Immunisation, right or wrong?

[bellenuit]

Medical experts rebuke Republican politicians hyping vaccination concerns

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...xperts-vaccines-safe-chris-christie-rand-paul

 

[cynic]

If there is truth in the claims of the CDC whistleblowers (reported in the linked article), then a thorough reexamination of popular opinions may be warranted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

 

[cynic]

Contrary to popular opinion, it looks like the science is yet to be settled:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/

 

[DB008]

‘You are playing with your child’s life’: Aussie mum’s powerful message for anti-vaccination movement

The anti-vaccination movement has been a talking point after a measles outbreak in the US, which has been traced back to the Disneyland amusement park in California.

At the latest count, the outbreak had reached 121 people, the majority of whom were unvaccinated.

The spread of the disease ”” which has now hit three provinces in Canada ”” sparked a scathing attack on the anti-vaccination movement by Toronto mother Jennifer Hibben-White, whose baby may have also contracted the highly contagious disease.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/you-are-playing-with-your-childs-life-aussie-mums-powerful-message-for-anti-vaccination-movement/story-fnet08xa-1227220062085

 

[orr]

Contrary to popular opinion, it looks like the science is yet to be settled:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/

I've read the links, to both of your above posts.

Do you want to make some specific point?

If so, Before you do, you can assist broader academia with a definition of the 'recombinaltion tinikering' ,as it appears that it's an 'in term' with a very small crowd, (of crack pots).......

 

[Smurf1976]

Vaccination poses some risks, that seems fairly clear.

Not being vaccinated is a risk too, and that risk is larger than the risk associated with being vaccinated.

I'm both amazed and alarmed that the anti-vaccination argument seems to be gaining traction. At best, it's a sad reflection of a society too "dumbed down" to understand chance and probability and how to interpret statistics (all of which is just basic high school maths).

 

[sydboy007]

Vaccination poses some risks, that seems fairly clear.

Not being vaccinated is a risk too, and that risk is larger than the risk associated with being vaccinated.

I'm both amazed and alarmed that the anti-vaccination argument seems to be gaining traction. At best, it's a sad reflection of a society too "dumbed down" to understand chance and probability and how to interpret statistics (all of which is just basic high school maths).

An easy way to deal with it is to make these people pay for any medical costs if their Children get a vaccine preventable disease.

I'm not proposing to bankrupt them via this, though it's conceivable the full costs would, but they should have to wear a significant proportion of the costs. I don't see why those doing the reasonably right action for the personal and common good should have to see their scarce tax $$$ funding what is a personal choice.

 

[bellenuit]

I'm both amazed and alarmed that the anti-vaccination argument seems to be gaining traction. At best, it's a sad reflection of a society too "dumbed down" to understand chance and probability and how to interpret statistics (all of which is just basic high school maths).

I think an important contributing factor is that many parents of today no longer know how serious and debilitating some of these diseases are. They have grown up in a society where no one catches measles or any of the other diseases that kids are vaccinated against, so they do not know the seriousness of them and have become complacent.

 

[basilio]

I think an important contributing factor is that many parents of today no longer know how serious and debilitating some of these diseases are. They have grown up in a society where no one catches measles or any of the other diseases that kids are vaccinated against, so they do not know the seriousness of them and have become complacent.

+10

I think the anti vaccination movement is just unbalanced. As Smurf points out there is a small risk in vaccination that is hugely outweighed by the risks of catching the diseases being protected against.

The other thing that concerns me is the way the net has enabled anti vaccination bodies to develop and grow recycled and reused arguments regardless of their accuracy.

For what its worth the Wiki article which analysis the current concern about vaccination is very thorough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

 

[SirRumpole]

Weren't some schools refusing admission to children who had not been vaccinated ?

I wonder how this would go down in the legal system as to whether schools have the legal right to do this.

 

[Value Collector]

Weren't some schools refusing admission to children who had not been vaccinated ?

I wonder how this would go down in the legal system as to whether schools have the legal right to do this.

I thought they were daycare centres.

 

[SirRumpole]

I thought they were daycare centres.

I suppose day care centres would have the right to reject whoever they wanted, unlike public schools perhaps.

 

[cynic]

I've read the links, to both of your above posts.

Do you want to make some specific point?

If so, Before you do, you can assist broader academia with a definition of the 'recombinaltion tinikering' ,as it appears that it's an 'in term' with a very small crowd, (of crack pots).......

As I generally prefer to distance myself from "crack pots", I do not consider myself empowered to translate on their behalf.

Having said that, I do recall reading a very similar term to the one you mention.
Based upon the context in which it was used, the author's intent seemed to centre around expressing concern over the presence of human recombinant DNA in (some) vaccines. The author further (briefly) outlined how such DNA may have a potentially adverse impact on the vaccine recipient. (I'm confident that you already understood that, but thought I'd better mention it for the benefit of those here that may not have read that particular article.)

As for the point I'm making, it's similar to comments I've made earlier on this thread.
I already know from my own direct experience that vaccines can have extremely adverse consequences for some (not all) unlucky individuals, and am annoyed when subjected to peer pressure from misinformed members of our society.

Please be assured that I am not supportive of any campaign to mandate or outlaw vaccination!

However, I am generally opposed to the deliberate misrepresentation of pharmacology, particularly when such misinformation is part of a campaign that threatens to remove the right of the individual to make informed choices.

Whilst acknowledging the inappropriateness of dictating how others manage their health, I was vainly hoping that such consideration for individual rights might be reciprocated. (I find the eagerness, with which some individuals, have embraced this campaign for removal of such an important human freedom, thoroughly disconcerting.)

On a similar note, I am amazed by the repetitious assertions (reported via mainstream media) that unvaccinated children pose a threat to vaccinated children!

Do they actually understand the implications of what they're saying?!
(Whenever the argument is raised it seems to be tantamount to an admission of doubt regarding vaccine efficacy!!)

The logic of such assertions escapes me! (Yes! I've heard many fanciful theories about herd immunity, however, events in recent times are raising challenges to the validity of such beloved concepts!)

So do vaccines work or don't they?

If they only work for some children, then any impervious child will surely pose equal risk to others.

Are we to alienate those children also?

 

[Smurf1976]

They have grown up in a society where no one catches measles or any of the other diseases that kids are vaccinated against, so they do not know the seriousness of them and have become complacent.

The same general principle could be said for all sorts of things from vaccination to fuel supply to war to rising interest rates.

Few if any seem to believe that, for example, Australia will ever be faced with a military war on its' own soil, that imports of fuel (or anything else) will be cut-off and not available at any price or that mortgage interest rates will return to the average of the past 50 years. All are very plausible scenarios, indeed I'd go so far as saying that at some point they're almost certain.

Humans just don't seem to be good at learning from the past. Most know that bad things happened in the past, few seem willing to contemplate the possibility of those same things happening today. Vaccination is just one example. That we keep having fires in the same places every few years is another one and there are plenty more such examples.

 

[SirRumpole]

That we keep having fires in the same places every few years is another one and there are plenty more such examples.

Or advertising such as this on this on this very forum

http://signup.dailyreckoning.com.au/X920R205?gclid=CLfbu8OJ5MMCFUUHvAodrwIA9A

Blatant scaremongering to sell subscriptions ? A genuine warning or a self fullfilling prophecy ?

 

[Tisme]

Few if any seem to believe that, for example

I think there are many who expect consequences and down turns. But there is a generation out there who have no idea of ubiquitous national deprivation and conservation of meagre incomes. I'm not sure if they should and possibly hinder the pursuit of visions.....(is there a cost?)

 

[Julia]

So do vaccines work or don't they?

If they only work for some children, then any impervious child will surely pose equal risk to others.

Are we to alienate those children also?

Aren't some of the routine vaccines not given to children until they reach X age? We often see the little baby choking with whooping cough. If they can't be vaccinated against everything at birth then presumably they're vulnerable then.

 

[cynic]

Aren't some of the routine vaccines not given to children until they reach X age? We often see the little baby choking with whooping cough. If they can't be vaccinated against everything at birth then presumably they're vulnerable then.

You raise an interesting point.

I have on occasions read that breastfeeding infants gain some benefit from the mother's immunities.
However, I am uncertain as to the extent to which those claims have been scientifically substantiated.
So in the absence of further corroborative information regarding the aforementioned claim/s, I presume that there would indeed be some vulnerability.

Having said all that, how exactly does this alter the point I was raising?

"If they [vaccines] only work for some children, then any impervious child will surely pose equal risk to others.

Are we to alienate those children also?"

Are infants under vaccination age vulnerable?

If so then the warped logic (behind proposals to alienate members of the community) could equally apply to those infants!

 

[Value Collector]

I suppose day care centres would have the right to reject whoever they wanted, unlike public schools perhaps.

I can see an argument for banning non vaccinated kids, or at least managing them so a schools population of un vaccinated kids doesn't rise above certain levels.

This is a very interesting video, discussing herd protection etc, and the importance of maintaining a 92% vaccination ratio for measles.

 

[Value Collector]

Aren't some of the routine vaccines not given to children until they reach X age? We often see the little baby choking with whooping cough. If they can't be vaccinated against everything at birth then presumably they're vulnerable then.

Yes, their only protection is herd protection, in that we need a decent chunk of the population around them vaccinated to protect them by stopping vectors from spreading. Unfortunately if the community has lots of unvaccinated people getting around, babies are at risk.