I am abandoning this thread I started. It is a health issue to me, not political. The thread belongs to you people now.

Mojo come back it's a good thread I didn't know about you having to have booster shots as a adult maybe that's why we can't get rid off it like smallpox

Plus it is political mate as vaccines are not as safe as people think they are.

So a discussion on it is informative which is why you put it up , no!

---

Plus it is political mate as vaccines are not as safe as people think they are.

Nonsense. They are safer than you appear to think, and if you have a data substantiating your view of what the people think, it's likely the people are in error regarding the safety of vaccines.

Vaccines save lives. Vaccines are safe.

Some popular sections of the media, in a pointless attempt to show "both sides" of a story, have done a terrible job at giving the public useful information upon which to base health decisions.

Data:

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Safety-The-Facts.aspx

http://www.whyichoose.org/vaccinesafety.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html

http://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Your reply doesn't seem to contradict what I wrote.

I wrote: "Vaccinations are accepted by modern medicine, and most governments and lay people as essential to preventative medicine and public health." You wrote "society has already made that decision on vax." Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

I wrote: states "make vaccinations required, but sometimes with opt-outs for public education." You wrote: "Vax is mandatory to attend school absent a Doctor expressly saying novax, in many places." Is that the same?

I also looked up homeschooling rules, and I was partially wrong. Half the states require the same vaccines for homeschooling, while half don't. I dont know how accurate they are, but Wikipedia and some other legal advice sites say homeschooling is allowed in all states.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/home-school-vaccination-_n_6624100.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_in_the_United_States#U.S._Supreme_Court_precedent

The NPR article does not disagree with what I wrote: "A forced medical treatment is a form of assault...The exceptions are when someone poses an immediate threat to themselves or others." The article says something similar, and mentions 1905 US Supreme Court case Jacobson vs Massachusetts and the related 1903 Massachusetts Supreme Court case Commonwealth vs Jacobson. I found copies of them in the links below. I don't understand all of it, but I think the US court (section 25-28) said that an emergency, such as the 1902 smallpox epidemic, is required to justify forcing someone to have the vaccine. The Massachusetts court (very close to bottom) even says one reason the law wasn't too bad was because an adult can refuse the vaccine and pay a fine instead.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/case.html
https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-pear

You mentioned the eradication of smallpox. I cannot find good information that on whether the US smallpox programs ending around 1971 were for children or for adults. But this AAP abstract from 1972 and a publication from the WHO in 1973 (3rd paragraph) suggest they were for children and schools. This might not be different from what I though, that there are requirements for children and schools, but not for all adults.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/49/4/489
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/67613/1/WHO_SE_73.55.pdf

Your response did not contradict what I wrote, so I am wondering what we disagree on?

I should also have said that how I apply medical ethics to vaccines can be different from how other people use them. The main difference might be about what level of danger is needed before the focus changes from individual rights to community safety. For vaccines, I think the danger should be an active or predicted epidemic, but I know some people who think the threshold can be lower. I also didn't previously give an opinion on childhood vaccinations. I can see how a parent preventing standard healthcare for a child might be considered child abuse, but using education to convince the parent should be tried before force, especially when it's not an emergency.

Nonsense. They are safer than you appear to think

This may or not be true, depending who it is and what they thought the risks were.

I was never told or bothered to look it up before school. I thought they were totally safe. On the other hand, some people think vaccines kill or paralyze you, are full of toxic mercury, or have "strong" links to problems like autism. The risks for vaccines used today are much closer to no risk than crazy risk.

Most side effects are minor and local, such as redness, soreness, itchiness at the injection site. Maybe sometimes a little more generalized, like nausea or fatigue. But there are actually some super rare but more serious side effects. Things like anaphylactic allergic reaction, Guillan Barre syndrome, encephalitis, pneumonia. However, the chances any of them happening is often 1 in a million doses. Even then, the deaths or long term damage from those severe events are even rarer. I rarely see the serious stuff on patient ed materials. You might see it in the package insert, if for some reason you pick up the vaccine vial from a pharmacy, instead of the doctor giving it to you in the office. I did a lazy Pubmed search got an article with some tables for MMR and chicken pox vaccines, as an example.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1201/p2113.html

I'm not as familiar with older vaccines, but I thought some of them may have been more dangerous. The thing is, some risk in exchange for prevention is acceptable, compared to the risk of disease. The chances of getting the disease should be higher than the chances of a serious side effect. And the consequences of the disease should be worse than the side effects. There are estimates that policymakers and epidemiologists make to decide when the risk is worth it. The more common an infectious disease is and the more dangerous it is, the more risk from vaccines will become acceptable. But sometimes, the virus or bacteria is officially "eradicated" in some countries or maybe the entire world. When that happens, the risk of disease is lower than the risk of side effects, so routine vaccination would stop. I'm too young to remember, but an example is supposed to be the smallpox vaccine.

To summarize, vaccines used today are very safe, but they are not 100% risk free. However, if they are recommended to you, it's because the best analysis is that the chances of a bad side effect is not as bad as the chances of the infection or its consequences.

Mojo come back it's a good thread I didn't know about you having to have booster shots as a adult

The information I wrote is mostly for the US. Australia might have different recommendations or laws. Also my position on ethics is subjective and I'm not an expert in laws.

Best source for you would be your primary care doctor, instead of me random person on internet. A quick google search on Australian boosters, it may be different from the US.

Nonsense. They are safer than you appear to think

This may or not be true, depending who it is and what they thought the risks were.

[snip]

To summarize, vaccines used today are very safe, but they are not 100% risk free. However, if they are recommended to you, it's because the best analysis is that the chances of a bad side effect is not as bad as the chances of the infection or its consequences.

Thanks for the data Jake, for more on what Darth thinks of vaccines, take a look at his posts here and here, where he appears to subscribe to both the "causes autism" the "too many too soon" myths.

It would be foolish to argue that vaccination is a risk free endeavor, though it seems to me, the vanishingly small risk of severe injury/death arising from vaccination is given too much emphasis in this type of discussion compared to the very real risk of death arising from non-vaccination. There's also the reduction in herd immunity, created by those that chose to avoid vaccinations without sound cause, placing additional risks on the health of those who cannot be vaccinated.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

....Australia might have different recommendations or laws.
..

My 3 2nd generation kids went through the NSW Immunisation Schedule (they're 20-23.5 now) and it did them no harm (except for the needle pricks), also I was the parent that took them to have it all done (their mother couldn't do it) so that's my input on the subject (better off having safe kids). ;-)

Cheers.

homeschool, why allowed doesn't mean allowed:
In many places to "teach" you must hold a teachers credential, pass a license exam, have supervised experience, continuing credits, additional requirements for subject areas and grade levels, pay fees and perhaps several other hoops as well.

Every time someone finds a loophole in one set of regulations by shifting to another set, that other set will have lots more loopholes that must be jumped through as well. Usually this results in there not being a loophole, [except for tax law where the campaign contribution, er bribe, was used as the method of creating the loophole.]

As to forcing, as my link said, they kicked down doors and forced needles in arms in the past, not just children, anyone for smallpox. That is where the political will has been. As you should know with stare dices that is still the legal position of today. It can return there PDQ if some hemorrhagic fever were to begin to spread.

As to Doctors who say the patient is more expert than they are at making decisions, well, given that thought process, does that violate the Hippocratic Oath saying do no harm? Or it is the rationalization that doing nothing is not doing. Frankly the correct position with the Oath is to refuse all further contact with the patient if they say no. Leaving the patient with the option of only being able to see quacks.

As to what leads up to that, as the data sheet says, do not give if allergic to it or its components. Do an allergy test. Comes back positive, that is a real exception, perhaps there is an alternative vaccine available, perhaps not. Comes back negative and ...

As to that ethic that the patient is more expert, I am so happy that was applied to the gentleman who was described in court papers as violent who a couple hours after being served with a domestic violence order went an shot up the town. Society is already seeing the effects of this "ethic."

---

Bobby the common belief that vaccines are as safe you think is wrong .

In another thread I stated that some people get allergic reactions .

So I will clarify what I meant .

It not a allergic reaction as such .

Vaccines can actually kill people why ?

when you vaccinate someone you are giving the person the virus all be it part of the virus and some people can develop the actual disease that you are trying to protect them from .

Vaccines come with a very small risk of actually getting the virus and it can kill the person because there immune system can't fight it and because the person can have other health factors that can compound the risk .

No vaccines is 100% safe .

99.9999 % of the time it is but they are not 100% safe , that is misinformation

I will give you that in the last 10 -20 years they have become more safe as now they can use less parts of the D.N.A to acheive the same result making them even safer but they are not 100% safe & never have been 100%

---

So Bobby let's look at Zika

A virus that does not kill the host and you may not get anymore than systems like the flu , headach , joint ach , running nose and such but the effect on a pegnante women is as we can see extremely bad for the child and what does it effect the BRAIN

No let's take this logic one step further and say a child that has been given a 3 dose 1 shot vaccine and the child has only slight systems of the 3 viruses .

Can you prove that there is no effect on that child ?

Can you prove that the effect is not something like Zika but in stead of being extremely bad it is mild in comparison and ends up causing Autism ?

There needs to be actual studies for this as so far I believe they have only try'd to look at stats and if only 1 in 20,000 kids ends up with Autism it may not actually show up in studies of medical records .

So I would like to see the powers that be stop bundling 3 virus (vaccines together and give 1 at a time with a 4 week break until they actually do real studies and not just look at medical records witch may not show it.

err on the side of caution but still people have to vaccinate as the risk is much higher if you don't .

You should not have a vaccine just because they are available .

Does a child of 1-5 really need a Hep vaccine . I say no same for the papaloma virus

And lastly I would say know the risk don't just believe what you hear or read on social media actually find out and do some research about the risks before you just get a vaccine

---

I found out only a few days ago that one of the vaccines that is given makes me sus on vaccines and Autism as the virus the vaccine is to protect you from has the same effect in pregnant women as Zika does to the child
it's the Rotavirus that has the same effect as Zika on pregnant women

makes you think ay . How much do you trust government bodies to tell the whole truth ?????

How much do you trust that the drug company's tell the truth whom make said vaccines .

food for thought !!!!!

---

Bobby the common belief that vaccines are as safe you think is wrong .

[snip]

No vaccines is 100% safe .

99.9999 % of the time it is but they are not 100% safe , that is misinformation

I will give you that in the last 10 -20 years they have become more safe as now they can use less parts of the D.N.A to acheive the same result making them even safer but they are not 100% safe & never have been 100%

We agree that vaccines are not 100% safe (I already said in the thread "[i]t would be foolish to argue that vaccination is a risk free endeavor"). Though focusing on the risks of vaccination misses the point on whether vaccination is safe, the likelihood of death and serious injury is significantly higher in the population of those that are not vaccinated, compared to those that are. Thus vaccination is safe(r than the alternative for the vast majority of the population).

Did you read the article posted by Jake?

Mortality

Measles
1 to 2 deaths per 1,000 measles cases

Mumps
2.5 to 50 deaths per 1 million mumps cases, because of 1.4% to 2% fatality rate from encephalitis

Rubella
1 death per 30,000 rubella cases, because of 20% fatality rate from encephalitis

MMR vaccine
1 death, but not attributed to vaccine

Fatal measles pneumonitis in a 21-year-old man with advanced HIV infection

The "1 death, though not due to MMR vaccine" finding was from this source, an analysis of fourteen years (1982 to 1996) of the administration of MMR vaccine in Finland, which found "an incidence of serious adverse events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with MMR vaccination of 5.3 per 100,000 vaccinees or 3.2 per 100,000 vaccine doses". Compare that to the death rates from measles alone and you'll see why people might think vaccines are safe (and not tack on the caveats about the small risk of complications).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I found out only a few days ago that one of the vaccines that is given makes me sus on vaccines and Autism as the virus the vaccine is to protect you from has the same effect in pregnant women as Zika does to the child
it's the Rotavirus that has the same effect as Zika on pregnant women

makes you think ay . How much do you trust government bodies to tell the whole truth ?????

How much do you trust that the drug company's tell the truth whom make said vaccines .

food for thought !!!!!

Agreeing with you was nice while it lasted. The you went back to the autism thing and the "too many at once" thing, and we're back to where we started. Glenn, you have the links Jake and I provided, if you have data that shows this to be erroneous, please link it.

As for making one think, and doing their own research, please do, you might find that the link between vaccines and Zika is yet another anti-vaxxer myth.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I found out only a few days ago that one of the vaccines that is given makes me sus on vaccines and Autism as the virus the vaccine is to protect you from has the same effect in pregnant women as Zika does to the child
it's the Rotavirus that has the same effect as Zika on pregnant women

makes you think ay . How much do you trust government bodies to tell the whole truth ?????

How much do you trust that the drug company's tell the truth whom make said vaccines .

food for thought !!!!!

Glenn,

You are correct when you say that no vaccine is 100% safe... However, the rest of what you say about vaccines is, well... suspect at the very least and mostly outright wrong.

Of course, vaccines have some small amount of danger, allergic reactions, etc.

But the risk of death is higher in those not vaccinated against a disease from that disease than the risk of death from receiving the vaccine.

Bobby is correct.

Any link between autism and vaccines has been pretty well debunked. And vaccinating pregnant women pretty much should not be done, same as giving pregnant women any of a LONG list of medications.

I (and my wife) are CURRENT on ALL of our vaccinations. Our children are current as well. I had my last booster dose of the TDaP vaccine a few years ago right around the time my oldest son was born. All three of those diseases (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis[whooping cough]) are NASTY. You DO NOT WANT to risk them.

I am also current on my 'flu shot'... Yes, I have a mild reaction to the 'flu shot'... A sore arm for a few days. But I am prone to catching influenza, and I would MUCH rather have a sore arm for a couple of days than spend two or three weeks in bed wanting to die from influenza.

Now then, I am a Libertarian. However, I do believe that public health trumps civil rights. Vaccinations should be MANDATORY in ALL cases except if the person is allergic (usually due to the vaccine growth media used -- chicken eggs) to that specific vaccination. In these cases there needs to be some R&D done to develop alternative growth media vaccines safe to give to these people.

Herd Immunity is a GOOD THING(tm)!

So, given the choice of who to trust...

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Center for Disease Control, etc...

or random anti-vax crackpots and nutjobs of dubious professional qualifications...

I will trust the medical profession (AAP, CDC, etc.).

As for making one think, and doing their own research, please do, you might find that the link between vaccines and Zika is yet another anti-vaxxer myth.

Sorry Bobby but I had not herd that people there where saying that . I have not been reading blogs or news services .So your wrong there . Made the link just by thinking about it

---

The "1 death, though not due to MMR vaccine" finding was from this source, an analysis of fourteen years (1982 to 1996) of the administration of MMR vaccine in Finland

Thanks for pointing out that the studies done so far are misleading . Measles is a old vaccine so it should be safe after all this time but all the study shows is that that vaccine is safe .

How long has the Rotavirus vaccine been around . The study of one old vaccine is not good research and does make it look like a cover up .

Do they have Rotavirus in Finland , how long if they do have it has the vaccine been given out to the public and if no to these questions then sounds fishy.

Rotavirus vaccines are new so doing a study on measles well sounds fishy

If you ask the wrong questions you get the wrong answers

---

Kong the 3 vaccines you meantion are old and I would expect them to be safe but it does not mean that it's safe to bundle vaccines together and giving so many sorry you wont convince me they are safe like that until the real questions are asked . Studying one old vaccine and then saying all is ok is bad science

---

Variola major: fatality rate 1 in 3, hemorrhagic variant usually fatal.
Reaction to vaccine 36%
Fatal reaction 1-2 per million*.

So require or not?


*Note: data from 1960, many contraindications on the datasheet today were not discovered diagnosed then.

---

Do they have Rotavirus in Finland , how long if they do have it has the vaccine been given out to the public and if no to these questions then sounds fishy.

Yes, they have Rotavirus in Finland.
And vaccine to deal with it since 2009.
Given at the age of two, three and five months, the vaccine is expected to prevent annually in Finland among children under the age of five years approximately 2,000 rotavirus diarrhoea episodes needing hospitalisation, and over 10,000 outpatient visits.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19322

In 1998, a rotavirus vaccine was licensed for use in the United States. Clinical trials in the United States, Finland, and Venezuela had found it to be 80 to 100% effective at preventing severe diarrhoea caused by rotavirus A, and researchers had detected no statistically significant serious adverse effects.[120][121] The manufacturer, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, a type of bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants.[122] The experience provoked intense debate about the relative risks and benefits of a rotavirus vaccine.[123] In 2006, two new vaccines against rotavirus A infection were shown to be safe and effective in children,[124] and in June 2009 the World Health Organization recommended that rotavirus vaccination be included in all national immunisation programmes to provide protection against this virus.[125]
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2009/rotavirus_vaccines_20090605/en/
In 2015, India unveiled a cheaper vaccine with support of US National Institute of Health

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-03-09/news/59931631_1_rotavirus-rotavac-advanced-vaccine
http://www.who.int/topics/rotavirus_infections/en/

Key facts
Immunization prevents illness, disability and death from vaccine-preventable diseases including cervical cancer, diphtheria, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, pertussis (whooping cough), pneumonia, polio, rotavirus diarrhoea, rubella and tetanus.
Global vaccination coverage is generally holding steady.
Uptake of new and underused vaccines is increasing.
Immunization currently averts an estimated 2 to 3 million deaths every year.
But an estimated 18.7 million infants worldwide are still missing out on basic vaccines.

Rotaviruses are the most common cause of severe diarrhoeal disease in young children throughout the world. Rotavirus vaccine was introduced in 74 countries by the end of 2014, and global coverage was estimated at 19%.

Progressive Liberal Socialist Democrat

Don't have kids mate but to answer your question I would vaccinate them if I had kids as I am informed and do understand the risks but it won't stop me calling for more data and questioning the policy of giving people or children a vaccine just because it's there .

I have said this before my wife failed her exams everytime she sat them to be a nurse so I had to study with her and then quiz her so she could pass her exams . I have work as a employee and volunteer at hospitals and I have been privy to attitudes and conversations that show a whole different side to health care than most of you would know .

No I'm not a doctor or nurse but I do have a senior first aid cert for the last 30 years and understand medical things very well .

I've even lost my temper with doctors for sending me for B/s test that won't show up what I thought was wrong with me and you should have seen the look on the doc's face when he relised I do understand health better than most.

My Doc doesn't do that anymore and when he says go have this he better explain it very well or he knows i'll tell the twat what for if I think it's crap

x-ray
cat-scan
radioisotope with x-ray
nerve test on left arm all negative .

lose my temper and demand a MRI

oh Glen we have found a problem with your spine ...REALLY why am I not surpised

this actually happened to me cost off b/s tests $2000 +

cost of single MRI $451 who's the idiot patent or Doctor ??

---