Choose To Vaccinate

[Drummond]

Again, because SCIENCE

Science proves to us that once diseases like Measles are out there virtually unchecked they can and will naturally mutate. And okay, you could deal with getting measles, how about polio, or small pox? I don't think you would just say "oh well I got small pox"

And beyond that, it not about YOU, or about ME , it's about everyone. I am a 48 year old male in above average health for my age. I'm well within accepted limits when it comes to weight, cholesterol levels , all of that, and I have the means to afford the very best medical care available. If I were to contract Measles, I'd survive. 100% . But what about all the children out there, who's young bodies are not sufficiently prepared to fight such a disease, or the old people ? Or the less than healthy? Those are the people vaccinations protect Drummond.


This is what we're saying Drummond. People like you won't think beyond there own "hey I'd be okay if I got measles" and so the government must then come forward and say "no no you must do what is best for EVERYONE" and that means getting your damn vaccinations. Not doing so is very selfish imo

This is why I concluded, a while back, that debate on this was probably a waste of time.

You make good points .. I concede that, happily so. But I'd reply to this by pointing out that polio and smallpox are far rarer (to the extent they even exist, these days ?) than measles is. That's despite all the vaccination programs we've seen, or have been, or are being, planned.

A word on 'spin'. Did you note from my other post that 'ELIMINATION' turns out to not mean quite what it appears to mean ? Anyone would be inclined (at minimum) to think that the use of this word must equal 'ERADICATION'. But ... 'amazingly' ... not so. A Government declared measles 'eliminated', but that turned out to fall short of any guarantee that measles, as a problem, had 'ceased to be'.

I have to ask myself, why such deceptiveness ? Maybe to keep alertness on the subject of uber-control measures fully stimulated, to make sure that concern about it remains such that people fall into line when further mass vaccination programs are implemented ? An effort to create and maintain the perceived worth of dependence upon the authorities ?

Well, anyway: I still stick to a central argument from earlier, namely, that because so much is done to sanitise our environment, people fail to acquire and maintain optimum immunity levels to disease that they'd otherwise have. OK .... YES .... I get that this'd be scant protection about the really serious diseases humanity has experienced, such as plague !! But then, the serious ones don't pose the threat they did in past times. You don't nip out to buy a newspaper and think you'll need to check for telltale signs of bubonic plague a couple of days later !

Measles is different. In the scale of things, it's definitely a minor malady, when you make the proper comparison.

You make the point yourself that diseases mutate. I think that's an important consideration. Flu doesn't kill, except rarely. But, bird flu ? Consider: people can, and do, get flu shots. That didn't stop the bird flu mutated variant from appearing, though, did it, and start killing people !! If a disease is going to mutate, immunisation programs do NOT wipe out that possibility.

Immunisations don't offer blanket protection against mutated strains of a disease. If you're looking for an effective immunisation agent, it has to successfully interlock with the disease it's meant to treat, just as you can't jam two totally incompatible pieces of a jigsaw together and expect anything useful to come of it.

Never mind, though. Governments will still whip up near-frenzy on healthcare issues, then sit back and watch the dependence culture they hope and work to engineer, as fully take hold as possible.

Happy days !

[STTAB]

This is why I concluded, a while back, that debate on this was probably a waste of time.

You make good points .. I concede that, happily so. But I'd reply to this by pointing out that polio and smallpox are far rarer (to the extent they even exist, these days ?) than measles is. That's despite all the vaccination programs we've seen, or have been, or are being, planned.

A word on 'spin'. Did you note from my other post that 'ELIMINATION' turns out to not mean quite what it appears to mean ? Anyone would be inclined (at minimum) to think that the use of this word must equal 'ERADICATION'. But ... 'amazingly' ... not so. A Government declared measles 'eliminated', but that turned out to fall short of any guarantee that measles, as a problem, had 'ceased to be'.

I have to ask myself, why such deceptiveness ? Maybe to keep alertness on the subject of uber-control measures fully stimulated, to make sure that concern about it remains such that people fall into line when further mass vaccination programs are implemented ? An effort to create and maintain the perceived worth of dependence upon the authorities ?

Well, anyway: I still stick to a central argument from earlier, namely, that because so much is done to sanitise our environment, people fail to acquire and maintain optimum immunity levels to disease that they'd otherwise have. OK .... YES .... I get that this'd be scant protection about the really serious diseases humanity has experienced, such as plague !! But then, the serious ones don't pose the threat they did in past times. You don't nip out to buy a newspaper and think you'll need to check for telltale signs of bubonic plague a couple of days later !

Measles is different. In the scale of things, it's definitely a minor malady, when you make the proper comparison.

You make the point yourself that diseases mutate. I think that's an important consideration. Flu doesn't kill, except rarely. But, bird flu ? Consider: people can, and do, get flu shots. That didn't stop the bird flu mutated variant from appearing, though, did it, and start killing people !! If a disease is going to mutate, immunisation programs do NOT wipe out that possibility.

Immunisations don't offer blanket protection against mutated strains of a disease. If you're looking for an effective immunisation agent, it has to successfully interlock with the disease it's meant to treat, just as you can't jam two totally incompatible pieces of a jigsaw together and expect anything useful to come of it.

Never mind, though. Governments will still whip up near-frenzy on healthcare issues, then sit back and watch the dependence culture they hope and work to engineer, as fully take hold as possible.

Happy days !

Drummond you make some fair points and for the most part this has been a good conversation, if you could just lower the level of snarky a little.

Allow me to rebut your point about diseases not actually being eliminated. Well, no one has said they have been. Phrases like "virtually eliminated" are used instead, especially here in the US because those diseases have been rendered pretty inert here, but of course ith a myriad of people coming in from all around the world on any given day with no realistic method of checking every single entrant and rejecting their entry if they carry a disease it would be totally irresponsible to claim "measles doesn't exist in the US"

What they are actually saying is that if 90% of a population is innoculated against a particular lliness, than that illness is effectively eliminated in that population because probably only half of the remaining 10% would contract the disease even if there were an outbreak. Half is probably over estimating things, but let's go with it, let's say 1/2 of people who have not been vaccinated against measles will get measles if they are exposed to it.

Okay so let's take England. Population 56M give or take. Now let's say there were no measles vaccinations and an outbreak occurred , given our 50% estimate from earlier we would see roughly 28M get measles. The mortality rate for measles today is 2 per 1 million. Very low, but that is for industrialized nations and is factoring in for healthy people and such. Anyway, at 2 per 1 million in a major outbreak of measles sure only 28 people would die, but at what cost? What would 28M seeking treatment for measles do to the health care system in England? Would the mortality rate go up because many people wouldn't be able to get adequate treatment, for a variety of reasons? You bet it would . Hospitals and doctors would be overwhelmed, medicine would be in short supply. And what would the main effect of that be? Why the obvious of course, as demand rose so would prices. How many people would simply be priced out of receiving treatment adequate to prevent serious consequences?

Now you multiply THAT times however many illnesses there are that we have readily available vaccines for and it quickly becomes obvious that vaccines are good for everyone. Even though they marginally do pose a slight risk for each person who gets them.

[Kathianne]

Just because:

https://www.popsci.com/measles-other-outbreaks

Measles is an early warning sign for outbreaks of more serious diseasesWe never achieved the vaccination levels necessary to prevent outbreaks.


By Sara Chodosh April 29, 2019

...

Many countries give a combined vaccine called MMR, for measles, mumps, rubella. If measles vaccine coverage isn’t high enough, it could in theory be sufficient to prevent major mumps and rubella cases—you need 95 percent of the population vaccinated to guard against measles, but only about 85 to 90 for mumps and rubella. Globally, we’ve held steady at about 85 percent for both MMR and the DTAP vaccine, which protects against diphtheria and also requires 85 percent coverage for herd immunity. (Pertussis and tetanus, the other two viruses in the DTAP shot, can exist in the environment, not just the human body, making herd immunity less relevant).


Should those diseases come back, we may be worse prepared in some ways than before. For a long time, the older generations in our society grew up in the pre-vaccine era, which meant that the overwhelming majority of them were exposed to these viruses. Now we have much less circulation of viruses, but also not sufficiently high vaccine coverage to prevent transmission altogether, and the combination is worrisome. “I’m concerned that there are progressively more countries which have had many years of insufficient vaccine implementation,” Kretsinger says. “It’s hard to predict what will be next.”


If we really want to stamp out measles, along with the other vaccine-preventable maladies, Kretsinger says what we need is political will and for countries to have a sense of ownership of the problem. It’s been so long now since measles was a visible childhood killer that we’ve lost a lot of the fear that originally drove people to get vaccinated.


Without that motivation, many developed nations have prioritized other health issues. Coupled with a backlash against vaccinations, this shift in focus has given us the current vaccine stagnation. As a 2011 paper on the potential for measles eradication points out, “recent progress in reducing measles mortality may have reduced the perception of threat.” But the threat is very real. According to the same paper, “measles has been a disease of high burden historically, and as recently as 2000, an estimated 733,000 individuals, mainly children, died from complications of measles.”


What happens next is within our control; for most people in the United States, these vaccines are just around the corner. “If the case fatality were 50 percent, you can be sure measles would be eradicated quickly,” Kretsinger says. “There are some places where that fear still exists, because measles was recently one of the childhood killers.” Perhaps a little fear would do us some good.

[Drummond]

Drummond you make some fair points and for the most part this has been a good conversation, if you could just lower the level of snarky a little.

H'm.

I wasn't aware I WAS being notably 'snarky', STTAB. And, it's interesting: I'd only, myself, consider criticising anyone's posting style after some very considerable provocation ... if even then. I'm reminded of one ex-contributor here from years ago, whose regular posting style was considerably worse than mine (those who've been here long enough will know who I'm talking about !) .. somebody I crossed swords with on a very regular basis. You think my style merits comment ? Then, I promise you, you'd have been outraged by his !!

The sources of support he received when even at his 'worst' might've surprised you, too; as much as it baffled me, at the time.

Anyway, enough on that. I'll take your comment 'under advisement'. Thank you.

Allow me to rebut your point about diseases not actually being eliminated. Well, no one has said they have been. Phrases like "virtually eliminated" are used instead, especially here in the US ..

No. Sorry: no. Not according to the sources I've seen.

I'll post two of them. The first source constitutes a debate-article on what was truly meant by that very claim.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...-measles-news/

Dozens and now hundreds of times a day media outlets are reporting with great drama that after measles was ‘eliminated’ in the United States in 2000 it is making a comeback.

During March 2000, CDC convened a consultation of measles experts to evaluate data on the elimination of endemic measles from the United States. The data indicated that, during 1997–1999, measles incidence has remained low (<0.5 cases per 1,000,000 population) and that most states and 99% of counties reported no measles cases. In addition, measles surveillance was sensitive enough to consistently detect imported cases, isolated cases, and small outbreaks. Evidence of high population immunity included coverage of >90% with the first dose of measles vaccine in children aged 19–35 months since 1996 and 98% coverage among children entering school. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, a second dose of measles vaccine is required for school entry. A national serosurvey indicated that 93% of persons aged >6 years have antibody to measles. Because of these findings, the experts concluded that measles is no longer endemic in the United States. From there, the CDC began their marketing campaign that measles had been eliminated in 2000.

From all this ... and please, read the article in its entirety ... it becomes clear that (a) the claim that measles had been eliminated was made, but falsely so, and that (b) this was the subject of controversy as to why the true position wasn't more accurately, and clearly, disseminated.

https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...-dim041819.php

WHAT: In 2000, measles was declared to be eliminated in the United States, when no sustained transmission of the virus was seen in this country for more than 12 months.

I fail to see how this can be any clearer. With respect, then, your rebuttal point, on examination, doesn't hold water.

The obvious question to me is, WHY do your authorities do this ? Is it to maximise the contrast between what they claim, and what then proves true, so as to galvanise people that much more into complying with them ?

... those diseases have been rendered pretty inert here, but of course with a myriad of people coming in from all around the world on any given day with no realistic method of checking every single entrant and rejecting their entry if they carry a disease it would be totally irresponsible to claim "measles doesn't exist in the US"

... and I agree, both with the point and the conclusion.

This still leaves the question of what actual, quantifiable threat, it really is. I still say that bubonic plague is in an entirely different class of morbidity, and illustrates what a REAL threat looks like, in a way that measles could never do.

Okay so let's take England. Population 56M give or take. Now let's say there were no measles vaccinations and an outbreak occurred , given our 50% estimate from earlier we would see roughly 28M get measles. The mortality rate for measles today is 2 per 1 million. Very low, but that is for industrialized nations and is factoring in for healthy people and such. Anyway, at 2 per 1 million in a major outbreak of measles sure only 28 people would die, but at what cost? What would 28M seeking treatment for measles do to the health care system in England? Would the mortality rate go up because many people wouldn't be able to get adequate treatment, for a variety of reasons? You bet it would . Hospitals and doctors would be overwhelmed, medicine would be in short supply. And what would the main effect of that be? Why the obvious of course, as demand rose so would prices. How many people would simply be priced out of receiving treatment adequate to prevent serious consequences?

An excellent argument. Thanks for it.

[Nitpicking point: England's population is well in excess of 60 million.]

A couple of points, though. It occurs to me that if there was no 'public awareness' generated (artificially, purposely so, or otherwise) about measles, the stampede of people seeking treatment, as you described it, wouldn't happen. So, no such crisis would be seen. Let's also say that your '28 deaths' estimate was perfectly accurate. STTAB ... our NHS runs a regime where, at specific times of failing, many more than 28 deaths occur (I mentioned the Mid Staffs catastrophe before). Our NHS regularly rules out lifesaving treatments on grounds of cost, and I'm sure that their policy-making itself kills far more than 28 people in a single year. By (unstated) design.

Conclusion ? If those 28 deaths truly mattered to the NHS, or our authorities, why do the others happen, and why do they, at times, become officially tolerated ? It can only be because publicising the 'need' for measles vaccination (as part of the MMR vaccine program) has a POLITICAL objective tied into it.

Now you multiply THAT times however many illnesses there are that we have readily available vaccines for and it quickly becomes obvious that vaccines are good for everyone. Even though they marginally do pose a slight risk for each person who gets them.

.... but, I've never really argued otherwise. My point has been that an alternative approach to this also has its merits, that of naturally occurring, boosted immunity, coming from an environment conducive to it !

[STTAB]

H'm.




.... but, I've never really argued otherwise. My point has been that an alternative approach to this also has its merits, that of naturally occurring, boosted immunity, coming from an environment conducive to it !

Just to address this part.

The reason we do more is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Either due to being children, or being the elderly, or being physically unable to do so, or yes due to stupidity. There are people who through no fault of their own simply can't fight off a disease , mainly children and the elderly, people who yes measles could be deadly.

Now, I suppose you could say "well survival of the fittest" but that isn't how our society operates . That's just the way it is.

[Drummond]

Just to address this part.

The reason we do more is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Either due to being children, or being the elderly, or being physically unable to do so, or yes due to stupidity. There are people who through no fault of their own simply can't fight off a disease , mainly children and the elderly, people who yes measles could be deadly.

Now, I suppose you could say "well survival of the fittest" but that isn't how our society operates . That's just the way it is.

I think I'm going to end arguing (debating ?) on this thread ... I think you're only taking from it what you're choosing to .. cherrypicking your interpretation of its direction.

Find me any wording of mine where I've said that vaccinations / immunisations shouldn't happen. Find me any statement of mine where I call for them to be outlawed. In fact, show me where I've said in any previous posts that 'survival of the fittest' is the one 'proper' policy to be followed, or should be. I challenge you to do any or (preferably) all of this, STTAB. I'll wait patiently for you to do that. Because, for your last post to correctly conclude the entirety of my true position, it must surely be that I also made these statements.

I note that you've ignored my proofs of what your authorities really said about measles being eliminated. You were wrong in what you'd asserted beforehand. I legitimately asked WHY your authorities would go so far in their statements on that.

I've questioned why authorities push so hard to promote vaccination programs ... not their RIGHT to, but I question precisely what their true motives are in doing so. I particularly question whether, in psychological terms, in terms of 'attitude management', their efforts have a power-building motivation behind them. And where, if that's so, it will lead.

I also question why there isn't greater emphasis on recognising the worth of an individual's own immune system's capabilities, and acting accordingly.

Is this clear now (or am I being 'snarky' for asking ?).

This debate is a waste of time. I'm now sure of that. You cherrypick your choice of assumption(s), you ignore what successfully defies what you assert. There's no point to my adding anything further to this thread, so far as I can see.

[jimnyc]

Here is just a little example from my home state. And while I am likely safe, and most I know - the outbreak "could" potentially harm many many vulnerable people. How would one like to bring in an ailing parent to a hospital for necessary treatment, and leave with them having measles? Or your baby leaving the docs office with the disease? Imagine a horrid scenario with a family member getting cancer, like my Mom, God bless her soul. And while in the hospital getting chemo or related treatment - and gets measles and passes as a result of something like that?

It always seems like a thing of the past, but when in the USA you have the anti-vaxxers doing a number, and the vaccination rate goes down, and friends of friends take the lead - then it's very possible to see "pockets" like this of folks getting the disease. It IS controllable to a major major extent, that's a fact of science and numbers. I also don't care for "religious loopholes". If that keeps them from getting the shot, I am OK with that, as it shouldn't be forced. But no excuses when it comes to schools and other places with many people, especially children. So they have a choice not to get the vaccines, and schools and other places have the right to control health matters, as to who gets in and what not.

---

Here’s what could happen if measles continues to spread in N.J.

The country is experiencing the worst year for measles in a quarter century, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with 704 reported cases. And New Jersey is right in the middle of an outbreak.

The state has 14 confirmed cases, with a suspected case reported last week in Middlesex County. Though New Jersey hasn’t been hit nearly as hard as New York City and Rockland County, New York, where hundreds have been infected, experts remain concerned if we fail to limit the disease’s spread. Just how bad could it get here?

While it’s unlikely New Jersey would ever see hundreds or thousands of cases at once, the state could see localized epidemics with “pockets of people with low vaccination rates getting many infections," Dr. David Cennimo, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said via text message.

Failing to get a handle on measles could strain the state’s medical system and divert health care personnel.

Cennimo said the state is already seeing a “disruption in medicine because of concern for measles.” Treating a measles patient is often tedious and cumbersome, he said.

“Measles is airborne, so people need to stay in special negative-pressure rooms. … These rooms aren’t plentiful,” Cennimo said in an email. “You cannot have a patient walking into a waiting room with measles without a mask on because they can infect everyone.”

Measles is so contagious that 90% of susceptible people exposed to an infected person will become infected, according to the CDC. If outbreaks continue, experts worry about measles patients walking among the public or in hospitals, potentially spreading the disease to vulnerable populations, like babies who’ve yet to receive the vaccine. Those with weakened immune systems, like cancer patients undergoing treatment, would also be at-risk.

Medical personnel may have to ramp up protocols for dealing with patients reporting vague symptoms like a rash or fever. They may have to meet potentially infected patients in the parking lot with masks, diverting staff from other serious health matters.

“All of this is cumbersome and, if it delays care, potentially dangerous,” Cennimo said. “It is difficult for your average primary care doctor or pediatrician to do all of this in a busy office. The measles rash is not very specific and can be confused with other viral rashes.”

He added, “This can really slow down the flow in an (emergency department)."

Prolonged measles outbreaks could also come at a significant cost, according to New Jersey Assemblyman Herb Conaway, D-Burlington, who is one of the sponsors of a bill seeking to eliminate a loophole that allows thousands of parents to cite religious beliefs as a reason to opt out of vaccinating their children.

“We know that the failure to vaccinate leads to enormous preventable health care costs ... lost work, not going to school, the cost of hospitalization and outpatient care. In an aggregate, those costs are enormous," Conaway said.

In fact, a study looking at Washington state, which has also been hit particularly hard by measles in the past several weeks — primarily due to people who were not vaccinated — looked at just how costly dealing with measles outbreaks can be.

The study, published last month in the medical journal JAMA, said that “responding to a single case of measles can be as high as $142,000.” This includes tracking cases, laboratory testing, quarantining patients, compensating health care providers, public outreach and other measures needed to prevent further spreading of the disease.

The study estimates that in 2011, the total cost of outbreaks in the U.S. ranged from $2.7 million to $5.3 million. In that year, 220 cases of measles were reported, according to the CDC.

Though there isn’t a single reason for the recent resurgence of measles, health experts maintain that the anti-vaccination movement has proven to be a problem, and one that needs to be addressed as the spreading of misinformation and propaganda continues to impact vaccination rates. A 93% to 95% immunization rate is needed within a community to prevent measles from spreading among the population, according to the World Health Organization.

“If we continue to have pockets of unimmunized children, we will continue to see outbreaks," said Dr. Glenn Fennelly, chair of pediatrics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.

New York City’s measles outbreak has been primarily affecting ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn, where vaccination rates tend to be lower and anti-vaccination sentiments common. The outbreak grew so bad that New York City officials earlier this month declared it a public health emergency and ordered mandatory vaccinations.

New Jersey’s outbreak, while less severe, has also been largely concentrated in ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Lakewood, Ocean County (as has the outbreak in Rockland County, New York).

“We have more and more people who are choosing not to vaccinate themselves or their children, and that is putting not only themselves at risk but everyone else at risk, particularly the young and those who are medically vulnerable,” Conaway told NJ Advance Media.

Rest - https://www.nj.com/healthfit/2019/04..._medium=social

[STTAB]

I think I'm going to end arguing (debating ?) on this thread ... I think you're only taking from it what you're choosing to .. cherrypicking your interpretation of its direction.

Find me any wording of mine where I've said that vaccinations / immunisations shouldn't happen. Find me any statement of mine where I call for them to be outlawed. In fact, show me where I've said in any previous posts that 'survival of the fittest' is the one 'proper' policy to be followed, or should be. I challenge you to do any or (preferably) all of this, STTAB. I'll wait patiently for you to do that. Because, for your last post to correctly conclude the entirety of my true position, it must surely be that I also made these statements.

I note that you've ignored my proofs of what your authorities really said about measles being eliminated. You were wrong in what you'd asserted beforehand. I legitimately asked WHY your authorities would go so far in their statements on that.

I've questioned why authorities push so hard to promote vaccination programs ... not their RIGHT to, but I question precisely what their true motives are in doing so. I particularly question whether, in psychological terms, in terms of 'attitude management', their efforts have a power-building motivation behind them. And where, if that's so, it will lead.

I also question why there isn't greater emphasis on recognising the worth of an individual's own immune system's capabilities, and acting accordingly.

Is this clear now (or am I being 'snarky' for asking ?).

This debate is a waste of time. I'm now sure of that. You cherrypick your choice of assumption(s), you ignore what successfully defies what you assert. There's no point to my adding anything further to this thread, so far as I can see.

I ignored your question of why our politicians lie because I have no explanation. Well, that's not really true. I know why they lie, they lie because we the people let them get away with it. Amazing that it is illegal for us to lie to Congress, but they can get up and tell all the lies they want, and do.

But this strays into the category of my well known mantra that most American are stupid, in fact we are the dumbest country in the world.

[jimnyc]

I distrust our government as far as I can throw my truck. I don't trust even a lot of medicine and always read read and do some more reading to educate myself. I would NEVER do anything the government tells me to do, unless I agree 100% on my own. For every reason, Mr. Drummond, that you may state as to why you don't trust them or the vaccines and want education first - is the same reason I feel such a way. But my own reading and education tells me that its best for me and my family. Very little to lose, if at all, and a ton to gain. But not based on what someone told me.

If that somehow leads to me being wrong, that someone convinced me wrongly, that I am doing so because the govt tricked me, or solely because of "the greater good" or any of the issues you speak of - you would be wrong. While I agree with you 100% for your hesitation and your arguments, I have been there before because of the need for them for my child and restrictions. And if I thought negatively even .00001%, he would be home schooled. But that's not the case here. He got his vaccinations by my choice no differently than he would receive a tetanus shot if he stepped on a rusty nail.

What is the problem in front of me? What is it that medicine is offering? What are ALL of my options. Understand them, educate myself and make an informed decision. But none of it was based on the Govt telling me, nor anyone for that fact, and not for the greater good.

Is it not possible that many in this thread are simply educating themselves and making the best medical decisions for themselves? And acknowledging how the herd immunity works, and taking that with it.

For me, if they said "don't get it, and it's best for the greater good, but your son will be sick". Or take this drug for a vaccination, and your son will remain healthy, but this option will not help others in the slightest. I would go for the better option for me or my family, regardless of who it helps out there, as that really has no part in my decision making.

If after all of that, I am looked at differently than yourself, because of the greater good as you continue to point out, or the Govt telling us something wrong or anything else.... I see myself identically to yourself, 'cept I decided to make sure my son did get them.

[STTAB]

I think I'm going to end arguing (debating ?) on this thread ... I think you're only taking from it what you're choosing to .. cherrypicking your interpretation of its direction.

Find me any wording of mine where I've said that vaccinations / immunisations shouldn't happen. Find me any statement of mine where I call for them to be outlawed. In fact, show me where I've said in any previous posts that 'survival of the fittest' is the one 'proper' policy to be followed, or should be. I challenge you to do any or (preferably) all of this, STTAB. I'll wait patiently for you to do that. Because, for your last post to correctly conclude the entirety of my true position, it must surely be that I also made these statements.

I note that you've ignored my proofs of what your authorities really said about measles being eliminated. You were wrong in what you'd asserted beforehand. I legitimately asked WHY your authorities would go so far in their statements on that.

I've questioned why authorities push so hard to promote vaccination programs ... not their RIGHT to, but I question precisely what their true motives are in doing so. I particularly question whether, in psychological terms, in terms of 'attitude management', their efforts have a power-building motivation behind them. And where, if that's so, it will lead.

I also question why there isn't greater emphasis on recognising the worth of an individual's own immune system's capabilities, and acting accordingly.

Is this clear now (or am I being 'snarky' for asking ?).

This debate is a waste of time. I'm now sure of that. You cherrypick your choice of assumption(s), you ignore what successfully defies what you assert. There's no point to my adding anything further to this thread, so far as I can see.

I fail to understand your animosity here Drummond. Yes, I "cherry pick" because you might make 20 points in one post, but I only feel like addressing one or two. That's just my posting style. I"m usually just too lazy to go in and snip a post apart addressing each point. So I just address the ones that are most important to me. Occasonally I might find a post that I address multiple points in, but not often. It's not personal, and it isn't because I am ignoring the points you've made. I've already said you make several good points in the thread, AND if you my history as a poster you would know that I wouldn't participate in a thread that only had a single view point. I see no value in a thread where it wooed be, for example, just me and Jimmy and Abbey, and Kath all agreeing that mandatory vaccinations are good with no dissenting opinion. Talk about boring.

And yes, you are correct, Being against mandatory vaccinations doesn't mean you don't believe vaccinations works, I get that, but that kinda makes the point. There are LOTS of people out there who do NOT believe vaccinations work, or they falsely believe they are more dangerous than beneficial at all or they believe their sky god frowns upon modern medicine.

[STTAB]

I distrust our government as far as I can throw my truck. I don't trust even a lot of medicine and always read read and do some more reading to educate myself. I would NEVER do anything the government tells me to do, unless I agree 100% on my own. For every reason, Mr. Drummond, that you may state as to why you don't trust them or the vaccines and want education first - is the same reason I feel such a way. But my own reading and education tells me that its best for me and my family. Very little to lose, if at all, and a ton to gain. But not based on what someone told me.

If that somehow leads to me being wrong, that someone convinced me wrongly, that I am doing so because the govt tricked me, or solely because of "the greater good" or any of the issues you speak of - you would be wrong. While I agree with you 100% for your hesitation and your arguments, I have been there before because of the need for them for my child and restrictions. And if I thought negatively even .00001%, he would be home schooled. But that's not the case here. He got his vaccinations by my choice no differently than he would receive a tetanus shot if he stepped on a rusty nail.

What is the problem in front of me? What is it that medicine is offering? What are ALL of my options. Understand them, educate myself and make an informed decision. But none of it was based on the Govt telling me, nor anyone for that fact, and not for the greater good.

Is it not possible that many in this thread are simply educating themselves and making the best medical decisions for themselves? And acknowledging how the herd immunity works, and taking that with it.

For me, if they said "don't get it, and it's best for the greater good, but your son will be sick". Or take this drug for a vaccination, and your son will remain healthy, but this option will not help others in the slightest. I would go for the better option for me or my family, regardless of who it helps out there, as that really has no part in my decision making.

If after all of that, I am looked at differently than yourself, because of the greater good as you continue to point out, or the Govt telling us something wrong or anything else.... I see myself identically to yourself, 'cept I decided to make sure my son did get them.

In an ideal world we would ALL look at all the data and make an informed decision, but again we live amongst morons and so we must have laws written FOR morons.

We literally live in a country where drug manufacturers have to include in their commercials warning not to take a particular drug if you're allergic to that drug because people are stupid.

Drummond this is why I favor mandatory vaccinations. YOU have a right to make a stupid decision if it affects you and you only (I'm using the plural YOU here , I"m not calling Drummond stupid) but YOU don't have the right to endanger other people through your own stupidity. That includes your own children. And yes okay measles may generally not be that bad of a disease but that is only because we have largely controlled it. Let 40% of children go unvaccinated and then check back in 10 years and see if measles is still largely benign.

[Drummond]

I fail to understand your animosity here Drummond. Yes, I "cherry pick" because you might make 20 points in one post, but I only feel like addressing one or two. That's just my posting style. I"m usually just too lazy to go in and snip a post apart addressing each point. So I just address the ones that are most important to me. Occasonally I might find a post that I address multiple points in, but not often. It's not personal, and it isn't because I am ignoring the points you've made. I've already said you make several good points in the thread, AND if you my history as a poster you would know that I wouldn't participate in a thread that only had a single view point. I see no value in a thread where it wooed be, for example, just me and Jimmy and Abbey, and Kath all agreeing that mandatory vaccinations are good with no dissenting opinion. Talk about boring.

And yes, you are correct, Being against mandatory vaccinations doesn't mean you don't believe vaccinations works, I get that, but that kinda makes the point. There are LOTS of people out there who do NOT believe vaccinations work, or they falsely believe they are more dangerous than beneficial at all or they believe their sky god frowns upon modern medicine.

Well, if my dissenting opinion adds a bit of excitement, STTAB, I'm delighted for you.

ARE you claiming to have overlooked my proof that your statement on the 'elimination' of measles was just down to not wanting to get bogged down with multiple issues ? Is that really so ? Well ... maybe we think differently. When somebody conclusively proves me wrong on something, I consider it a matter of duty to at least acknowledge it. You didn't, though.

A reminder -- these are your words ...

Allow me to rebut your point about diseases not actually being eliminated. Well, no one has said they have been. Phrases like "virtually eliminated" are used instead, especially here in the US ..

I offered proof of the very opposite. Indeed, one of them spoke of, I quote:

From there, the CDC began their marketing campaign that measles had been eliminated in 2000.

A MARKETING CAMPAIGN, no less !! I ask: why a 'campaign', for God's sake, UNLESS the point was to make people have faith in authorities' mass vaccination efforts ... and this, based on an untruth !!

To me, that's a central point. This example proves that outright faith in such programs is misplaced, or at least, it cannot be automatic. Evidently, though, your CDC would hope to achieve just such faith, as unfounded as it would be.

I still ask: WHY ?

So, I think my argument now transcends debate. My case is proven. Automatic trust in mass vaccinations IS a mistake. It can't be otherwise. That's not to say that they don't have their value, and can do considerable good, therefore, CAN be supported. Just that you can't rely on that always being the correct thing to do.

However ... and, certainly if your Left had its way ... automatic trust would be what they'd want. A move towards making vaccinations compulsory would suit their agenda completely. Set that precedent, especially in law ... and you enshrine everyone's acceptance of mandatory diktat. It's a precedent from which any number of outrages becomes not only possible, but no longer open to challenge. Get a body of people to start questioning any diktat, and the response would be, such diktats are provably permissible, to the point of being set in stone. Laws are made for the benefit of society, therefore, do not question our passing of them, because if you ever do, our serving of 'The Greater Good' shows that you're being antisocial if you do so.

See my point ?

Go down the 'I think vaccinations should be compulsory' route, and you open up the likelihood of all I describe above. Set an authoritative precedent, and it'll be seized upon ... as the new 'norm'.

I guarantee it.

The example I gave of 'Presumed Consent' in Welsh law, on organ donation, sets a precedent. Result .. it looks like it'll be applied to all UK countries in the coming years. The Welsh Left have set the precedent of State compulsion as the accepted social emphasis. Wales is now a working model for it. So, it'll be built upon by others, and a domino effect will become unstoppable ...

... and all because the general Public chose to accept, meekly, the principle of authoritative compulsion in matters of 'The Greater Good'.

[STTAB]

Well, if my dissenting opinion adds a bit of excitement, STTAB, I'm delighted for you.

ARE you claiming to have overlooked my proof that your statement on the 'elimination' of measles was just down to not wanting to get bogged down with multiple issues ? Is that really so ? Well ... maybe we think differently. When somebody conclusively proves me wrong on something, I consider it a matter of duty to at least acknowledge it. You didn't, though.

All well and good except that I didn't say that measles had been eliminated, and to my knowledge no one has. The phrase is "virtually eliminated" and even your own stats show this is true, and I've acknowledged that in a country like ours guaranteeing that anything is eliminated is a fool's errand.

You are bouncing around a bit, in one post you acknowledge that vaccines work but simply reject the notion of mandating them and in the next post you are seemingly disputing the effectiveness of vaccines.

I can respect the former, but arguing that vaccines don't work is silly, ALL of the science tells us they do. Not the liberal science that tells us man made climate change is real, but REAL science backed up by cold hard facts. @90+% vaccination you will NOT see a measles outbreak period. Sure you you will see a case or two, but even if the entirety of the 10% of the population that did not get vaccinated contracted measles it would not reach epidemic proportions.

All of the science also shows us that the danger from vaccines is real but so minute as to barely earn a mention, let alone the anti vaccine hysteria we've seen in this country over the last 5-10 years.

[Drummond]

All well and good except that I didn't say that measles had been eliminated, and to my knowledge no one has. The phrase is "virtually eliminated"

Just repeating an untruth, STTAB, doesn't mean it eventually becomes true.

Yes. You claimed that the term 'virtually eliminated' was the one that had been used, and you denied that it had been simply the word 'eliminated'. I've already shown you that you're wrong, and cited two examples of the claim that 'eliminated', not 'virtually eliminated', WAS what had been claimed.

How many times do I need to post the illustrations of this being true, before you take notice of them ? Or are the two I've already provided not enough to convince you ? How many would be, before you concede the point ?

Evidently, debating with you IS a waste of time, if you're going to disregard any evidence I present to you that you're in error.

You are bouncing around a bit, in one post you acknowledge that vaccines work but simply reject the notion of mandating them and in the next post you are seemingly disputing the effectiveness of vaccines.

This misrepresents what I've said. I don't 'simply' reject the notion of mandating them, but give a reason for it. Please, now, note: I reject the notion of mandating their application, not on the basis you're citing, but on the basis I actually HAVE stipulated ... namely, political opportunism, and the setting of precedents that can make it socially impossible to resist future such diktats.

If you're going to just ignore the argument I offer, then substitute it with your own version, then clearly, I'm wasting my time here.

My advice: just admit you're wrong and be done with it. If you have to resort to sheer misrepresentation to try and make your case stick, you waste my time, and that of everybody else's here.

I'm not arguing further.

[jimnyc]

Worried About Measles? WashPost Reminds You to Blame Columbus

It seems there are a bunch of knuckleheads around who refuse one of the many blessings of modern Western Civilization. Anti-vaxxers don’t believe in vaccinating their kids against diseases like measles, so diseases like measles are cropping up -- decades after they’d been more or less eradicated by … vaccines.

Some anti-vaxxers have religious objections, some are paranoid lefties who reject “big Pharma” and some are just irresponsible. But rather than wade into an inconvenient debate, The Washington Post wants to remind you that, like all Bad Things™, contagious diseases were brought to America by Columbus.

It’s “The Columbian Exchange”: Christopher Columbus brought Christianity, “coffee, horses, turnips, grapes, wine,” to the New World, according to the Post’s Michael S. Rosenwald, and in return it gave Europe tobacco and potatoes.

But Columbus also brought infectious disease-causing microbes that “decimated indigenous communities — an overlooked aspect, historians and other experts say, of the European conquest of the New World.”

It’s unclear who overlooks this. Discovery and Conquest has become Conquest and Grievance on school silibi, and The Bad Things™ Europeans brought are mostly what gets taught to kids now.

Rosenwald puts the narrative succinctly:

The New World before Columbus: no typhoid, no flu, no smallpox, no measles.
The New World after Columbus: epidemics of death.

Natives were also gentle stewards of nature whose communal lifestyle was sustained by respectful, common-sense hunting, organic kitchen gardening and amicable trade in colorful beads and comfortable footwear, among other Good Things ™… but I digress.

“For Native Americans, the problem was a lesson in basic virology, Rosenwald writes. “Because these microbes were as new to society as horses and coffee, nobody had built any immunity to them. Without immunity, wide swaths of people were quickly infected and killed.”

What Rosenwald doesn’t say is that it was a lesson for Europeans too. They were as clueless as the Indians -- and would remain so until until the late 19th Century. And until Europeans began developing immunity, wide swathes of them had been quickly infected and killed. Unless North and South America could be kept hermetically sealed from all outsiders, Asians as well as Europeans, the result was inevitable.

But Columbus is a convenient villain for modern lefties -- whether his villainy was intentional or not. And so Rosenwald can’t resist working in a more comprehensive Bad Things™ shot at the what the old navigator wrought:.

“Indigenous peoples suffered from white brutality, alcoholism, the killing and driving off of game, and the expropriation of farmland, but all these together are insufficient to explain the degree of their defeat,” wrote the late Alfred W. Crosby, a University of Texas historian considered the preeminent expert on the Columbian Exchange. “The crucial factor was not people, plants, or animals, but germs.”

Or maybe firearms or, ya know, the wheel. Regardless, since you never know when you might run into a poxy 600-year-old Italian navigator, go get your kids vaccinated post haste.

Rest - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/cu...blame-columbus