Are you ...?

[HuckleB]

Poll question: Are you ...?

Yeah, well, let's have the truth be told.

[virgogal]

1. I'm in my seventies and remember when most of these vaccines didn't

exist.

It wasn't pretty.

[gateley]

2. Depends on the vaccine. Flu, nah. Not against it, but don't get one. The vaccinations

I got when I was a kid were probably worth it, IMO. :shrug:

What do you think, HuckleB?

[tabatha]

3. Pro-vaccines when they make sense.

I have not had flu in 10 years, hence I do not get a flu vaccine.

As a child, did not get vaccines for measles, mumps and whooping cough, got all and was lucky to come out unscathed.

As a child, had vaccines for polio, thankfully - and never got that. Was the only child at elementary school who befriended a child who had polio.

Have had vaccines against yellow fever, and have taken anti-malaria pills.

[OhioBlue]

4. My son is 3. I contemplated, researched, talked it over with

the Pediatrician... I was really worried about he vaccinations. I have a friend whose daughter is autistic and he does in fact suspect the vaccinations.

I decided to go with the scheduled vaccinations.

I had already made my decision, but was still worried about the MMR shots at 1 yr.

But... my baby got sick several times, colds, flu, bronchiolitis, ear infections... the croup - holy crap is that scary.

Damn did it break my heart and make me worried beyond belief over each and every one of these episodes.

Then it dawned on me... if this was whooping cough or measles, or even chicken pox..or goddess forbid freakin' polio... how much worse would it be? How dangerous would it be? I decided to accept that there may be risks with the vaccinations. But.... I was certainly willing to take those risks in the face of what the vaccinations prevented. I would give my life for my son - I want everything for him. I would much rather roll the dice and risk autism than roll the dice and risk death by disease that could be prevented by a vaccination. My friend with an autistic daughter said the same thing.

[HuckleB]

5. Exactly.

I could not have said it better.

[Dorian Gray]

33. Yep

I feel the same way.

[mhatrw]

6. against idiots who think vaccines are some sort of monolith in which

every vaccine, vaccine delivery method and vaccine ingredient must be good or else every vaccine, vaccine delivery method and vaccine ingredient must be bad.

[HuckleB]

7. Cool.

I'm against idiots who don't understand the science, and those who pick and choose small parts of the science to support their preconceived notions, all the while being completely dishonest with everyone about the matters under discussion. Heck, they may be so deluded that they're being dishonest with themselves.

[mhatrw]

10. You are the one who posted this flaming nonsense.

Vaccines, vaccine delivery methods and vaccine ingredients are neither all bad nor all good. What about this obvious fact mystifies you so?

[laconicsax]

13. True or False: Preventing communicable illness is good.

[mhatrw]

14. True or False: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

True or False: The devil is in the details.

[HuckleB]

18. True or false, Red herring cliches are meaningless.

[laconicsax]

19. You just can't answer a straightforward question, can you?

Yes or no: Do you believe that preventing communicable illness is a good thing?

I'll take another non-answer as a no.

[HuckleB]

15. Blah. Blah. Blah.

You can continue to try to conflate your clear agenda. No one is buying it.

[tabatha]

8. +10

[HuckleB]

9. .

:rofl:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

16. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

That IS all you have to offer. Thanks for the clarification.

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

21. +1

.

[trotsky]

26. Congrats! You are against a strawman.

Of course, you probably know this, but don't care because it's far easier to argue with him than it is with the facts.

[laconicsax]

12. Against vaccines because an indigo mom said they gave her crystal child autism.

That and because polio, smallpox, measles, etc. are man-made diseases.

:hide:

[HuckleB]

17. Man invented the virus, as well, so don't be so smug.

[mzmolly]

20. Are you ...

into creating ridiculous push polls?

I'm not anti-water for wanting clean water standards. And I'm not anti-vaccine for advocating for what amounts to clean vaccines.

[HuckleB]

22. Your attempt to hide your actual viewpoint is noted.

Again.

[mzmolly]

23. My actual view point is that vaccines can be made safer.

Your attempt to assign me another motive, is noted.

[HuckleB]

24. Your posts indicate otherwise.

Everyone wants everything to be safer, but most people don't run around making that mantra. The only ones that do are those who post so much against something that they are very clearly against that particular thing.

[mzmolly]

27. Tell clean water action

that. Here, I've located your local chapter. http://www.oregoncleanwater.org/

[HuckleB]

28. And another red herring response.

Time after time, nothing changes.

Sorry, but you've offered more than enough evidence for anyone to know better than to buy the label you want to attach to yourself.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/the_annals_of_im_not_anti-vaccine_part_4.php

[mzmolly]

29. Your red herring assertion IS the red

herring. Regarding the link you posted, thanks for further illustrating the group think involved in promoting the "anti-vaccine" label. :eyes:

[HuckleB]

30. Nice try.

You're not making a sale. The evidence is VERY clear. Why not be honest?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

31. It's difficult to make vaccines much safer

The rate of complications from vaccines is already much, much lower than that of the diseases they prevent. I'm all for safety, as long as it doesn't come with exponential increases in cost that put the vaccines out of reach of a large part of the population, essentially killing their effectiveness (that herd immunity thingie people keep talking about).

My question for you: would you prefer that vaccines be 100% safe and too expensive for most people, or vaccines that are 99.99% safe and affordable for all?

[mzmolly]

32. I don't have to choose between exposure to X disease and X vaccine.

In today's climate of low rates of disease, I can ask that vaccines be made safer before I require my vulnerable family members to partake. I use the term "vulnerable" because we have a family history of allergies (specific to formaldehyde etc.) child cancer and various neurological - auto-immune issues. If an outbreak occurs, I can weigh the individual decision for individual family member(s) at that time.

Also, you're asserting that it would be highly expensive to remove formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide etc. Do you have any actual scientific data on this? I've read that heat and/or hydrogen peroxide are good alternatives to formaldehyde. And the industry is currently exploring adjuvants other than aluminum. However, given there isn't a demand and most parents comply, there is no need to create safer vaccines, right? In fact, anyone generally interested in advocating for safety is shamed, and labeled (batshit crazy) for daring to suggest we can do better.

My question for you: would you prefer that vaccines be 100% safe and too expensive for most people, or vaccines that are 99.99% safe and affordable for all?

In spite of the fact that your hypothetical percentages are plucked from thin air, I'll answer your question. I would prefer a choice. If you want to buy cheap/dirty vaccines, I'd like them made available to you. As for me, I'd pay more (out of my own pocket) for a vaccine that didn't have substances that my family has a demonstrated sensitivity to. I'd pay more for a vaccine that didn't contain probable carcinogens and known neurotoxins. In fact, I pay more for organic produce. I'm not anti-produce and I don't care what your apples are sprayed with, but I like being able to purchase pesticide free fruit. Would you begrudge me that because your family doesn't feel a need to buy organic?

An interesting aside, the CDC told me a decade ago, "given rates of disease are low, we're are at liberty to pursue safer vaccine technology." It's troubling to me that so many fight against these pursuits. And, it's troubling that the CDC didn't actually move on that promise very much. I suppose all the lobbying against safety has made them less likely to require pharma to make changes?

My question for you. Would it be ok with you, for people like me, to have a choice between vaccines made with or without known neurotoxins and carcinogens? I'm not asking for MSG to be removed. Just the blatant, scientifically agreed upon dirt that my family (and other humans) have a demonstrated sensitivity to.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. I'm curious

Why do you believe we have low rates of these diseases?

[mzmolly]

35. Because I've studied the issue, examining data/trends using info supplied by the CDC. And, I am

registered for email alerts from local and national health officials. Now please answer my question. Would it be ok with you, for people like me, to have more vaccines to choose from? If not, why?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

36. You misunderstood my question

I apologize - I should have worded it better. I'll try again.

In your opinion, what is the reason for our current low rates of disease?

(To answer your question: I've never said that you shouldn't have a choice, and there isn't any reason you shouldn't as long as you don't make a choice that harms someone else.)

[mzmolly]

37. What is the reason we're still basically using the same crude methods

of vaccine manufacture that we started using several decades ago? I suppose we all have questions that lead to other questions... Your question is a bit of a straw-man however, because I'm not "anti-vaccine". I'm anti-neurotoxin/anti-carcinogen. I actually want more vaccines. For example, here is an article on technology that may not only make vaccines safer, but it has the potential to expand the number of vaccines available.

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/radiation-killed_bacteria_vaccine_induces.html But without support and/or demand, where will this technology lead?

Thanks for saying you don't feel there is any harm in expanding the number of vaccines - opening up more choice. That's all many are asking for. And, the fact that so few have the courage to simply say what you did, is astounding to me.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

38. American health care is profit-driven

Is there any incentive to create new methods of treatment that may cost more and be less profitable? Until the health care industry is results-driven rather than dollar-driven, the methods we have are probably the best we can expect and I doubt it's going to change any time soon.

BTW, I disagree with you that the methods are "crude" - after all, those methods are responsible for a sharp decrease in the incidence of death from many diseases.

To be fair, when I say "choice", I mean a choice between various vaccination methodologies. I absolutely don't espouse a choice to NOT get kids vaccinated, unless there is a valid medical reason to avoid the vaccinations.

[mzmolly]

39. You keep saying that different methods will cost more,

but without continued exploration, how do we know? There are ways we can look at reducing cost and perhaps increase the number of vaccines in the process, (as noted in the link I've provided above.) Also of interest, the US recently rejected the "cost" argument justifying the use of an adjuvant in the H1N1 vaccine. This, in spite of not only the cost concern but the promotion by Glaxo suggesting *improved efficacy.

...while Canada and some European nations will use vaccines containing adjuvants, American officials have decided against it for now. They say that they have enough vaccine and that the safety of the additives has not been proved.

I think the US made a thoughtful decision in spite of Glaxo's push to sell their preferred version. I don't imagine Bush's FDA would have made the same choice? I also don't imagine many people here, who argue against questioning anything about vaccines, would agree that the safety of the adjuvant in question, is unproven?

It turns out the vaccine doesn't need the adjuvant in order to stimulate a strong immune response.

But in the last two weeks it has been learned that the vaccines against the H1N1 virus stimulate a strong response on their own. *A single shot containing 15 micrograms of antigen — the same amount used for each strain in a seasonal flu vaccine — should confer adequate protection for most people.

We may never have learned that the questionable adjuvant wasn't necessary in terms of efficacy, without the USA, making a different choice. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/health/22vacc.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss">NYTIMES

Also, the world did not crumble when the US and Canada made a different decision. In fact, we may end up with comparative safety data on the vaccine with and without an adjuvant as a result?

As to your description of "choice" I'm sure you wouldn't dare advocate for vaccination choice altogether. I never assumed you did. Those who claim confidence because they're presumably protected by vaccines, get very worked up about the prospect of a couple people not vaccinating. As to the valid medical reasons you approve of... this is a decision parents must weigh, taking family history, rates of disease, allergies, previous reactions etc. into account. It's not for you to decide what my valid medical reasons are.

[laconicsax]

41. You still haven't answered his question.

What, in your opinion, is the reason for the current low disease rates?

[mzmolly]

44. I did answer.

Your question is a bit of a straw-man however, because I'm not "anti-vaccine".

I'm not afraid to say that I believe vaccines have contributed to a reduction in disease diagnosis. However, we did exchange permanent immunity in some cases, for temporary immunity so we'll have an ongoing issue to contend with. And, trying to get adults to comply with boosters has proven challenging. 6% have currently had the adult pertussis booster as opposed to over 90% of babies and toddlers.

[laconicsax]

45. Yes or no: Do you believe that vaccination prevents illness?

Stop dancing around it and just answer the question.

[mzmolly]

46. In most, for a period of time YES.

Sorry if your head explodes because Orac told you I think vaccines don't work. I happen to believe they generally do what they're designed to do.

I've responded, given I still can.

[laconicsax]

47. There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

[mzmolly]

48. No. But saying it over and over is

tiresome.

[laconicsax]

49. If you dislike repeating yourself on the subject, you may consider giving some thought...

to what gives people the impression that you hold a contary viewpoint.

[mzmolly]

50. I'm pretty sure I have an idea of the cult like/corporate funded mentality involved in defining me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=99723&mesg_id=99723

I used to be called "unpatriotic" for not supporting W, too. I'm used to the various labels assigned to me by the Koch brothers and their lackeys.

[laconicsax]

51. Of course it's a conspiracy that has nothing to do with your own actions. n/t

[mzmolly]

52. Of course you'd use the word "conspiracy" - which bolsters my

original point.

[laconicsax]

53. Of course it does.

Everyone who calls you on your boilerplate anti-vax arguments is part of a grand conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids. You, alone (aside from Jenny McCarthy) are the only person who thinks that vaccines should be safe.

[mzmolly]

54. And, you alone, are the only person who calls me an "anti-vaccine"

"conspiracy theorist" - for noting that a health intervention should be as "healthy" as possible. Speaking of, do you think that advocating for clean water, renders one a conspiracy theorist? Should we ditch regulations, because corporations will do the right thing on their own?

I've mentioned the ways in which I disagree with McCarthy in another thread. Can you name one area of contention that you have with HuckleB? How about David Gorski? Do you disagree with ONE thing either has said?

[laconicsax]

56. Are you actually admitting that you accept the fact that HuckleB and I are two separate people?

It's a Christmas miracle! Seeing how I've never actually had a conversation with him, I can't say what we disagree about, nor with Gorski (whose blog I don't follow).

As for your straw men, you sure have a funny way of, "noting that a health intervention should be as "healthy" as possible." I never would have guessed that the best way to do that was to falsely insist that vaccines are full of toxins, cause autism, are unnecessary, and that not vaccinating doesn't contribute to disease outbreaks.

Indeed, who would have guessed that the best way of "noting that a health intervention should be as "healthy" as possible" was to recite standard anti-vax talking points and accuse people who disagree with said bullshit of being part of a conspiracy? I guess it's just a coincidence that all of your "pro-safety" arguments can be found on anti-vaccine websites too.

I guess I should follow your lead and the next time I read the local water quality report, start insisting that Portland's water is full of deadly toxins and lament the lack of choices we have about our water sources. When someone disagrees with me (or shows that I'm wrong) I'll call them anti-safety advocates in the pocket of the Portland Water Bureau--they must be after all! That's sure to solve the actual problems with the local water supply.

[mzmolly]

55. ... While we're on the subject of conspiracy theories,

do you actually believe there is a "conspiracy" to end vaccination (by people posing as pro-safety advocates?)

[laconicsax]

57. Of course there is!

:eyes:

[xchrom]

25. recommend -- i get my vaccines and boosters.

i had people in my family with bad stuff like polio -- i remember.

[WolverineDG]

40. I'm pro most vaccines

in fact, I think we should still be vaccinating for small pox since there are still live strains out there.

Mumps, Measles, Polio, Diptheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough? You bet.

The only one I'd hesitate on is chicken pox.

dg

[laconicsax]

42. Why hesitate on chicken pox? n/t

[WolverineDG]

43. it's a relatively mild disease

as compared to measles, polio, etc, & you get life-time immunity.

dg

[mzmolly]

58. Are you ...?

Against vaccine safety just because?
Against vaccine safety because you want more mercury in vaccines?
Against vaccine safety because you want to bring back the whole cell pertussis jab?
Against vaccine safety because BIG PHARMA would never be unethical and put profits before people, if a vaccine were involved?
Against vaccine safety because Ronald Reagan limited liability for vaccine makers?
Against vaccine safety because Scienceblogs tells you that being pro-safety means you're against vaccines?
Against vaccine safety because they don't contain anything questionable?
Against vaccine safety because you've replaced one version of worship with another?
Against vaccine safety because we can't possibly improve them?
Against vaccine safety because wanting safer vaccines is really a conspiracy to kill babies?

Pro-vaccine safety because a good thing, using dated technology, can be made better?

Just wanted to get some further clarification.

With that, I'm done.

[HuckleB]

59. .

:rofl:

You do know that you just proved the Science-Based Medicine piece correct in several ways, by posting this, right?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.