Vaccinations, For or Against?

[s1k3sT]

The reason is right in front of you. Today child mortality is a mere fraction of what it was. and life expectancy, well middle aged men today would have been the old village wise man

Is that firsthand knowledge?

[Jombi]

if you never went to the hospital, how do you know you had bronchitis ? cause if you get better, you probably didn't. untreated bronchitis, no matter how well you rest and take care of yourself almost always lead to pneumonia. and by then you definitely need treatment. coughing, hard of breathing and chest pains don't automatically mean bronchitis.

You do know that you can go to a doctor's office... and that you can refuse treatment.

[mudslag]

Against.

Don't trust the extra stuff secreted in the vaccines. :ermm:

lay off the tin foil sites :rolleyes:

[HawkMan]

You do know that you can go to a doctor's office... and that you can refuse treatment.

and you can also read.

[mudslag]

Is that firsthand knowledge?

ya its called history, look it up. So what the fact that many diseases that in the past have caused havoc on populations and are now more in check doesnt strike you as proof that we must be doing something right?

[s1k3sT]

ya its called history, look it up. So what the fact that many diseases that in the past have caused havoc on populations and are now more in check doesnt strike you as proof that we must be doing something right?

How am I supposed to answer a question that contains all those unsubstantiated presumptions?

How can firsthand knowledge be obtained through reading (looking it up)?

Are you saying you would testify in court, under penalty of perjury, that you have firsthand knowledge pertaining to disease rates going down?

[mudslag]

How am I supposed to answer a question that contains all those unsubstantiated presumptions?

How can firsthand knowledge be obtained through reading (looking it up)?

Are you saying you would testify in court, under penalty of perjury, that you have firsthand knowledge pertaining to disease rates going down?

Firsthand knowledge is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation

Me personally no I dont have "first hand knowledge" but others do, such as scientist and doctors. Along with their knowledge on the subject they also have statistics, records and such that WOULD be used in a court of law that WOULD back up those claims. So if you want to play retarded with games like "what is your first hand knowledge" then go ahead. It can be played right back at you, do you have first hand knowledge that such vaccinations have NOT helped out? Im going to go ahead and say no on that one.

Im still waiting to hear from you about your evolution statement.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/151443.php

New research from the US suggests that children whose parents won't let them be vaccinated are 23 times more likely to get whooping cough compared to children who are fully immunized.

The study was led by a vaccine research team at Kaiser Permanente Colorado's Institute for Health Research in Denver and was published online in Pediatrics on 26 May.

The researchers wrote that most parents have their children vaccinated, and this has led to a dramatic fall in numbers of children with serious childhood diseases, but despite this, the number of parents who don't want their children to be vaccinated appears to be rising in the US.

[Tom]

Ugh.

Medicine is called medicine because it works. Anything that doesn't isn't called medicine. >.<

[s1k3sT]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/12/supreme-court-considers-consequences-vaccine-case/print/

In the case before the high court, the parents of an 18-year-old woman who suffers from severe developmental disabilities want to sue a vaccine manufacturer and argue broad legal immunity for such companies shouldn’t apply in this case.

They challenged a 1986 federal law that says vaccine manufacturers can’t be sued “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

Why can't vaccine manufactures be sued if their products contain unavoidable side effects?

...other justices, such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, expressed concerns that the immunity vaccine manufacturers have provides no motivation for them to improve vaccines and make them safer. She also didn’t seem to buy the arguments that allowing certain cases to go to court would cripple the vaccine-manufacturing industry.

So if you want to play retarded with games like "what is your first hand knowledge" then go ahead. It can be played right back at you, do you have first hand knowledge that such vaccinations have NOT helped out? Im going to go ahead and say no on that one.

When did I make any claims?

[mudslag]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/12/supreme-court-considers-consequences-vaccine-case/print/

Why can't vaccine manufactures be sued if their products contain unavoidable side effects?

There are valid reasons for both sides of the argument here. First off the human body isnt a carbon copy of the next person. There is no possible way to know that every single person who takes/uses a product/vaccine will all have the 100% same effects, its just not possible. A 1000 people could use a bar of soap, the 1001 person could use that same soap and have an allergic reaction. Should they have the right to sue over the fact that there was no possible way to know that they would have that reaction? Now if you show me that company X knew that this person "might" have a certain reaction to this and didnt offer up another means, then yes they do have a right. Considering that the SCOTUS is giving it a look, they might still be able to sue and do what ever.

None of this even begins to debate anything else thats been said to you in this thread. So I have to ask, what exactly is the point of this post. You seem to make these nonsense post about things but dont give any real debate on the subject at hand. You seem to ignore some key facts about vaccinations, or you're just ignorant on the subject. A non vaccinated kid still poses risk to vaccinated ones. A vaccination is not a 100% full proof shield, it does offer up extra layers of protection but not 100%. So a non vaccinated kid even if they dont get sick, can still carry around a bug that could infect and spread to vaccinated kids. That in turn can either affect them if the vaccine happened have a weak build up persay. It could also be carried to others around them that might not have been vaccinated yet, like a baby or an older person that didnt have the vaccination options when they were younger. So even though you dont want your kid or yourself vaccinated, you pose a threat to others yourself. The most people vaccinated, the bigger the gap between those that are and those that are not, which lessens the chance of something getting around.

Did you bother to read that link I posted? Because more and more people refuse to get vaccinations, the following has happened.

Whooping cough is a highly contagious bacterial disease that causes violent and uncontrollable coughing. It can be very serious and even fatal, especially in infants under 2 months old who are not old enough to be fully immunized.

In 1976 in the US there were just over 1,000 reported cases of whooping cough, and by 2004 this went up to nearly 26,000 cases, with 140 deaths recorded between 2000 and 2005.

You havent even bothered to try to post any evidence for a case that you havent even made very clear. Again Im curious about your evolution comment and what that has to do with this subject.

[XerXis]

debatable? waaaah?

[Manish]

Glad this was moved to "It's a Conspiracy!" (Y)

Evolution is allegedly real, but yet we allegedly need vaccines? Seems to me that there's some wide spread cognitive dissonance in the scientific community...

:blink: Evolution is allegedly real, but yet we haven't all developed X-Men-like abilities?

Are you one of those people that doesn't "believe" in evolution then?

Well, here you go ) The point of my post is to show that it is a debatable topic ;)

Vaccine controversy

In the UK, vaccinations offered as part of a routine immunisation schedule (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, H. influenzae B, measles, mumps, rubella, S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis) shouldn't be refused ideally. They've been deemed relatively safe and the risk of them causing adverse reactions will outweigh the potential harm caused by the disease. I'd take my chances with validated scientific research and randomised control trials than any anecdotal evidence. Non-routine vaccinations should be offered if you are seen to be at a high risk of contracting a particular disease, in which case you should weigh up the pros and cons yourself.

So what exactly is the debate about?

[Teebor]

Ugh.

Medicine is called medicine because it works. Anything that doesn't isn't is called Homeopathy. >.<

I corrected your spelling mistake :)

This is such a troll thread its great, but seriously so far I'm hearing grown up arguments for the FOR Vaccinations group and statements of fact. Whilst in the AGAINST camp I'm hearing the argument of a four year old and no evidence of any kind except hearsay and vague accusations.

Also after reading around the subject (cause of this thread) I now admit not knowing as much as I should possibly have before and therefore my earlier statement with regards to multiple immunizations is void.

[UN1X]

Vitamin D3 is 300% more effective than any flu shot.

Cavemen did not need vaccines, and neither do we. ALOT of vaccines are also known to cause narcolepsy, especially the newer H1N1 vaccines.

It is a HIGHLY debatable topic, as I have not seen one occasion where a vaccine has "saved" someone.

For my honest opinion, I will never ever have a vaccine, (never have) just because it is my own choice. I don't think poking a needle in my arm is the solution, but rather one of the causes.

I get my "vaccine" from natural sources and keep healthy. That's the only vaccine I use and you don't see me running around with all these diseases.

[HawkMan]

funny how cavemen only lived to be 30, you know at best.

[s1k3sT]

funny how cavemen only lived to be 30, you know at best.

Says who?

[DKAngel]

meh my daughter just turned 1 if the vaccines help her not get sick later in life im all for them, i had them and hell i havnt been sick in a damn long time shes up to date with hers, no side effects no problems no second head growing parents will do what they believe is right,

[Neztea]

Says who?

A bunch of scientists who estimated their age when they dug up their skeletons?

But in all seriousness, it is a good topic to discuss about because it brings light to those who are in the shadows of darkness. Here, we are able to provide the necessary information and intellectual arguments that may, or may not, persuade people to change their line of thinking.

I for one believe that vaccinations are necessary. Don't get me wrong there are side effects to having vaccinations, but the benefits of being protected outweigh the side effects.

Neztea

[Nagisan]

I have never had a Vaccination (beyond what was required for school) and likely never will, a majority of the people who end up sick in my family are the ones who have had vaccines. I am not saying they do not work, but they seem to do less for my family than no vaccine at all (that is, for seasonal vaccines like the "flu shot").

I personally have not been sick (beyond a common cold and what not) since I moved to Baltimore (nearly 4 years ago), that was the last time I vomited and had a temperature above normal. Other then that, I have had a few colds, and I generally get sick when I move (mostly due to change in climate, cause it happens every time I move within the first week or two then disappears until I move again), but nothing major, and that's without any vaccines.

I'm sure some people almost need vaccines to build up their immune system, but I tend to have a very strong immune system to begin with and have not needed a vaccine for years without being sick.

[Athlonite]

The nay sayers are all idiots that'd complain if there butt was on fire and you crossed the road and pee'd on it to put it out... Most of the diseases that modern vaccines immunize against can be lethal to babies and children alike I see no reason other than STUPIDITY not to get your child immunized, Yes there are some risks but hey that's life nothing is risk free not even breathing!!

[Nagisan]

The nay sayers are all idiots that'd complain if there butt was on fire and you crossed the road and pee'd on it to put it out... Most of the diseases that modern vaccines immunize against can be lethal to babies and children alike I see no reason other than STUPIDITY not to get your child immunized, Yes there are some risks but hey that's life nothing is risk free not even breathing!!

I'm all for immunizing babies and what not, but I am completely against seasonal vaccinations like flu shots and the like (they are completely useless IMHO).

[Athlonite]

I have never had a Vaccination (beyond what was required for school) and likely never will, a majority of the people who end up sick in my family are the ones who have had vaccines. I am not saying they do not work, but they seem to do less for my family than no vaccine at all (that is, for seasonal vaccines like the "flu shot").

I personally have not been sick (beyond a common cold and what not) since I moved to Baltimore (nearly 4 years ago), that was the last time I vomited and had a temperature above normal. Other then that, I have had a few colds, and I generally get sick when I move (mostly due to change in climate, cause it happens every time I move within the first week or two then disappears until I move again), but nothing major, and that's without any vaccines.

I'm sure some people almost need vaccines to build up their immune system, but I tend to have a very strong immune system to begin with and have not needed a vaccine for years without being sick.

lets see you say no thanks when your off overseas to someplace that has lot's of nasties and it's a requirement before you go as for flu vaccines pffft bigest load of cods unless you pan on getting last seasons flu or the one before that

[Nagisan]

lets see you say no thanks when your off overseas to someplace that has lot's of nasties and it's a requirement before you go as for flu vaccines pffft bigest load of cods unless you pan on getting last seasons flu or the one before that

Last I checked, vaccines you get for traveling outside of your country are not considered seasonal vaccines.

[HawkMan]

I'm all for immunizing babies and what not, but I am completely against seasonal vaccinations like flu shots and the like (they are completely useless IMHO).

If you are a young healthy person, then yes, flu shots aren't necessary. if you are a elderly or weakened person however. a flu shot can potentially save your life.

[Nagisan]

If you are a young healthy person, then yes, flu shots aren't necessary. if you are a elderly or weakened person however. a flu shot can potentially save your life.

My grandparents have stopped getting flu shots because they noticed they get sicker when they do get them than when they didn't.