Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 01-06-2011, 08:39 AM   #21
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firebug View Post
Don't you think they could make more money by treating the seriously ill people instead? Why does the government fund vaccine programs... because it is cheaper than treating sick people.
Not if the actual risk of getting sick is overhyped and actually pretty small to begin with. In that type of situation, a vaccine program would be more profitable. I am not against vaccines in general. I just don't think they are always necessary. People have a right to do whatever they want. I have nothing against people getting vaccinated if that is what they want. I was vaccinated for H1N1 myself. If people don't want to be vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated, that is their choice... no need to get all preachy on them.



Quote:
Based upon what evidence? I don't doubt that people 'can' react or get sick from a vaccination, but do you have any understanding of the frequency or severity of these issues?
You basically asked me for evidence and then made the same claim. People can have adverse reactions to vaccines. It's well documented and I am not going to the research for you. The frequency is not the issue if the vaccines program in question is unecessary to begin with. In that case, any frequency is too high.

Quote:
Furthermore, what is your understanding of the body's immune system? Do you understand what an antigen or an antibody is, or how immune responses are triggered? Most of the 'fears' can be resolved by better understanding of how our bodies actually work.
I do, but thanks for asking.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:39 AM   #22
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
I'd say that is a scare tactic actually, and this is the way the media typically acts when flu season rolls around or some "pandemic" like swine flu comes about mysteriously.

Getting a measles shot is one thing but getting a seasonal flu vaccine every year is unnecessary. It's known that vitamin D supplements are just as effective, if not more so than taking the shot.
We arent talking about the flu shot, its the host of vaccines that babies get as newborns.

The flu shot is often ineffective simply because there are multiple strains out there, and the flu shot will only cover the strain they think will be the most prolific.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 08:39 AM   #23
firebug
Powerplay Quarterback
 
firebug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mayor of McKenzie Towne
Exp:
Default

I missed this gem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury18 View Post

When they come up with a way to protect against disease without putting far too many chemicals into these small children, I'll rethink my stance.
Ah yes, the dreaded 'chemicals'.

Can you define what a chemical is?

To the best of my knowledge, every single thing I put into my body is a chemical. Not only that, every single chemical is toxic.

To further strike fear into your heart, your body is entirely made of chemicals. For that reason I hope you never go near any children as you would expose them to billions of chemicals.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"

~P^2
firebug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:44 AM   #24
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury18 View Post
I have made the choice not to have my child vaccinated after their 4 month shots, however Autism wasn't the main consideration. I don't like the sheer amount of crap they put in the vaccines and the fact that there are allergens in them (eggs, sorbitol, feathers) that have had adverse reactions with a number of family members. I do not feel this is the safest way to build up an immunity in a small child.

When they come up with a way to protect against disease without putting far too many chemicals into these small children, I'll rethink my stance. Also, when they actually employ proper hygiene and knowledgable staff in vaccination clinics and not women who say "Well you have to do this otherwise (insert scare tactic)", I may rethink my stance.

And I realize my opinion is unpopular and I have been called everything from a murderer letting my child walk around infect the immune deficient to having people suggest I should have my child taken away for my decision. I think the debates on the subject elict far too much of an emotional response for either side to come to common ground. Those who decide to vaccine do so and stand by it viligantly. Those who don't, do the same. Nothing good ever comes from the discussion.
Except "pro-vac" people are using science and the "anti-vac" people are using "do you really trust government/big pharma/chemicals?"

which one of these is an emotional response and which one is based in rationality?
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 08:46 AM   #25
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
Firstly vaccines are not very profitable, they are not easy to produce and require a lot of effort to produce and distribute. Ive seen numbers that suggest vaccines represent 1.5% of the overall sales from most drug companies that produce them along side the REAL money in pharma, prescription drugs.
Well lets see the numbers.
I saw several articles that showed countries spending in the billions to provide swine flu vaccine for everyone. How can a mass produced entity like a vaccine not be profitable, especially considering swine flu vaccine along with seasonl flu shot more or less get distributed on a global scale?
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:49 AM   #26
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
Except "pro-vac" people are using science and the "anti-vac" people are using "do you really trust government/big pharma/chemicals?"

which one of these is an emotional response and which one is based in rationality?
Actually, the U.N. and the American government have been caught in the past doing eugenics research on poor people in 3rd world countries using vaccines contaminated with various diseases.
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:50 AM   #27
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Well lets see the numbers.
I saw several articles that showed countries spending in the billions to provide swine flu vaccine for everyone. How can a mass produced entity like a vaccine not be profitable, especially considering swine flu vaccine along with seasonl flu shot more or less get distributed on a global scale?
The majority of the money is probably spent on distributing the vaccines and administering them. Last time I checked Nurses don't work for free. Also since when is it a crime for a business to make money off something?
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:52 AM   #28
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firebug View Post
I missed this gem



Ah yes, the dreaded 'chemicals'.

Can you define what a chemical is?
Maybe chemical was the wrong word but you can't deny the harm that mercury and formaldehyde (some vaccines contain these ingredients) can inflict on the body.
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:55 AM   #29
firebug
Powerplay Quarterback
 
firebug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mayor of McKenzie Towne
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
Not if the actual risk of getting sick is overhyped and actually pretty small to begin with. In that type of situation, a vaccine program would be more profitable. I am not against vaccines in general. I just don't think they are always necessary.
Could you give some examples of an unnecessary vaccine?

Are any children still getting small pox vaccines?

We are actually getting close to eradicating polio on a global basis; there are only a couple countries in Africa left that are dealing with it. Once that happens I would expect that polio will be removed from the vaccine schedule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
People have a right to do whatever they want.
In which country is this? I am glad I do not live in it.

As far as vaccines go, you are correct. However we would be better off to require people who opt out to pay for any damages caused to society if they act as carriers to vulnerable populations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
I have nothing against people getting vaccinated if that is what they want. I was vaccinated for H1N1 myself. If people don't want to be vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated, that is their choice... no need to get all preachy on them.
There is lots of need to get 'preachy', and even occasional need to get 'snarky' or 'angry'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
You basically asked me for evidence and then made the same claim. People can have adverse reactions to vaccines. It's well documented and I am not going to the research for you. The frequency is not the issue if the vaccines program in question is unecessary to begin with. In that case, any frequency is too high.
Yes, and we have a good understanding of the likelihood and severity of each complication. Also, those complications have been judged to be less severe, as a whole, than those caused by each disease in question.

What evidence do we have that there are unnecessary vaccinations, beyond your gut?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
I do, but thanks for asking.
Maybe the fault then lies in an misunderstanding of probabilities.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"

~P^2
firebug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:57 AM   #30
macker
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

No....no they don't.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouu_TFJ6S0A but they will make you tap your toes uncontrollably......or offer a potential theme song for 2011/Flames
macker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:57 AM   #31
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

You know what is really profitable? Fraud.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9552

Wakefield continues to deny that he has done anything at all wrong and blames the criticisms leveled against him on conspiracies. In reality, given the way the anti-vaccine movement has begun to circle the wagons to defend Wakefield yet again, it’s tempting to claim that this is a conspiracy. Personally, I consider it a conspiracy of utter cluelessness.

One of the NAA’s claims in its press release is that Wakefield’s study has been “repeatedly confirmed,” and the NAA cites five studies that allegedly confirm Wakefield’s fraudulent results. However, as Just the Vax and Sullivan show, these studies do not represent independent confirmation of anything.

Unfortunately, like the Black Knight, not realizing that, scientifically he’s been utterly discredited, Wakefield fights on. Worse, he is still feted by the anti-vaccine movement. Right now, he’s in Jamaica as part of a “vaccine safety” conference whose list of speakers is chock full of anti-vaccine activists.

For Wakefield, even 13 years later, fraud pays.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2688

Every aspect of the alleged new syndrome appears to have been fabricated by Wakefield. It is hard to explain this as just sloppy research. The fingerprints of deliberate fraud seem clear, in my opinion.

The “Big Pharma” gambit is especially lame coming from Wakefield, who had applied for a patent for an vaccine alternative to the MMR he tried to trash in his Lancet paper. It’s always a cheap and easy dig, and plays well to the anti-vaccine crowd. Deer, meanwhile, discloses that he has no financial conflicts of interest. Unable to dig up any actual dirt on Deer defenders of Wakefield resort to claiming that he was paid to write his articles. Yeah – he is a full time journalist who makes his living by getting paid for writing.

Brian Deer and the BMJ have done good work in exposing Wakefield and the Lancet article for what it is. Hopefully this will counteract some of the damage to public health that resulted from his dubious research.
__________________
http://nwcalgarylaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966

Last edited by troutman; 01-06-2011 at 09:00 AM.
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 08:57 AM   #32
firebug
Powerplay Quarterback
 
firebug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mayor of McKenzie Towne
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Maybe chemical was the wrong word but you can't deny the harm that mercury and formaldehyde (some vaccines contain these ingredients) can inflict on the body.
Nor can you deny the scourge that water has been on society.

It is likely that water will kill more people in North America just today than have been killed by mercury globally in the past thousand years.

More intriguingly, the government has actually allowed this dangerous substance to be piped into each of our homes.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"

~P^2

Last edited by firebug; 01-06-2011 at 09:01 AM.
firebug is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to firebug For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 09:04 AM   #33
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Wakefield is not the only guy coming out with this vaccine-autism link. If there is absolutely no question of vaccine safety, why are families being awarded millions of dollars after their child gets autism from taking vaccines?

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/vacci...-poling-family

"Hannah developed autism after receiving vaccinations for nine diseases during one visit to her doctor."
"Soon after receiving the vaccines, Hannah stopped eating, developed high fevers, began having screaming fits, and showed signs of autism. Her parents then filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court."

I don't take any shots myself, including the silly swine flu shot, but I think this vaccine culture of ours is getting out of hand. Most kids in America get way too many vaccines at early age.
Like ...9 shots in one visit for an 18 month old?
Now I'm not a MedMal or Tort attorney, but I'm pretty sure that the "federal vaccine court" is only accesible by passing through a wardrobe of some sort. It's also interesting to note that the linked article has 3 sources, none of which are related to the claimed award of damages based on a vaccine causing autism like symptoms. Good stuff Mikey.
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 09:04 AM   #34
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Maybe chemical was the wrong word but you can't deny the harm that mercury and formaldehyde (some vaccines contain these ingredients) can inflict on the body.
I trust you don't even look at seafood, products from the sea, or even touch any body of water.
chemgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:08 AM   #35
Rathji
Franchise Player
 
Rathji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Actually, the U.N. and the American government have been caught in the past doing eugenics research on poor people in 3rd world countries using vaccines contaminated with various diseases.
Well then let just shut down the entire medical community.

The best part about vague accusations is they can support any premise. Is there any evidence that a simpleton such as myself can read that say these thing actually happened? An article in a medical journal, a report from CNN, some writing on the bathroom wall at the Saddledome?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Rathji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:11 AM   #36
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

While I am entirely in favour of vaccines, the primary cause for the reduction of disease in the Western World has been the introduction of better nutrition and urban sanitation systems. Vaccines, for the most part, have not been responsible for much in the way of disease reduction, except for major exceptions, like polio.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:11 AM   #37
Ashartus
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Maybe chemical was the wrong word but you can't deny the harm that mercury and formaldehyde (some vaccines contain these ingredients) can inflict on the body.
Actually I will deny that, at least in the amounts present in vaccines. Your body naturally produces more formaldehyde than you get from a vaccine, and even for the few vaccines still containing mercury, you get more from your diet - plus the form in vaccines (ethylmercury) is much less toxic and less persistent in the body than the form you get from eating food (methylmercury). Not all mercury-containing compounds are the same. And don't give me the line about injecting into blood vs. eating either - vaccines aren't injected into blood, and absorption of methylmercury in the gut is pretty much 100%. There is no risk from the ethylmercury and formaldehyde in vaccines.
Ashartus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 09:15 AM   #38
Ashartus
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
While I am entirely in favour of vaccines, the primary cause for the reduction of disease in the Western World has been the introduction of better nutrition and urban sanitation systems. Vaccines, for the most part, have not been responsible for much in the way of disease reduction, except for major exceptions, like polio.
Not true for most diseases we vaccinate against, including the targets of the MMR vaccine (which is why when the vaccination rates dropped after Wakefield's fraud, the incidences of these diseases increased again). Improved sanitation helps primarily against food and water-borne diseases (e.g. cholera), not those that are transmitted person to person.
Ashartus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
Old 01-06-2011, 09:16 AM   #39
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji View Post
Well then let just shut down the entire medical community.

The best part about vague accusations is they can support any premise. Is there any evidence that a simpleton such as myself can read that say these thing actually happened? An article in a medical journal, a report from CNN, some writing on the bathroom wall at the Saddledome?
Not a bad reason to be skeptical though when profit motive is involved. The pharmaceutical industry is not comprised of angels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Nigeria
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:17 AM   #40
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashartus View Post
Not true for most diseases we vaccinate against, including the targets of the MMR vaccine (which is why when the vaccination rates dropped after Wakefield's fraud, the incidences of these diseases increased again). Improved sanitation helps primarily against food and water-borne diseases (e.g. cholera), not those that are transmitted person to person.
I didn't say vaccines didn't help, I said they were not primarily responsible for the reduction in disease, such as MMR. We're talking something like <5%, if I remember my single medical anthropology class correctly.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:18 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016