age or allergies, so if you there is a outbreak and you don't get vaccinated, you get done for and so those said people.

well there's the other problem i have, people refer to it as an 'outbreak' when like 5 people are known to have the disease.

also people are entirely too quick to just blame 'anti vaxxers' ...yet everyone accepts that the flu vaccine has not been that effective at all in the past...so...

Of course we will blame you ant vexer, because it starts from them. We don't like it when they refuse to give their kid important vaccination and risks their life. If you don't get vaccination then at least don't put your kid through your belief because he/she doesn't give consent. You are right that flu vaccine is not that effective, but it does lessen your flu symptom. Look at bird flu, if they didn't give out vaccination, how many people would have ended up being dead to build their so called natural immune system?
I'm talking about the life threatening disease vaccination, not those season flu shots.

you have not proven that.

disease existed before vaccines came about at all. rolleyes

Prove of what? you don't need prove of common sense.
Still tell me exactly what you want proof of.
And for your last sentence,
Yes disease existed before vaccines, and people died because of it. That is why vaccine was invented.

yeah actually you do need to prove your s**t. how is it common sense?

cite studies comparing health of unvaccinated to vaccinated people...

around the same time vaccines came about, sanitation, nutrition, antibiotics and other medicines were all brought about.

Actually I already gave you a chart on my previous post. Have you bothered to read it?
However I will give you another one,

http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=80869
"The proportion of children and adolescents who had had pertussis, measles, mumps, and/or rubella was much higher in unvaccinated children than in those who had been vaccinated against the respective disease to a sufficient extent."

[I Deidara_Iwa I]

Ok this is nonsense. You don't gain natural immunity to most diseases like Polio without the risk of death. these people have done a report of 11,000 people out of 300 million people (who supports non vaccination). that is hardly evidence for me. I'm sorry, you've been seeing babies and young children dying from preventable illnesses. This is irresponsible.

[Mr Potato Chips]

Ok to those dumbass who still doesn't know why vaccination important,

To understand why this is important, here’s a scenario for you to consider. Imagine that you and I both have school-age children. I've vaccinated my child against pertussis, but you and several other parents in our school district have chosen not to. I also have a new baby, who is only 3 months old. My baby’s immune system is not yet fully developed and she doesn't have good immunity to pertussis. A pertussis outbreak begins in our district. The bacterium is able to infect several school age children, who become sick but can be treated with antibiotics. But my baby is fragile and doesn't have immunity. Because the bacterium is circulating in our community (we don’t have good herd immunity because vaccination rates are low), my baby becomes infected and dies. You might think I’m being overly dramatic, but my scenario is based on an actual case that occurred in Colorado in 2000 (reference here).

[Mr Potato Chips]

freelance lover

Do you believe it? Believe what? That it's a b***h fight?

Do you support vaccination or you don't? Yes vax x100000. Antivaxers make me so mad. There's a reason so many diseases have been eradicated in the first world (and why they're coming back with this trend). Also, they don't seem to really have their facts straight. They're worried about chemicals but vaccines have much lower rates of the chemicals than things you encounter daily.

What about those vitamin K shots that are given to babies? I don't know anything about that so I don't really have an opinion.

They give it to newborn babies so that they don't bleed to death.

[L0LIS]

I gave the Vitamin K shot to my daughter when she was born. It's only for the well-being of the child and it should be mandatory. Without vaccinations, children have higher risks of getting sick so when the parent(s) believe they are helping the child by preventing vaccinations, they are hurting them.

[AngelBiscuits]

I think it should be mandatory by law to get your kids vaccinated (for those who can be), regardless of whatever religious or "moral" reasons you can think up.

Some kids can't be because of compromised immune systems and not getting your kid vaccinated not only puts them at risk, puts those who can't be vaccinated at risk.

My fiance had a compromised immune system at a young age and was only given the shots he could safely handle. Some woman who's child they lived next door to decided it was not moral to have her child vaccinated (all those chemicals!) and lo and behold, he got whooping cough from this kid -his parents never knew the kid wasn't vaccinated and when the woman told them what her son had she said it as if it was no big deal. He ended up getting really sick, because of the cough he couldn't keep food down and almost ended up in the hospital with an I.V. a couple times just to get some liquid into him before he finally got over it. He ended up being very underweight for a while, people had actually called child protection services on them thinking they just weren't feeding him!

Having your child vaccinated not only protects them, but it protects everyone else around them.

[GhostlyMark]

i've only been vaccinated once..or twice...i think twice.