Should children living here have a yearly flu vaccine?

[Jockey]

Instead of preaching the propaganda given out by the huge pharmaceutical companies regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, there are some posters on here who would be wise to open their minds a little and consider that these huge pharmaceutical companies make billions in profit for their shareholders from the selling of as many vaccines as they possibly can. Their lobbyists are hugely influential within Western Governments enabling them to strike a deal so that they can not be sued for any vaccination health issues. The curriculum that medical students study are largely influenced by these pharmaceutical companies and doctors receive commission for every vaccine they "sell"

There are two sides to the vaccine story. Brushing aside those who are brave enough to question the authorities and those who have genuine concerns as "loony conspiracy theorists" is both dangerous and ignorant.

Perhaps those who think vaccines are safe and trustworthy should read a book such as this one:

At first glance, the cover of this book might seem graphic. If you count the needles in the infant, you will come up with eighteen. If you count the needles in the background, you will arrive at 63. This is only half the story. Today, according to the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule, a child receives 36 shots containing a total of 126 vaccines from birth through six years of age. This is quadruple the number of vaccines a child received in the 1980’s. In 1983 a child received only 10 shots containing 30 vaccines. Could this quadrupling of the vaccination schedule be responsible for the drastic increase in childhood disorders we are seeing today?

Today, one in five children suffers from asthma, one in six children is diagnosed with a learning disability, one in 150 children is diagnosed with autism, one in 250 children has some form of arthritis, and one in every 400 children has diabetes.

Are we trading chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and other harmless childhood illnesses for a lifetime of chronic disease? Are vaccines really responsible for the decline in infectious disease? Were polio and smallpox really eradicated through mandatory mass immunization programs? Or is there a chance the vaccines were really the culprit for the spread of these infectious diseases? Can a contaminated polio vaccine be responsible for the current AIDS pandemic we are seeing today?

Ever wonder what is in that shot your child gets at the pediatrician’s office? Ever thought about how that vaccine is made? Is the dosage safe for your child? Surely it is safe—the CDC claims it is. And by the way, these vaccines have been studied for their long-term effects regarding any carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive potential, right? You’ll be shocked to learn the answer! Is there a chance those well-baby checkups are really poisoning your child? Do vaccines really contain all those chemicals and cause all those diseases that are listed on the cover of this book? Yes, and Yes.

The chemicals contained in these vaccines are only the tip of the iceberg, and the diseases listed are only a fraction of the conditions these vaccines can possibly cause.

Oh sure, you are probably thinking—there is no way that can be true. Well, according to the vaccine package inserts, these poisons are in the vaccines, and the listed side effects are in fact listed in these inserts as adverse reactions. You will never hear a pediatrician discussing this with the parents who are about to get their child jabbed.

Any parent considering having children—or who already does—needs to be properly informed of the risks and the benefits of vaccination. This book is the other half of the story that you will not hear from the pediatrician or from the CDC.

If you want the best for your children and want them to be healthy throughout life, then this book is a must read!

[Sheryl]

With the exception of new vaccines still under patent (which excludes a

the routine childhood immunizations) vaccines are a very low profit product. So mu ch so that it has been difficult to persuade pharm companies to continue to produce them.

It is governmental health agencies with no financial stake in the matter which issue vaccine recommendations. These are based on a careful investigation of the relative risks and benefits. Anyone wanting to understand the reason why specific vaccines are recommended for specific people would do well to read that literature. It boils down to the risk of a serius adverse effect from the vaccine vs.the risk of both getting the disease and, having gotten it, of dying or developing serius disability as a result. Neither halves of this equation are zero. And the figures differ for different segments of the population which is why vaccine recommendations also do.

[attrayant]

Instead of preaching the propaganda given out by the huge pharmaceutical companies...

Snipped for brevity.

99% pure ignorance. In fact your post works perfectly as an ignorance template. Here let me use it to make the auto industry evil:

Instead of preaching the propaganda given out by the huge automobile companies regarding the safety and effectiveness of cars, there are some posters on here who would be wise to open their minds a little and consider that these huge auto companies make billions in profit for their shareholders from the selling of as many vehicles as they possibly can. Their lobbyists are hugely influential within Western Governments enabling them to strike a deal so that they can not be sued for any manufacturing defect issues. The curriculum that shop students study is largely influenced by these automobile companies and auto dealers receive commission for every car they "sell"

See? Everything becomes evil if you wrap it up in enough paranoia.

[Snowbuddy]

I do not understand why one has to be given a title, like "Pro and Anti" I much prefer the words "Truth and Untruth" the following information can be seen as a kinda "Renaissance" on the subject of Thimerosal(mercury) as used in seasonal flu vaccines, and will bring fresh light to what appears to be a very sensitive subject.

By an act of Congress, "The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986" where Pharmaceutical companies were given blanket immunity against all lawsuits regarding Vaccines, a surcharge of US0.75cents was imposed on each dose, the monies collected and handled by the US Treasury.

The claims are heard by the injured parties at the "Federal Vaccine Court" so far 3.0 billion dollars has been paid to the injured parties, out of a pool of 5.0 billion dollars.

The first test case was of 9.0year old girl, who had been developed Autism resulting from a Flu Vaccines that contained Thimerosal, the young girls name is "Hannah Poling" the family was awarded 1.5 million dollars.

The following link is to recent study, showing the connection between the very minor amounts of mercury in a childs brain, and how it induces Autism like symptoms.

http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/2/1/25

[AnotherOneAmerican]

A conclusive decision from reading this thread may be impossible for anyone undecided about whether to vaccinate or not.

The pro vaccination group will try to scare people into it and the anti vaccination group will try to scare them out of it. Each group genuinely believe they are right, but obviously one of the groups is wrong. The argument won't be won here.

As I posted earlier, some vaccinations are vital, some vaccinations are dangerous, and some vaccinations are of questionable value.

There is no one correct answer, you pay your money, and you take your chance.

[inbangkok]

A conclusive decision from reading this thread may be impossible for anyone undecided about whether to vaccinate or not.

The pro vaccination group will try to scare people into it and the anti vaccination group will try to scare them out of it. Each group genuinely believe they are right, but obviously one of the groups is wrong. The argument won't be won here.

As I posted earlier, some vaccinations are vital, some vaccinations are dangerous, and some vaccinations are of questionable value.

There is no one correct answer, you pay your money, and you take your chance.

If you believe in "medical/scientific consensus", the flu vaccine is of great value. The vast majority of medical professionals recommend them, stand by their effectiveness, and support the widespread use of them. If an individual thinks they are smarter than the medical community as a whole because they read some ridiculous nonsense on a natural health website or whatever........so be it.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

If you believe in "medical/scientific consensus", the flu vaccine is of great value. The vast majority of medical professionals recommend them, stand by their effectiveness, and support the widespread use of them. If an individual thinks they are smarter than the medical community as a whole because they read some ridiculous nonsense on a natural health website or whatever........so be it.

Medical professionals, do what they are told, or get struck off (or have their insurance cover withdrawn).

I can't see any doctors giving up their livelihood.

[inbangkok]

If you believe in "medical/scientific consensus", the flu vaccine is of great value. The vast majority of medical professionals recommend them, stand by their effectiveness, and support the widespread use of them. If an individual thinks they are smarter than the medical community as a whole because they read some ridiculous nonsense on a natural health website or whatever........so be it.

Medical professionals, do what they are told, or get struck off (or have their insurance cover withdrawn).

I can't see any doctors giving up their livelihood.

Conspiratorial and ridiculous..............

Dr.s in the US are hardly even vaccinating people withe the HPV shot and it prevents CANCER in women. To pretend that if Dr.s don't push flu shots they will lose their medical malpractice insurance is simply laughable and there is no evidence of this.

[h90]

A conclusive decision from reading this thread may be impossible for anyone undecided about whether to vaccinate or not.

The pro vaccination group will try to scare people into it and the anti vaccination group will try to scare them out of it. Each group genuinely believe they are right, but obviously one of the groups is wrong. The argument won't be won here.

As I posted earlier, some vaccinations are vital, some vaccinations are dangerous, and some vaccinations are of questionable value.

There is no one correct answer, you pay your money, and you take your chance.

If you believe in "medical/scientific consensus", the flu vaccine is of great value. The vast majority of medical professionals recommend them, stand by their effectiveness, and support the widespread use of them. If an individual thinks they are smarter than the medical community as a whole because they read some ridiculous nonsense on a natural health website or whatever........so be it.

Well my wife, my old parents and I didn't had any flu the last 20 years and with us other billions of people.

So what would the great value have been?

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Dr.s in the US are hardly even vaccinating people withe the HPV shot and it prevents CANCER in women. To pretend that if Dr.s don't push flu shots they will lose their medical malpractice insurance is simply laughable and there is no evidence of this.

Many clinics get rewards for having set %s of their customers vaccinated.

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-concerns/vaccines/do-doctors-have-financial-incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

USA (HMO plans)

"But I recently talked with two physicians in different states that told me the HMO plans that they contract with do chart reviews and patient surveys at the end of each year. If their office scores high enough on these reviews, the HMO plan gives them a several thousand dollar bonus. This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated."

And then AFIX from the CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/AFIX/index.html

Explained more clearly here,

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/02/bribery-affects-vaccination-rates.aspx

And in the UK, they are called "target payments"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/health/2002/bma_conference/2079993.stm

If you feel the sites I pointed at are hosted by conspiracy nuts, feel free to Google AFIX, HMO plans, or target payments yourself.

Edited September 4, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[kelly404]

Instead of preaching the propaganda given out by the huge pharmaceutical companies...

Snipped for brevity.

99% pure ignorance. In fact your post works perfectly as an ignorance template. Here let me use it to make the auto industry evil:

Instead of preaching the propaganda given out by the huge automobile companies regarding the safety and effectiveness of cars, there are some posters on here who would be wise to open their minds a little and consider that these huge auto companies make billions in profit for their shareholders from the selling of as many vehicles as they possibly can. Their lobbyists are hugely influential within Western Governments enabling them to strike a deal so that they can not be sued for any manufacturing defect issues. The curriculum that shop students study is largely influenced by these automobile companies and auto dealers receive commission for every car they "sell"

See? Everything becomes evil if you wrap it up in enough paranoia.

What a ridiculous analogy!

It's fine for profit to be a driver of production of physical goods, so long as corners aren't cut that lead to lives being endangered, car manufacturers are very careful in the design and assembly of a vehicle because if a fault is found after release of the model it means an incredibly expensive recall plus the damaging effect on their reputation. In this sense safety and profit go hand in hand.

However if profit becomes a driver of vaccine production and corners are cut leading to dangerous serums being released onto the market, as was the case in the msnbc report linked to in my first post it can result in the death or injury of thousands of people, or worse. It was for financial profit that the decision to release the contaminated product in markets other than the US was made. They essentially put profit before the well-being of thousands of people. So I ask myself again, would I feel safe using vaccines produced by a company who seem to be more concerned with the financial gain of the shareholders the safety of the public.

The pharmaceutical industry has to have safety as it's priority, once profit becomes the driver the whole industry is ethically compromised.

But as someone pointed out in another post, the argument won't be won by any side, in this debate on this forum. You will keep towing the vaccines for everyone line regardless, and those whose research goes beyond the compromised peer review papers will continue to point out the obvious dangers.

All the doctors and pharma whistle blowers who try to tell the public that vaccines are anything but safe will be blacklisted and have their reputations ruined.

Odd isn't it that these doctors and practitioners were perfectly well respected before their conscience got the better of them, then the minute they stop towing the party line they are satans seed,... or wingnuts.

With regard to backing up the MSNBC report on Baxter / Bayer dumping aids tainted vaccines that they were ordered to take off the US market but allowed to dump in Europe and asia, the fact that Baxter / Bayer did nothing, no complaints to the appropriate commissions that their company was being falsely besmirched on national TV, or that their reputation may be damaged by inaccurate reporting . Actually your car industry / pharm industry comes in useful here. If there was an MSNBC report claiming that the wheels kept falling off the new toyota model and this wasn't true what would Toyota do?

If Baxter / Bayer were car manufactures they would have a terrible reputation by now, here's a list of some past 'failures' from wiki though wiki underplays the seriousness of these events.

1996

The company entered into a four-way, $640 million settlement with haemophiliacs 1999 in relation to blood clotting concentrates that were infected with HIV

2001

Main article: Baxter Althane disaster

The Baxter Althane disaster in autumn 2001 was a series of 56 sudden deaths of renal failure patients in Spain, Croatia, Italy, Germany, Taiwan, Colombia and the USA (mainly Nebraska and Texas). All had received hospital treatment with Althane hemodialysis equipment, a product range manufactured by Baxter International, USA.^[22][23]

2008

the quality of blood thinning products produced by Baxter was brought into question when they were linked to 19 deaths in the United States.^[26] Upon inspection one of the raw ingredients used by Baxter were found to be contaminated – between 5 and 20 percent – with a substance that was similar, but not identical, to the ingredient itself.

2009

In early 2009, samples of viral material supplied by Baxter International to a series of European laboratories were found to be contaminated with live Avian flu virus

You see my point is no one can say vaccines are 100 % safe, so people need to educate before they vaccinate, then make an informed decision, with full knowledge of the risks, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't see why you have a problem with that.

Edited September 4, 2014 by kelly404

[inbangkok]

Dr.s in the US are hardly even vaccinating people withe the HPV shot and it prevents CANCER in women. To pretend that if Dr.s don't push flu shots they will lose their medical malpractice insurance is simply laughable and there is no evidence of this.

Many clinics get rewards for having set %s of their customers vaccinated.

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-concerns/vaccines/do-doctors-have-financial-incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

Don't doubt that.....healthcare is a business in the USA. However, that has nothing to do with whether the shot is effective.....nothing at all.

[eeeya]

Great thread, now where is my tinfoil hat

[inbangkok]

A conclusive decision from reading this thread may be impossible for anyone undecided about whether to vaccinate or not.

The pro vaccination group will try to scare people into it and the anti vaccination group will try to scare them out of it. Each group genuinely believe they are right, but obviously one of the groups is wrong. The argument won't be won here.

As I posted earlier, some vaccinations are vital, some vaccinations are dangerous, and some vaccinations are of questionable value.

There is no one correct answer, you pay your money, and you take your chance.

If you believe in "medical/scientific consensus", the flu vaccine is of great value. The vast majority of medical professionals recommend them, stand by their effectiveness, and support the widespread use of them. If an individual thinks they are smarter than the medical community as a whole because they read some ridiculous nonsense on a natural health website or whatever........so be it.

Well my wife, my old parents and I didn't had any flu the last 20 years and with us other billions of people.

So what would the great value have been?

OK...so whats your point? Because you have not suffered from the flu and none of your family members have it is not a real threat? I cannot believe how dumb this logic is (or lack of logic). And just because you never had the flu does not mean you never will. Really stunning that people are capable of thinking in such simplistic terms.......

[attrayant]

I do not understand why one has to be given a title, like "Pro and Anti" I much prefer the words "Truth and Untruth"

Because some people think that certain truths are subjective. They'll read something on a crackpot website like Jenny McCarthy, who blamed her son's autism on a vaccine, and take it as god's honest truth. Then they read all about how she later cured her son of autism through a combination of diet and vitamins, and think that the medical community is covering up a miracle cure. McCarthy now admits her son never had autism in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be making the news as much as the original scare did.

[Morakot]

Should children living here have a yearly flu vaccine?

Depends if she they at risk. I.e. are they routinely in contact with a high number of people? If so yes.

[kelly404]

Great thread, now where is my tinfoil hat

Great contribution! Most informative. Would that be the tinfoil hat in the shape of a dunces cap? It's probably in the corner where you left it.

[attrayant]

What a ridiculous analogy!

It's really not. I can show you people who used to believe those things about Big Auto (some still do). Ralph Nader's infamous book claimed that, among other things, auto makers were knowingly "designing in" flaws and cutting safety corners. If we follow the lead of the anti-vaxxers, then the "proper" response to that would have been to stop driving all cars and go back to the days of horse-drawn carriages. Of course that would have been nuts, and neither did Nader suggest such a thing. Instead we followed a more reasonable course of setting up regulation and tightening safety standards within the auto industry. Vaccines (and medicine in general) need to follow that same path: strict oversight, rigorous testing and documentation and accountability when something goes wrong.

I will admit that in the Bayer/Cutter story, something definitely seems to have gone wrong. So what should we do? Run screaming away from vaccines and go back to the dark ages when 9000 children routinely died every year from pertussis (instead of the annual 10-20 fatalities at present)? What's your measured solution to the problems you've presented us with?

What about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? The Fukushima disaster that had shoddy design and cut corners at the root of its cause? Should we just abandon everything that's potentially unsafe and go back to stone knives and bearskins? Of course not. We remedy the situation and (hopefully) punish any negligence or outright illegalities, and we move forward having learned something.

You will keep towing the vaccines for everyone line regardless, and those whose research goes beyond the compromised peer review papers will continue to point out the obvious dangers.

I will change my mind when I'm shown that a world without vaccines is safer than a world with them. It's really as simple as that. But thus far nobody has shown me that. Instead what I've seen is outbreaks of diseases in unvaccinated communities, and those diseases being spread on to people who can't receive the vaccine. If you choose not to get vaccinated, and then you become a flu carrier and pass that infection on to an infant or elderly person who subsequently dies, that's irresponsible at best, and tantamount to negligent homicide at worst.

And I'm not following you on this phrase "compromised peer review papers". Peer review is the penultimate step in scientific certification of truth. After peer review, the last step is journal publishing. I'm aware that there are third-rate journals (so-called "open access" journals) out there that accept papers without critical review. I stay away from those journals. What exactly is a compromised peer review paper, and how can I know if I'm reading one?

the minute they stop towing the party line they are satans seed,... or wingnuts.

Sorry, but that's what I call somebody who looks up at a blue sky and then tells me it's red.

So give me your solution. How do you suggest we tell the difference between the genuine whistle-blowers who are being blacklisted or paid off because they have uncovered some nefarious plot by Evil Government and Big Corp™, and the wingnuts who believe things that are demonstrably false?

[h90]

As I posted earlier, some vaccinations are vital, some vaccinations are dangerous, and some vaccinations are of questionable value.

There is no one correct answer, you pay your money, and you take your chance.

If you believe in "medical/scientific consensus", the flu vaccine is of great value. The vast majority of medical professionals recommend them, stand by their effectiveness, and support the widespread use of them. If an individual thinks they are smarter than the medical community as a whole because they read some ridiculous nonsense on a natural health website or whatever........so be it.

Well my wife, my old parents and I didn't had any flu the last 20 years and with us other billions of people.

So what would the great value have been?

OK...so whats your point? Because you have not suffered from the flu and none of your family members have it is not a real threat? I cannot believe how dumb this logic is (or lack of logic). And just because you never had the flu does not mean you never will. Really stunning that people are capable of thinking in such simplistic terms.......

The point is, that with flu vaccine we would have pumped maybe dangerous things in our body year for year without having any benefit from it. Maybe we would even believe that the vaccine protected us. Only pharma companies and the doctor would have a benefit from it.

Point is 20 times vaccination without value.

[Jockey]

Through the widespread use of vaccines the pharmaceutical companies do not create cures, they create long term customers.

If a baby is given mulitiple vaccines so much so their tiny bodies can't cope, their natural immune system damaged beyond repair leading to long term lifetime illnesses, who profits?

There has been NO TESTS WHATSOEVER to check the long term effects of giving these babies / infants so many vaccines. Do you really think injecting GMOs, hormones from infected cows, pigs, chickens and monkeys, untested virus combinations (like H1N1), aluminum, mercury, emulsifiers, and crossbred bacteria from animals, mosquitoes, and diseased humans into tiny babies blood stream is good for them?

Studies comparing unvaccinated children with vaccinated children consistently find the vaccinated children were more likely to suffer from asthma, eczema, ear infections, hyperactivity and many other chronic conditions. It has been found that vaccinated children are up to five times more likely to suffer from a variety of diseases and disorders than unvaccinated children.

I find it amazing that despite mainstream media and leading government agencies stressing repeatedly that studies comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated children cannot take place for ethical reasons, groups around the world are taking it upon themselves to do these studies anyway and the results are quite clear, unvaccinated children are far more healthier. More info here: http://vactruth.com/2014/02/26/unvaccinated-children-healthier/

As for a previous post claiming vaccines are not very profitable, at least 5.7 BILLION Dollars was given to vaccine manufacturers in 2011 by the US Gov't. More info here: http://vactruth.com/2012/11/30/2011-billions-vaccine-manufacturers/

Also, the more people that have long term illness (due to too many toxic vaccines), the profit for pharmacutical companies is immeasurable.

[h90]

Through the widespread use of vaccines the pharmaceutical companies do not create cures, they create long term customers.

If a baby is given mulitiple vaccines so much so their tiny bodies can't cope, their natural immune system damaged beyond repair leading to long term lifetime illnesses, who profits?

There has been NO TESTS WHATSOEVER to check the long term effects of giving these babies / infants so many vaccines. Do you really think injecting GMOs, hormones from infected cows, pigs, chickens and monkeys, untested virus combinations (like H1N1), aluminum, mercury, emulsifiers, and crossbred bacteria from animals, mosquitoes, and diseased humans into tiny babies blood stream is good for them?

Studies comparing unvaccinated children with vaccinated children consistently find the vaccinated children were more likely to suffer from asthma, eczema, ear infections, hyperactivity and many other chronic conditions. It has been found that vaccinated children are up to five times more likely to suffer from a variety of diseases and disorders than unvaccinated children.

I find it amazing that despite mainstream media and leading government agencies stressing repeatedly that studies comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated children cannot take place for ethical reasons, groups around the world are taking it upon themselves to do these studies anyway and the results are quite clear, unvaccinated children are far more healthier. More info here: http://vactruth.com/2014/02/26/unvaccinated-children-healthier/

As for a previous post claiming vaccines are not very profitable, at least 5.7 BILLION Dollars was given to vaccine manufacturers in 2011 by the US Gov't. More info here: http://vactruth.com/2012/11/30/2011-billions-vaccine-manufacturers/

Also, the more people that have long term illness (due to too many toxic vaccines), the profit for pharmacutical companies is immeasurable.

Common sense would say: Vaccinate against serious diseases (example polio). Don't vaccinate against non problematic diseases. 30 years ago they always discussed about the risks of vaccination vs. the consequences of not vaccination and getting the disease.

No there isn't such a discussion anymore.

[attrayant]

The point is, that with flu vaccine we would have pumped maybe dangerous things in our body year for year without having any benefit from it.

How can you possibly know that you've received no benefit from something that is supposed to be preventive (i.e. a thing that makes another thing not happen)? Did you get sick and die from the flu? If no, then one of two things happened: (1) You didn't catch the virus. (2) You caught the virus but were vaccinated, so its impact on your was limited or nonexistent.

Point is 20 times vaccination without value.

How do you objectively measure value in this case? Tell me how a person can know whether or not he has received value from a vaccination.

[h90]

The point is, that with flu vaccine we would have pumped maybe dangerous things in our body year for year without having any benefit from it.

How can you possibly know that you've received no benefit from something that is supposed to be preventive (i.e. a thing that makes another thing not happen)? Did you get sick and die from the flu? If no, then one of two things happened: (1) You didn't catch the virus. (2) You caught the virus but were vaccinated, so its impact on your was limited or nonexistent.

Point is 20 times vaccination without value.

How do you objectively measure value in this case? Tell me how a person can know whether or not he has received value from a vaccination.

As these 4 people were NOT vaccinated (and NOT sick) it is retrospective clear that we wouldn't received any benefit if we would have got vaccinated every year.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

The point is, that with flu vaccine we would have pumped maybe dangerous things in our body year for year without having any benefit from it.

How can you possibly know that you've received no benefit from something that is supposed to be preventive (i.e. a thing that makes another thing not happen)? Did you get sick and die from the flu? If no, then one of two things happened: (1) You didn't catch the virus. (2) You caught the virus but were vaccinated, so its impact on your was limited or nonexistent.

Point is 20 times vaccination without value.

How do you objectively measure value in this case? Tell me how a person can know whether or not he has received value from a vaccination.

Not had any vaccinations for 35 years, only had 2 vaccinations in 45 years (Typhoid and cholera for a holiday), haven't died from anything, haven't been seriously ill from anything.

Refused TB vaccination at age 13, haven't caught TB yet.

Had flu a few times, wasn't that bad.

Been all over the world as well.

If vaccinations are vital for everyone, I should have been dead by now.

[harrry]

The point is, that with flu vaccine we would have pumped maybe dangerous things in our body year for year without having any benefit from it.

How can you possibly know that you've received no benefit from something that is supposed to be preventive (i.e. a thing that makes another thing not happen)? Did you get sick and die from the flu? If no, then one of two things happened: (1) You didn't catch the virus. (2) You caught the virus but were vaccinated, so its impact on your was limited or nonexistent.

Point is 20 times vaccination without value.

How do you objectively measure value in this case? Tell me how a person can know whether or not he has received value from a vaccination.

Not had any vaccinations for 35 years, only had 2 vaccinations in 45 years (Typhoid and cholera for a holiday), haven't died from anything, haven't been seriously ill from anything.

Refused TB vaccination at age 13, haven't caught TB yet.

Had flu a few times, wasn't that bad.

Been all over the world as well.

If vaccinations are vital for everyone, I should have been dead by now.

There is one thing for sure you will be one day.

Anyone who has seen someone dying of smallpox would know the value of vaccination.

[attrayant]

As these 4 people were NOT vaccinated (and NOT sick) it is retrospective clear that we wouldn't received any benefit if we would have got vaccinated every year.

Congratulations, you've managed to predict the past perfectly. Isn't hindsight great? Now do that for the future, so that we can know who to vaccinate and who not to vaccinate.

How would you feel if you caught the flu - but since you're such a strapping model of healthy masculinity, you don't get sick (or sick enough to think you've got it). You then pass it on to your 6 month old infant who is too young to receive the vaccine. The child subsequently dies. But what's important is that YOU didn't get sick, right?

Not had any vaccinations for 35 years, only had 2 vaccinations in 45 years (Typhoid and cholera for a holiday), haven't died from anything, haven't been seriously ill from anything.

Refused TB vaccination at age 13, haven't caught TB yet.

Had flu a few times, wasn't that bad.

Been all over the world as well.

If vaccinations are vital for everyone, I should have been dead by now.

Congratulations, you're a data point of 1. Can you explain how that statistically significant?

The explanation was already posted earlier in this thread. But since you seem not to have sussed it, I'll try again. You didn't get sick from a communicable disease because you didn't come into contact with it. No sick people came near enough to pass one along to you. You've benefited from herd immunity, you lucky sap. That means you can thank us - the unselfish people of the world who care about others enough to get ourselves vaccinated.

But when people stop getting their children vaccinated in large numbers, herd immunity is lost. This happened last year in the South Wales measles epidemic. A community there has a low childhood vaccination rate of about 68% thanks to an MMR hoax perpetrated by Andrew Wakefield (who claimed he could make $34 million a year selling his autism detection kits). Herd immunity is threatened at or below about 87%.

By the way, why did you get the typhoid and cholera shots?

[attrayant]

Anyone who has seen someone dying of smallpox would know the value of vaccination.

But you know what's great about smallpox? The fact that it no longer exists. Anyone want to guess why? Here's a hint (third from the bottom):

[h90]

Anyone who has seen someone dying of smallpox would know the value of vaccination.

But you know what's great about smallpox? The fact that it no longer exists. Anyone want to guess why? Here's a hint (third from the bottom):

yes great and why is it still vaccinated if it doesn't exist anymore?

[h90]

double self delete

Edited September 4, 2014 by h90

[inbangkok]

The point is, that with flu vaccine we would have pumped maybe dangerous things in our body year for year without having any benefit from it.

How can you possibly know that you've received no benefit from something that is supposed to be preventive (i.e. a thing that makes another thing not happen)? Did you get sick and die from the flu? If no, then one of two things happened: (1) You didn't catch the virus. (2) You caught the virus but were vaccinated, so its impact on your was limited or nonexistent.

Point is 20 times vaccination without value.

How do you objectively measure value in this case? Tell me how a person can know whether or not he has received value from a vaccination.

Not had any vaccinations for 35 years, only had 2 vaccinations in 45 years (Typhoid and cholera for a holiday), haven't died from anything, haven't been seriously ill from anything.

Refused TB vaccination at age 13, haven't caught TB yet.

Had flu a few times, wasn't that bad.

Been all over the world as well.

If vaccinations are vital for everyone, I should have been dead by now.

Some genius like you went to Africa, came back to California last February and caused a massive clusterf*ck of a situation when it turned out he caught measles and got on the BART train. Turns out that moron did not believe in vaccinations either. Bragging about how you have not had any vaccinations in 35 years is just laughably stupid......I would be embarrassed to admit such a thing.

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2014/news20140213-1

So once again.....cool that it never happened to you.....but you are statistically insignificant. It happens to plenty others.....