Flu Shots - you getting them?

My theory of things presumes human depravity, it doesn't ignore it. Lying to what end? Why?

Why do people lie? I'm not a psychologist. That isn't my specialty. I just know they do it. I observe. Look back to the '76 case. You can write it off as "a long time ago." Well, I was ten, and my parents were closer to my age, it really doesn't seem like ancient history to me. Look at the 60 minutes piece. Why did the guy (the boss) lie and not tell people about the possibility of neurological disorders? Why did he claim it to be "safe" and "harmless?" Who knows. Maybe he'd lose his job? Maybe he'd look bad. Maybe his buddies wouldn't make tons of money selling the vaccine? There are tons of possible reasons. There is a lot of money involved. Do 'ya think maybe - just possibly - some folks want a slice of that pie? Would they be willing to tell a little white lie? If you think not, you're naive. Of course they are. I'm not saying anyone is lying, but it certainly is plausible.

And for whatever reason, it did happen in '76. People died and had horrible effects from the vacccine. And, yes, it could happen in '09. I'm not calling you a sucker, but I don't believe everything I hear or read. Call it healthy skepticism. I'm not into the untested drugs in my arm deal.

Nimbus,

I see you've already learned the Rovian tactic of saying by implication by "not" saying, "I'm not saying you're a sucker . . ."

Look--I'm a highly skeptical person, but I'm most skeptical of conspiracy theories. Of course there are people involved in this who lie every day. But there are also people who are looking for glory who would find nothing more gratifying than busting the conspiracy to every media outlet available--you think that wouldn't make the news?

I should probably bow out on this topic at this point.

btw, my teenage son was over at your place last week to see the documentary on water--he was pretty moved.

Charles

This is a fascinating thread...


There was a great article on vaccinations and the anti-vaccination movement (which I view with the same contempt as I view people who believe in creationism) in this month's WIRED magazine.

I think everyone will find it to be interesting so here's the link:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1

Thanks, Matthew. Great article.

This is a fascinating thread...


There was a great article on vaccinations and the anti-vaccination movement (which I view with the same contempt as I view people who believe in creationism) in this month's WIRED magazine.

I think everyone will find it to be interesting so here's the link:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1

Just out of curiousity: is your contempt borne from deciding that your child(ren) are at risk from a "cluster" of unvaccinated? Your own unvaccinated risk? A view that the science of immunization is always right regardless of individual familial and geographic risk? The article is as slanted as the anti immunization folk, which are also wrong, but for all the same reasons.

There is no absolute in any of this. The decisions I make, balancing the risk for my family and society as a whole, are based on what is best for both. I deeply resent the implication that not following the recommendations of any group is tantamount to heresy.

The CDC is an agency that is full of epidemilogical data. Research outbreaks of any viral, bacterial or vector borne calamity and the prevalence of same. Base your decisions on the facts and also your comfort level with the actual, not imagined, risk factor.

The assertion that "all vaccines are good for you, no matter the risk" is poop.

Fight like hell to maintain some semblance of freedom of choice in your personal life. Now, more than any other time, the amount of information easily available to the individual should assist you in your decision making process. You have paid for those NIH studies, use 'em.

Nimbus,

I see you've already learned the Rovian tactic of saying by implication by "not" saying, "I'm not saying you're a sucker . . ."

Look--I'm a highly skeptical person, but I'm most skeptical of conspiracy theories. Of course there are people involved in this who lie every day. But there are also people who are looking for glory who would find nothing more gratifying than busting the conspiracy to every media outlet available--you think that wouldn't make the news?

I should probably bow out on this topic at this point.

btw, my teenage son was over at your place last week to see the documentary on water--he was pretty moved.

Charles

Sorry for using Rove's tricks on you Charles. Haha..I guess that's what I get for running for mayor.

Believe me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means. But I also don't like to simply write off possibilities because they seem far-fetched. We've seen a lot of crazy things happen in our lifetimes, many that would seem highly unlikely (for a pretty well documented one, look at the whole ollie north / Iran-contra scandal. Many many many more). People lie to discount things because the "seem" unlikely or impossible. But sometimes they are real. If you listen to people like Noam Chomsky, you might think "no way that is possible," but he has the documentation. The documents keep coming out, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. Healthy skepticism is what it is all about.

Glad your son liked F.L.O.W. Good movie!

I'm generally pro-vaccine. We've virtually eliminated several devastating diseases with them, and it'd be a shame for those diseases to make a comeback. However, the CDC has to make a "one size fits all" set of guidelines in order to accomplish their goals, and some of their decisions are made based on expediency rather than what is safest for the individual. They look at what is safest for society as a whole. Sometimes there are discrepancies, and that is where the individuals have a right to act on their own behalf. But I'm a firm believer in safe vaccination. And the bulk of the vaccines out there are pretty safe. The underlying principle is that we're doing it because we have an obligation to society; by vaccinating, we're keeping our neighbors from being exposed to these diseases. It isn't just about us. I agree with that principle fully.


Cheers!

This is a fascinating thread...


There was a great article on vaccinations and the anti-vaccination movement (which I view with the same contempt as I view people who believe in creationism) in this month's WIRED magazine.

I think everyone will find it to be interesting so here's the link:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1

.

hiya Ed, in response:

Just out of curiousity: is your contempt borne from deciding that your child(ren) are at risk from a "cluster" of unvaccinated? Your own unvaccinated risk? A view that the science of immunization is always right regardless of individual familial and geographic risk? The article is as slanted as the anti immunization folk, which are also wrong, but for all the same reasons.

My contempt is reserved exclusively for those people who make the blanket choice that all vaccines are wrong all the time. It comes not from my fear for my son or myself. I do hold the view that many vaccination (like taxes) should be a requirement in our society. I do respect the right of people to not participate in vaccinations not yet proven to be effective. I did not support mass vaccination for smallpox in America during the height of the fear mongering over a possible biological attack int he United States a few years ago. As for the article being slanted I would disagree with you. That is a bridge too far.

There is no absolute in any of this. The decisions I make, balancing the risk for my family and society as a whole, are based on what is best for both. I deeply resent the implication that not following the recommendations of any group is tantamount to heresy

As for the absolute you mention. I would disagree. We take it as an absolute that cigarettes cause cancer. we take it as an absolute that helmets in motorcycle accidents save lives. I do take it as an absolute that polio, measles, mumps and other diseases can be effectively eradicated from our lives through vaccination. Now you are free to disagree and not vaccinate but I believe by opting out you in fact increase the chances of these diseases making a comeback. The evidence supports this point directly and can be tracked through empirical data.

The CDC is an agency that is full of epidemilogical data. Research outbreaks of any viral, bacterial or vector borne calamity and the prevalence of same. Base your decisions on the facts and also your comfort level with the actual, not imagined, risk factor.

This is exactly what I have done and what the article itself is all about. Making rational choices based on the evidence, not pseudo-science and hearsay.

The assertion that "all vaccines are good for you, no matter the risk" is poop.

I agree. Neither the article nor myself advocated this position.

This is a fascinating thread...


There was a great article on vaccinations and the anti-vaccination movement (which I view with the same contempt as I view people who believe in creationism) in this month's WIRED magazine.

I think everyone will find it to be interesting so here's the link:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1

.

hiya Ed, in response:

Just out of curiousity: is your contempt borne from deciding that your child(ren) are at risk from a "cluster" of unvaccinated? Your own unvaccinated risk? A view that the science of immunization is always right regardless of individual familial and geographic risk? The article is as slanted as the anti immunization folk, which are also wrong, but for all the same reasons.

My contempt is reserved exclusively for those people who make the blanket choice that all vaccines are wrong all the time. It comes not from my fear for my son or myself. I do hold the view that many vaccination (like taxes) should be a requirement in our society. I do respect the right of people to not participate in vaccinations not yet proven to be effective. I did not support mass vaccination for smallpox in America during the height of the fear mongering over a possible biological attack int he United States a few years ago. As for the article being slanted I would disagree with you. That is a bridge too far.

There is no absolute in any of this. The decisions I make, balancing the risk for my family and society as a whole, are based on what is best for both. I deeply resent the implication that not following the recommendations of any group is tantamount to heresy

As for the absolute you mention. I would disagree. We take it as an absolute that cigarettes cause cancer. we take it as an absolute that helmets in motorcycle accidents save lives. I do take it as an absolute that polio, measles, mumps and other diseases can be effectively eradicated from our lives through vaccination. Now you are free to disagree and not vaccinate but I believe by opting out you in fact increase the chances of these diseases making a comeback. The evidence supports this point directly and can be tracked through empirical data.

The CDC is an agency that is full of epidemilogical data. Research outbreaks of any viral, bacterial or vector borne calamity and the prevalence of same. Base your decisions on the facts and also your comfort level with the actual, not imagined, risk factor.

This is exactly what I have done and what the article itself is all about. Making rational choices based on the evidence, not pseudo-science and hearsay.

The assertion that "all vaccines are good for you, no matter the risk" is poop.

I agree. Neither the article nor myself advocated this position.

Fair enough. Thanks for the response. For the record we didn't opt out of the important vaccinations, just managed the frequency and volume of them.

Because we seem to be digressing to other vaccines (besides flu), and because I bet many of us have kiddos (or will before you know it), I'd recommend checking out Dr. Sears' Vaccine book. A google search will get you to it instantly. His dad is a famous pediatrician, and he's following in his dad's footsteps. Here is a little summary of what he has to say regarding one of his alternative vaccine schedules:

(he's a smart MD, and it makes a lot of sense. He doesn't tell you what to do, rather simply laying out the pros and cons. His book is well researched and solid scientifically.)

"The main difference in my suggested alternative vaccine schedule is it spreads the infant vaccines out over the first few years of life, instead of bunching them all up in the first 18 months. It gives fewer vaccines at a time, gives the most important vaccines first, and slightly delays the less important vaccines. But ultimately the end result is the same - a fully vaccinated child. What are the benefits of my alternative schedule compared to the standard one?

* By only giving two vaccines at a time (instead of as many as 6), I decrease the chance of chemical overload from grouping so many vaccines chemicals all together at once. This allows a baby's body to better detoxify the chemicals one or two at a time.
* I give only 1 aluminum-containing vaccine at a time (instead of the recommended 4). Overloading on this metal can be particularly toxic to the brain (See Resources, page ___ of The Vaccine Book to view the research on this).
* I give only one live-virus vaccine component at a time to allow the body's immune system to better handle the live viruses in these vaccines.
* Giving fewer shots at a time may decrease the side effects, in my experience.
* Giving fewer shots at a time also makes it easier to figure out which vaccine a child is reacting to if a severe reaction occurs.

Sure, vaccinating this way means more visits to the doctor's office, more gas money, more insurance co-pays and more time off work to take your baby in. BUT, some parents may decide it's worth the extra time, money and trouble. "

OK, has anyone else here been immunized for Rift Valley Fever? Anthrax?

[Robin Garr]

OK, has anyone else here been immunized for Rift Valley Fever? Anthrax?

I got some pretty weird immunizations before our trip to Peru (which included some time on the upper Amazon as well as the usual Cuzco-Macchu-Picchu thing), but I think we missed those two. Peace Corps?

Peace Corps?

More like the unPeace Corps.

Winger

And then there is this:

CJ link to 11th person in Kentucky has died from H1N1

And then there is this:

CJ link to 11th person in Kentucky has died from H1N1

Meanwhile, 642 automobile fatalities in KY this year and counting.... http://kentuckystatepolice.org/tip.htm

Wear your seatbelts, drive carefully, wash your hands.

Don't live in fear......your odds are quite good in spite of all they hype! But just from the numbers above, you're sixty times more likely to die in a car crash than from H1N1. Eleven people in a pretty good sized state is quite miniscule if you ask me. (unless you're one of them). Frankly, I'm more worried about bad drivers.

Let's not forget that it's still early on in the flu season. There's still no need to panic about it, but the probability of this thing getting worse is greater than zero...

For those who trust the seasonal vaccine, but do not trust the H1N1 vaccine because it's "too new" or "untested", I feel those fears are unfounded. The H1N1 shot is just as new as the 2009 seasonal vaccine. It's been tested just as much as the seasonal shot. Had the H1N1 strain manifested itself a few months before it did, there wouldn't have been a need for a second shot. They would've simply replaced one of the Influenza A strains in the 2009 seasonal shot with the 2009 H1N1 strain. The seasonal vaccine has a decades-long track record of being:

1) safe for 99.99999% of those who receive it
2) while not providing 100% protection, it's effective enough at preventing the flu to make it worth the trouble.

If you don't trust the seasonal vaccine to start with, then I don't think I can help you...

I got the seasonal shot about a month ago, and didn't have any reaction to it. I plan on getting the H1N1 shot as soon as I can. I'm not going to wait until there is a serious pandemic, just as I don't wait until I know I'm going to be in a car accident before I buckle up.

I'm not saying that there will be a serious pandemic, but it's best to be prepared.