You are here

Required Immunizations

Dragging this topic into the appropriate forum!!

To bring everyone up to speed:

1) Lots of places are starting to require H1N1 vaccines as well as standard flu shots.
2) When in crowded/confined spaces is this appropriate?
3) Is taking a cue from history justification for these actions?

Honestly this is one of the bizarrest discussions I have ever seen on vegweb.  

Glad I could be part of it!

0 likes

You are all sooo intelligent! I can't keep up, but very interesting and fun!

0 likes

I thought this was an interesting read....make of it what you will:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1
It's calling for more testing of the vaccine.  The crux is:
"...we are left with two possibilities. One is that flu vaccine is in fact highly beneficial, or at least helpful. Solid evidence to that effect would encourage more citizens—and particularly more health professionals—to get their shots and prevent the flu’s spread. As it stands, more than 50 percent of health-care workers say they do not intend to get vaccinated for swine flu and don’t routinely get their shots for seasonal flu, in part because many of them doubt the vaccines’ efficacy. The other possibility, of course, is that we’re relying heavily on vaccines and antivirals that simply don’t work, or don’t work as well as we believe. And as a result, we may be neglecting other, proven measures that could minimize the death rate during pandemics."
Just my 2 cents: I think greed often steers the course of policy and profit has a lot to do with the current choice of response. Billions have already been spent on Tamiflu while, despite the proven effectiveness of campaigns to promote hand washing and social distancing, none have been implemented.

0 likes

I thought this was an interesting read....make of it what you will:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1
It's calling for more testing of the vaccine.  The crux is:
"...we are left with two possibilities. One is that flu vaccine is in fact highly beneficial, or at least helpful. Solid evidence to that effect would encourage more citizens—and particularly more health professionals—to get their shots and prevent the flu’s spread. As it stands, more than 50 percent of health-care workers say they do not intend to get vaccinated for swine flu and don’t routinely get their shots for seasonal flu, in part because many of them doubt the vaccines’ efficacy. The other possibility, of course, is that we’re relying heavily on vaccines and antivirals that simply don’t work, or don’t work as well as we believe. And as a result, we may be neglecting other, proven measures that could minimize the death rate during pandemics."
Just my 2 cents: I think greed often steers the course of policy and profit has a lot to do with the current choice of response. Billions have already been spent on Tamiflu while, despite the proven effectiveness of campaigns to promote hand washing and social distancing, none have been implemented.

Almost every hospital I know of has a handwashing program to remind all healthcare workers to purell (or use soap and water in the case of C. Diff contact).  I know of at least a few hospitals that do not allow nail extensions and requires trimming of nails to within 1/8" of the tip of the finger.  This might be common, but I don't know the rules at other places.

You say greed; I say expedience.  You're absolutely right that cleanliness is a "simple" way to reduce nosocomial infection, but it's wrong to say that it's all money-driven.  It's very difficult to change habits and monitoring adherence is very difficult.  Are you going to hire people to follow everyone around?  That costs a lot of money.  A parallel may be drawn with diet and exercise.  Everyone should maintain a healthy diet and exercise.  Everyone knows this.  Getting people to follow it is not so simple.

Now that medicare is putting its foot down regarding central line infections etc. there may be a renewed effort to spend copious amounts of money on handwashing, ensuring sterile bed-side technique, etc.  However, you have to realize that somebody's making a lot of money on that campaign too, e.g. Purell.

0 likes

I really can't add much to this conversation other then I tend to agree with the "its my body i'll do what i please" theory. You can call me selfish but its my body. And seeing as how I don't really ever leave the house anymore, the chances of me catching h1n1 is slim to none. Even so, when i was a baby, they had me vaccinated for whatever it was they did (i dunno was too young lol ) that was the last vaccine I got. I am now 22, even on my old diet I never really got sick. I've had 1 cold in the past 2 years. I don't regularly detox my body, I think i've done that... once? I just try to eat healthy.

Its just my opinion that people are taking the swine flu thing and spinning it outta control. As for the inital question of requiring people to get immunized? I don't think its right. Even if someone else was paying for it, I still wouldn't want it.

0 likes

if the vaccine works, then those who want it and get it, shouldn't get sick from someone who opts not to get the vaccine and catches the flu.

Logic.

That's not logic.  First, that's incredibly selfish, as you are opting to let others take (what you perceive) as a risk so that you can ride on their coattails.  Secondly, what you are saying is only logic if you are the ONLY one in your population not to get vaccinated.  Unfortunately this is never the case.  There isn't even enough for everyone.  So, as a potential carrier, you risk infecting others--particularly those who cannot afford the vaccine, don't have insurance, have compromised immune systems, etc.   Yeah, there are a lot of people who WANT it, but it's unrealistic and ignorant to say that everyone who wants it can get it, or has gotten it in time.  Clinics are still going on right now!

I think you're mainly basing that on want it and get it. But people who want it and don't get it aren't considered in this. The logic is sound it's just missing a bit of information. And I don't think that if you don't get it you're responcibile for other people who don't get it.

0 likes

I'm not even going to comment on most of this (just found this thread), because I think most peoples arguments are way to closed mined in what they know but I will say I few things

- Flu vaccines aren't vegan
- I do not believe that it is selfish for anyone to choose what they want to do with their body and if you do then I would enjoy hearing why you don't support various other things. ex.) population control is a huge problem, why not implement one of 2 child laws. Certainly public health would be better if we had a smaller population. I don't understand what gives people the right to their own body sometimes, but not others.. Where is the line and why do you put it there?
- Hasn't anyone heard of Jane Burgermeister? http://www.theflucase.com/ I certainly wouldn't take everything at value without doing your own research, but there are some really interesting articles and points. I watched her interview with project camelot (Think that was the name) and some sketchy stuff is going on with the vaccine and the fact that it is being hyped* can be played against the population very easily.

*I say hype because I do not think that the deaths and cases are in proportion to the public attention that it receives. It has been declared a pandemic for gods sake.

0 likes

I'm not even going to comment on most of this (just found this thread), because I think most peoples arguments are way to closed mined in what they know but I will say I few things

- Flu vaccines aren't vegan
- I do not believe that it is selfish for anyone to choose what they want to do with their body and if you do then I would enjoy hearing why you don't support various other things. ex.) population control is a huge problem, why not implement one of 2 child laws. Certainly public health would be better if we had a smaller population. I don't understand what gives people the right to their own body sometimes, but not others.. Where is the line and why do you put it there?
- Hasn't anyone heard of Jane Burgermeister? http://www.theflucase.com/ I certainly wouldn't take everything at value without doing your own research, but there are some really interesting articles and points. I watched her interview with project camelot (Think that was the name) and some sketchy stuff is going on with the vaccine and the fact that it is being hyped* can be played against the population very easily.

*I say hype because I do not think that the deaths and cases are in proportion to the public attention that it receives. It has been declared a pandemic for gods sake.

Interesting.  Hype?  1,049 mortalities due to influenza in the last 2.5 months, and over 99% of sub-typed influenza virus has been H1N1.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

It's a means of preventing excess death.

For a lot of people, the line is drawn when you put other people at risk.  If you become a carrier and happen to work in a nursery school or in a retirement community, then you put a lot of other people at risk.  Ever heard of Typhoid Mary?

0 likes

if the vaccine works, then those who want it and get it, shouldn't get sick from someone who opts not to get the vaccine and catches the flu.

Logic.

That's not logic.  First, that's incredibly selfish, as you are opting to let others take (what you perceive) as a risk so that you can ride on their coattails.  Secondly, what you are saying is only logic if you are the ONLY one in your population not to get vaccinated.  Unfortunately this is never the case.  There isn't even enough for everyone.  So, as a potential carrier, you risk infecting others--particularly those who cannot afford the vaccine, don't have insurance, have compromised immune systems, etc.   Yeah, there are a lot of people who WANT it, but it's unrealistic and ignorant to say that everyone who wants it can get it, or has gotten it in time.  Clinics are still going on right now!

I think you're mainly basing that on want it and get it. But people who want it and don't get it aren't considered in this. The logic is sound it's just missing a bit of information. And I don't think that if you don't get it you're responcibile for other people who don't get it.

The logic is not sound.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but vaccines don't prevent infection.  They prevent disease.  Big difference.

Whoa.  Seriously?

Yeah.  Seriously.

You get infected and end up having a subclinical presentation resulting in decreased morbidity and mortality in the population.  This is because the vaccinated individual has a memory response to the antigen and mounts a very fast, powerful, and specific immune response.  I'm going to get kinda technical here, because I in fact do know how vaccines work.

The introduction of the vaccine stimulates an immune response that results in the proliferation of Plasma cells and Helper T cells.  The plasma cells are able to recognize the antigen and initially produce IgM in response to it.  After the initial IgM response, the B-cells undergo what is known as the germinal center reaction with the help of T-cells in order to produce class-switched immunoglobulin.  In the case of the killed vaccine, this is IgG.  In the case of the live vaccine, this may be a mix of IgG and IgA (secretory immunoglobulin).  I'm going to skip all the stuff about cell-signaling...

Immunoglobulin has a few actions that deserve mention.  Immunoglobulin (mostly secretory IgA) neutralizes pathogens prior to their adherence and invasion.  A nice example is the protozoa Giardia lamblia.  Without IgA, there is a significant increase in the incidence of Giardiasis.  Another function is "opsonization."  By covering a pathogen with IgG, macrophages and neutrophils cells are capable of gobbling them up and killing them by a process of phagosome/lysozome fusion.  There're another couple functions that aren't pertinent (antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and complement fixation for the classical pathway) in the influenza vaccine.

After a couple weeks, a vaccinated individual has a matured immune response complete with memory T and B cells that are capable of mounting a rapid reaction to the virus should it come into contact with him/her.

There are plenty of reasons to have a depressed immune response.  On top of that, some people actually don't make an effective immune response to specific antigens.  For example, there is the phenomenon of the non-responder that is documented in Hepatitis B vaccinated individuals (essentially absent IgG titers against Hepatitis B surface antigen).

This is basically how all vaccines work.  Introduction of an antigen that results in a mature immune response.

I think that people who are against vaccines should read up about measles (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae B meningitis, Streptococcus agalactiae meningitis, paralytic polio, and even something as recent as hepatitis B, or neisseria meningitidis... the technology is there to prevent serious morbidity and mortality.  If vaccines were not mandated, then people would be crying about the fact that people were getting preventable diseases.

0 likes

my point was, having many children puts people (aka, the population at large) at risk, too, so does that mean it would also be ok to take control of peoples bodies in that case?

i think the biggest problem is that risk is pretty subjective in a lot of cases (risk of terrorism and we get our rights taken away by the patriot act).. hey maybe i'm just one of those conspiracy theory fueled "crazy people".. but i think for people to get all of their information from governmental/governmental backed sources and their subsidiaries is pretty crazy, especially when many people on a site like this are AT LEAST enlightened to the ways they strew public misinformation in ways like the meat/diary industry.

i've also heard (unsure if this is true because how would you prove it, really?) that many people presenting with symptoms of swine flu are immediately diagnosed with H1N1.. not tested to prove that is what they do have.

0 likes

my point was, having many children puts people (aka, the population at large) at risk, too, so does that mean it would also be ok to take control of peoples bodies in that case?

i think the biggest problem is that risk is pretty subjective in a lot of cases (risk of terrorism and we get our rights taken away by the patriot act).. hey maybe i'm just one of those conspiracy theory fueled "crazy people".. but i think for people to get all of their information from governmental/governmental backed sources and their subsidiaries is pretty crazy, especially when many people on a site like this are AT LEAST enlightened to the ways they strew public misinformation in ways like the meat/diary industry.

i've also heard (unsure if this is true because how would you prove it, really?) that many people presenting with symptoms of swine flu are immediately diagnosed with H1N1.. not tested to prove that is what they do have.

Well dear I'm just as crazy as you are, so they can send us to the nut house together! :D  :-D

0 likes

my point was, having many children puts people (aka, the population at large) at risk, too, so does that mean it would also be ok to take control of peoples bodies in that case?

There are proximal risks, intermediate risks, and distal risks.  Being a carrier is a more proximal risk than increasing the population.

Quote:
i think the biggest problem is that risk is pretty subjective in a lot of cases (risk of terrorism and we get our rights taken away by the patriot act).. hey maybe i'm just one of those conspiracy theory fueled "crazy people".. but i think for people to get all of their information from governmental/governmental backed sources and their subsidiaries is pretty crazy, especially when many people on a site like this are AT LEAST enlightened to the ways they strew public misinformation in ways like the meat/diary industry.

I'm not saying you're a conspiracy theorist.  You might be.  I don't care.  You asked a question, and I answered it.

Ummm... where is money for research going to come from if not from the government (or pharmaceutical companies).  My research grant came from the National Institutes of Health.  If you want to give me thousands of dollars to do research.  I'll gladly take your money.

Medical and scientific journals in general are peer-reviewed and more likely (though not perfect) to produce unbiased material.

Interestingly, the original article in the Lancet about the purported link between MMR vaccines and autism ended up having a significant undisclosed conflict of interest (the guy received a lot of funding from trial lawyers trying to get evidence against vaccine manufacturers).  So you don't believe the government or big business... but you believe lawyers with an agenda and a sneaky guy who had all of his co-authors issue retractions of the article?  Very interesting.

Side note: I'm guessing you're opposed to universal healthcare then?  That darned government...

Quote:
i've also heard (unsure if this is true because how would you prove it, really?) that many people presenting with symptoms of swine flu are immediately diagnosed with H1N1.. not tested to prove that is what they do have.

Well, if 99% of tested samples are H1N1, then you don't always have to test... unless you love wasting money.  Some people do love wasting money, though.  Hey, as long as it's somebody else's money, right?

The treatment is the same anyway (H1N1 vs. seasonal).  Mostly supportive unless you catch it early or unless you're in a high risk group.  If you get it early (first 48 hours), you can prevent the onset of severe symptoms with the use of oseltamivir and zinamivir.

One of the big worries is post-influenza bacterial pneumonia (pneumococcus and s. aureus being the big bad bugs in that arena).

0 likes

I'm not sure if it would be the case every where, but so far everyone I've known who's gotten the flu in the past couple months came back positive as H1N1 serotype of flu. I wouldn't be shocked if people were getting labeled as having H1N1 without a test, but from the limited examples I know they've all been tested, since it's a public health threat.

For the most part, vaccines are voluntary, as is birth control. I see promoting vaccines and strongly encouraging vaccination as less of an infringement on rights as encouraging a woman to get an abortion, or requiring women to get birth control. I'm still wary of some vaccines and certain types, but knowing what's in some vaccines kind of makes it not a big deal. Getting a vaccine for the flu is safer than hanging around someone with the flu; it's a "safe" way of being exposed to disease without actually becoming ill.
For people who are absolutely required to get vaccinated (health care workers), that's just how the job is... you're there to *not* spread disease. Unless it's a private school, you can get out of school vaccine requirements in the US by claiming certain beliefs. Some private schools will let that pass too. I wasn't too happy to get stabbed with a flu vaccine at school, but it's probably even more important that people in animal health care get vaccinated for H1N1 because we're basically exposed to everything.

There have been some issues with contamination of certain vaccines in the past, and there's the argument about whether vaccines should have adjuvants in them. Or, if even certain adjuvants are effective. But not all vaccines are the same... I look into each of them as I get them. The human vaccines are not nearly as "scary" as the ones used in non-human animals.

0 likes

my point was, having many children puts people (aka, the population at large) at risk, too, so does that mean it would also be ok to take control of peoples bodies in that case?

i think the biggest problem is that risk is pretty subjective in a lot of cases (risk of terrorism and we get our rights taken away by the patriot act).. hey maybe i'm just one of those conspiracy theory fueled "crazy people".. but i think for people to get all of their information from governmental/governmental backed sources and their subsidiaries is pretty crazy, especially when many people on a site like this are AT LEAST enlightened to the ways they strew public misinformation in ways like the meat/diary industry.

i've also heard (unsure if this is true because how would you prove it, really?) that many people presenting with symptoms of swine flu are immediately diagnosed with H1N1.. not tested to prove that is what they do have.

Oh.  Should a health care worker not have to wash hands between seeing patients?

After all, it's his/her own body.  Maybe they don't want to get dry skin... or maybe they just don't want to listen to those crazies trying to tell him/her to reduce hospital acquired infections.   ;)b

0 likes

promoting vaccines and strongly encouraging vaccination

This is VERY VERY different than required immunizations. I am not opposed to this, everyone may do as they wish.
Even in the case of health care workers, a "requirement" could be something that I wouldn't disagree with. I don't think that it would be right if there is no pre-requisite in the job description stating that something like that may happen and in the case of failure to comply you could lose your job, but otherwise, fine.
I don't really know if they are even doing that here, though, because Dustin works at the hospital and he didn't have to get the vaccine.

Oh.  Should a health care worker not have to wash hands between seeing patients?

After all, it's his/her own body.  Maybe they don't want to get dry skin... or maybe they just don't want to listen to those crazies trying to tell him/her to reduce hospital acquired infections.  ;)b

of course they should, but that is a pre-requisite to the job. If someone were adverse to that they shouldn't get the job in the first place. I used to work in the hospital and I HATED washing my hands so often, but I dealt with it, knowing full well before-hand that it was a requirement when I ELECTED to take the job.

There are proximal risks, intermediate risks, and distal risks.  Being a carrier is a more proximal risk than increasing the population.

I am of the opinion that it is just as much of a risk to the human population at large. I do know that it's a different kind of risk, but I think one could make the same arguments for a vaccine requirement as they could to require many things of people that many would be unhappy about.

Ummm... where is money for research going to come from if not from the government (or pharmaceutical companies).  My research grant came from the National Institutes of Health.  If you want to give me thousands of dollars to do research.  I'll gladly take your money.

Medical and scientific journals in general are peer-reviewed and more likely (though not perfect) to produce unbiased material.

Interestingly, the original article in the Lancet about the purported link between MMR vaccines and autism ended up having a significant undisclosed conflict of interest (the guy received a lot of funding from trial lawyers trying to get evidence against vaccine manufacturers).  So you don't believe the government or big business... but you believe lawyers with an agenda and a sneaky guy who had all of his co-authors issue retractions of the article?  Very interesting.

Side note: I'm guessing you're opposed to universal healthcare then?  That darned government...

Hmm... I'm not positive what part of my post you are really referring to with this comment. I know someone else mentioned the link between autism and MMR.
I think that no matter where funding comes from there is going to be bias, and also depending on the person who does the research (unfortunately). Many people research something already knowing how they are going to conclude.
I do agree that peer-reviewed is your best bet, but, of course, not perfect.

I am for universal healthcare.

Well, if 99% of tested samples are H1N1, then you don't always have to test... unless you love wasting money.  Some people do love wasting money, though.  Hey, as long as it's somebody else's money, right?

The treatment is the same anyway (H1N1 vs. seasonal).  Mostly supportive unless you catch it early or unless you're in a high risk group.  If you get it early (first 48 hours), you can prevent the onset of severe symptoms with the use of oseltamivir and zinamivir.

One of the big worries is post-influenza bacterial pneumonia (pneumococcus and s. aureus being the big bad bugs in that arena).

But where did they get the 99% figure from? Was that after having taken samples from everyone with flu symptoms? Or before?

0 likes

Oh.  Should a health care worker not have to wash hands between seeing patients?

After all, it's his/her own body.  Maybe they don't want to get dry skin... or maybe they just don't want to listen to those crazies trying to tell him/her to reduce hospital acquired infections.  ;)b

of course they should, but that is a pre-requisite to the job. If someone were adverse to that they shouldn't get the job in the first place. I used to work in the hospital and I HATED washing my hands so often, but I dealt with it, knowing full well before-hand that it was a requirement when I ELECTED to take the job.

Exactly.  You also elect to be part of a society that feels that taking care of the infirm and the immunocompromised is important.

Furthermore, you're in favor of universal healthcare (even though it's government disseminated...).  This suggests that you feel that the government should have to bear the burden of individual choices.

Maybe to "elect" to receive universal healthcare, people should be required to be immunized.  In order to protect everyone covered by the plan, immunization would be an important public health measure.  It would also be a means of controlling costs.

Quote:

There are proximal risks, intermediate risks, and distal risks.  Being a carrier is a more proximal risk than increasing the population.

I am of the opinion that it is just as much of a risk to the human population at large. I do know that it's a different kind of risk, but I think one could make the same arguments for a vaccine requirement as they could to require many things of people that many would be unhappy about.

Ummm... where is money for research going to come from if not from the government (or pharmaceutical companies).  My research grant came from the National Institutes of Health.  If you want to give me thousands of dollars to do research.  I'll gladly take your money.

Medical and scientific journals in general are peer-reviewed and more likely (though not perfect) to produce unbiased material.

Interestingly, the original article in the Lancet about the purported link between MMR vaccines and autism ended up having a significant undisclosed conflict of interest (the guy received a lot of funding from trial lawyers trying to get evidence against vaccine manufacturers).  So you don't believe the government or big business... but you believe lawyers with an agenda and a sneaky guy who had all of his co-authors issue retractions of the article?  Very interesting.

Side note: I'm guessing you're opposed to universal healthcare then?  That darned government...

Hmm... I'm not positive what part of my post you are really referring to with this comment. I know someone else mentioned the link between autism and MMR.
I think that no matter where funding comes from there is going to be bias, and also depending on the person who does the research (unfortunately). Many people research something already knowing how they are going to conclude.
I do agree that peer-reviewed is your best bet, but, of course, not perfect.

I am for universal healthcare.

I'm talking about anti-vax in general, which is the argument you're relying on to say that vaccines are dangerous and shouldn't be required.  The anti-vax movement (in its most recent form) was started by an unscrupulous scientist who was getting money from people with an agenda.  So you're using their biased information to further an anti-vax movement (or vax-independence movement)... even though you say that the government and big business are disseminating biased information.

I'm puzzled as to why you think the government is not trustworthy about medical information but trustworthy for the provision of medical insurance.

Quote:

Well, if 99% of tested samples are H1N1, then you don't always have to test... unless you love wasting money.  Some people do love wasting money, though.  Hey, as long as it's somebody else's money, right?

The treatment is the same anyway (H1N1 vs. seasonal).  Mostly supportive unless you catch it early or unless you're in a high risk group.  If you get it early (first 48 hours), you can prevent the onset of severe symptoms with the use of oseltamivir and zinamivir.

One of the big worries is post-influenza bacterial pneumonia (pneumococcus and s. aureus being the big bad bugs in that arena).

But where did they get the 99% figure from? Was that after having taken samples from everyone with flu symptoms? Or before?

As I understand it, tests are generally carried out by labs associated with US WHO and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System... and reported to the CDC.  99% of Influenza A tested was H1N1 influenza in the past week (and 99.2% cumulative since the end of August)... at least according to the government.  Conspiracy!

0 likes

This is VERY VERY different than required immunizations. I am not opposed to this, everyone may do as they wish.
Even in the case of health care workers, a "requirement" could be something that I wouldn't disagree with. I don't think that it would be right if there is no pre-requisite in the job description stating that something like that may happen and in the case of failure to comply you could lose your job, but otherwise, fine.
I don't really know if they are even doing that here, though, because Dustin works at the hospital and he didn't have to get the vaccine.

In my state, the requirement was dropped for health care workers.  It's still strongly encouraged, though.

0 likes

-I didn't elect to be a part of the society (By this I mean US citizen).. Being born here made me so... This is another topic, altogether, but I don't believe that people should have citizenship based on where they are born.

-I'm not sure what you mean by bear the burden of individual choices? I assume you mean the government will have to pay a lot of money for those who have made poor life-style decisions (such as poor diet), which have made them reliant on medicine in some form? Well, though (obviously) much of that is choice, let us make an argument that that choice could be ill-made because of the government, as well.
I am jane doe, and I don't have much money. Because of this, I like to buy food that is cheap for me and my family. Most of this ends up being processed crap with the addition of HFCS, GMO soy lecithin, and the like because it is subsidized by the government so that it is both cheap and readily available for food producers. I've also been taught that grain should be the base of my diet with a good amount of meat and diary.
Basically, I do think influence (negative, in this case) has a lot to do with choices and in places with universal healthcare preventative medicine is strongest.

- I think the scenario you gave is fair (getting vax to receive healthcare). It's not ideal, IMO, but I would not say that it is wrong.

- I never said vaccines are dangerous, I did say they should not be required, though. I would love to know who you are talking about in terms of the anti-Vx movement, though.
As I stated in my first post, most of mine has to do with the info I have heard from Jane Burgermeister(not directly, of course), who was a medical journalist and found out that Baxter produced and distributed contaminated Vx (with bird flu). She looked more into it and was finding out a lot of skeezy things, she lost her job. Charges she filed.

- In terms of my views on universal healthcare, I mostly just think that having access to anything to "better" (As you can probably tell I am not huge on western medicine in the first place) ones health is a right, just as much or more-so than the other socialized systems we have in place. I do not necessarily think that everything would be peachy-keen because the government was the one paying the doctors/hospitals/for the equipment/etc., but I do think it would be the most fair thing in our current system.

- LOL! It very well could be a conspiracy! I wouldn't be surprised ;)

0 likes

-I didn't elect to be a part of the society (By this I mean US citizen).. Being born here made me so... This is another topic, altogether, but I don't believe that people should have citizenship based on where they are born.

-I'm not sure what you mean by bear the burden of individual choices? I assume you mean the government will have to pay a lot of money for those who have made poor life-style decisions (such as poor diet), which have made them reliant on medicine in some form? Well, though (obviously) much of that is choice, let us make an argument that that choice could be ill-made because of the government, as well.
I am jane doe, and I don't have much money. Because of this, I like to buy food that is cheap for me and my family. Most of this ends up being processed crap with the addition of HFCS, GMO soy lecithin, and the like because it is subsidized by the government so that it is both cheap and readily available for food producers. I've also been taught that grain should be the base of my diet with a good amount of meat and diary.
Basically, I do think influence (negative, in this case) has a lot to do with choices and in places with universal healthcare preventative medicine is strongest.

- I think the scenario you gave is fair (getting vax to receive healthcare). It's not ideal, IMO, but I would not say that it is wrong.

- I never said vaccines are dangerous, I did say they should not be required, though. I would love to know who you are talking about in terms of the anti-Vx movement, though.
As I stated in my first post, most of mine has to do with the info I have heard from Jane Burgermeister(not directly, of course), who was a medical journalist and found out that Baxter produced and distributed contaminated Vx (with bird flu). She looked more into it and was finding out a lot of skeezy things, she lost her job. Charges she filed.

- In terms of my views on universal healthcare, I mostly just think that having access to anything to "better" (As you can probably tell I am not huge on western medicine in the first place) ones health is a right, just as much or more-so than the other socialized systems we have in place. I do not necessarily think that everything would be peachy-keen because the government was the one paying the doctors/hospitals/for the equipment/etc., but I do think it would be the most fair thing in our current system.

- LOL! It very well could be a conspiracy! I wouldn't be surprised ;)

So let me get this straight.  You don't think people should be forced to be vaccinated for any reason?  Not even against Neisseria meningitidis prior to attending college?  You realize that there are many different strains with regionality that don't confer cross-immunity.  Many people have their nasopharynxes colonized with N. meningitidis.  The classic outbreaks are: college kids and army recruits, because these situations bring together many people from different parts of the country (and/or world) and put them in close contact.  Meningococcal meningitis isn't exactly a party.

The issue that I'm focused on is the fact that this is PREVENTABLE morbidity and mortality on a grand scale.  Is the individual always more important than the community?

Anti-vax?  Seriously?  You haven't heard Jenny McCarthy run her mouth about MMR and gut inflammation... followed by thimerosal...
http://www.generationrescue.org/

This continues in spite of the studies that have demonstrated a lack of an association between thimerosal and autism.  Here's just a small small sample:

Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association
B Taylor, E Miller, CP Farrington, MC Petropoulos
Lancet 1999
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10376617

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.
NEJM Vol. November 7, 2002; 347:1477-1482
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/19/1477

Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data
Kreesten M. Madsen, MD*, Marlene B. Lauritsen, MD, Carsten B. Pedersen, Msc, Poul Thorsen, MD, PhD*, Anne-Marie Plesner, MD, PhD, Peter H. Andersen, MD and Preben B. Mortensen, MD, DMSc
PEDIATRICS Vol. 112 No. 3 September 2003, pp. 604-606
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/3/604

Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines Lack of consistent evidence for an association
P . Stehr-Green
American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , Pages 101 - 106
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12880876

MORE CONSPIRACY (multi-national)!!!  O NOES!

Can't help you with the anti-Western Medicine thing.  I can tell you that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has spent $1.2 Billion with absolutely no results.  What's the "alternative" method for treating pancreatic cancer?  What's the alternative method for treating congenital diaphragmatic hernia?  How about transposition of the great vessels?

0 likes

The menengitis Vx isn't even required now (well, at least it wasn't when I entered college in 2004), but, nope, I do not think it should ever be required.

Is the individual always more important than the community? Most certainly not. I never stated that, either. But I do believe that a person has a right to do what they want with their body, and I think denying that right on any scale is wrong.

Nope, like I said, I know nothing about the "anti-Vx movement", I've just never been fond of them and since I have had the choice I have always refused them. I would/will be very sad to see my right to this gone.

Am I anti-western medicine? No, another thing I never said.. I believe my words were "not huge on". I believe that it serves a purpose, most certainly a large one for our society as a whole, but I am more interested in preventing myself from having anything too serious than "curing" whatever it is that I have. I also believe that most complementary and alternative medicine is bullshit.. so we agree :)

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments