New Law in California

[Dannyalcatraz]

My dad is an allergist, which is a specialized kind of immunologist. Before achieving that specialty, he spent many years as a pediatrician.

Hearing people reject the flu vaccine based on its side effects drives him absolutely nuts. Sure, they suck but flu is one of the leading causes of preventable death out there, to the tune of @30,000 per year. He even had one in person in his own practice.

The man in question was in peak health, but for his allergies. He was an oil-rig worker in in late 20s when he got the flu. The virus migrated from his respiratory system to his heart, damaging it to the point that he was hospitalized. He died waiting for a transplant.

 

[Janx]

Hey, the question re: abortion was uncalled for. Address the issue, not the person.

I think the relevance is that a number of these politics topics are related.

As Raunalyn stated supporting the right to not be forced to have a Medical Procedure, in this case a vaccine was important.

Finding out if that philosophy was applied on the inverse, for having the right to have access to a Medical Procedure was relevant.


It reflects on if the person is applying fair rules or just trying to get their way on all things.

I think Raunalyn's lengthy explanation was rational and fair minded.

 

[tomBitonti]

I think the relevance is that a number of these politics topics are related.

As Raunalyn stated supporting the right to not be forced to have a Medical Procedure, in this case a vaccine was important.

Finding out if that philosophy was applied on the inverse, for having the right to have access to a Medical Procedure was relevant.


It reflects on if the person is applying fair rules or just trying to get their way on all things.

I think Raunalyn's lengthy explanation was rational and fair minded.

I agree that the issues are related, but, there are better ways to approach that point than to focus on one person's beliefs. The link can be simply stated, rather than indirect through the specific person.

Thx!

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

My dad is an allergist, which is a specialized kind of immunologist. Before achieving that specialty, he spent many years as a pediatrician.

Hearing people reject the flu vaccine based on its side effects drives him absolutely nuts. Sure, they suck but flu is one of the leading causes of preventable death out there, to the tune of @30,000 per year. He even had one in person in his own practice.

The man in question was in peak health, but for his allergies. He was an oil-rig worker in in late 20s when he got the flu. The virus migrated from his respiratory system to his heart, damaging it to the point that he was hospitalized. He died waiting for a transplant.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that folks should not get vaccinations, or that there was a particular problem with the flu vaccine. I used that example because it seemed to be one which many folks will have experienced. I'm very much of the opinion that vaccines are a good idea, and folks have badly skewed risk estimates. (But, to bring in another issue: I can sympathize with a parent of an autistic child, or rather, while I can't really know what that's like, since I'm not even a parent, I can figure that it's very very difficult.)

I am wondering what the usual experience of getting the larger set of CDC recommended vaccinations. I've never had to have those extra vaccinations. And, my understanding is that a possible consequence of failing to obtain the vaccinations can lead to one being quarantined on entry to particular countries. I wonder if folks have much of a problem with enforced quarantines, in comparison to enforced vaccinations.

What I can see as the "best" actual issues are (1) adequacy of vaccine supplies (2) quality control in the production of vaccines.

I throw out (1) since (in my view) it may be a much more real problem than (2), or any other currently stated vaccine danger.

But I can see that (2) may be a concern to some folks. That is, not that vaccines are dangerous, but that any failure of the manufacturing process could lead to bad batches, which would be a big problem.

My answers to that are a consideration of how many drugs are taken by folks (at least here in the US), and to ask how the issue as it relates to vaccines is different than the issue for other drugs.

I do see a link between the two issues, in that if (1) is a big problem, there would be tendencies to cheat on (2) to meet demand.

This of course leads us to the issue of how to best ensure good quality vaccines (and other drugs), which brings up questions of industry self-regulation vs. government regulations, including reporting requirements, specific manufacturing requirements, inspections, and penalties for failures.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Kramodlog]

It's exactly what I said...I'm not convinced of the safety or long-term effectiveness.

But that can be said of any vaccine. By anyone. The data contradicts those claims. So why is this one different from other vaccines when the data available says otherwise?

Several countries outside of the US have stopped using this vaccine because of reported deaths and injuries.

With a quick search, all I could find was Japan stopping its programmed and it was critized by its scientist as based on no data.

As I said, I hate to single anyone out, but someone mentioned up-thread about vaccine injury, and I quote:

"Whatever that means. Seriously, it's one of those terms people use to try and make it seem as if there was some nefarious plot to hurt their kids. As you can tell, I find it annoying."

I think its pretty clear what he was saying. The term is overused and misused by conspirationists and it bothers him.

Considering that about 4,000 claims since 1988 have been compensated by the US's program, I'd say the conspirators are rather ineffective at injuring kids with vaccines.

I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion, but yes. I don't like it, but I acknowledge that they have that right.

It was a question to see if your principale was applied uniformely.

No one in this thread, particularly, but it is kind of the root of the problem, is it not? You want to convince these parents to vaccinate, right?

No. There kids should be vaccinated. Period. At some point it is pointless to try convince people of their irrationality. How much must we argue that the Illuminati and Reptilians do not exist?

So if you want to convince them, you need to convince them to deny what they think happened to their children.

If they are compensated for side-effects, how are side-effects denied?

 

[Raunalyn]

This is precisely what I was talking about. Seeing as you are resorting to ridicule and the cries of conspiracy, there's no point in engaging you further.

Getting drawn into a discussion with someone who exhibits a fundamentalist attitude is a waste of my time. Good day.

 

[Kramodlog]

This is precisely what I was talking about. Seeing as you are resorting to ridicule and the cries of conspiracy, there's no point in engaging you further.

Getting drawn into a discussion with someone who exhibits a fundamentalist attitude is a waste of my time. Good day.

I didn't ridicule you or called you anything. I said some anti-vaccine people are conspirationist. I didn't say you were.

I also asked about more info on your opinion that is contradicted by data.

If both of those are "fundamentalist" attitudes, I suggest that you revise your threshold for fundamentalism.

 

[Raunalyn]

I didn't ridicule you or called you anything. I said some anti-vaccine people are conspirationist. I didn't say you were.

And I didn't say you did. But your comment was the very thing I discussed in my original post; shaming, ridiculing, or marginalizing people who believe differently than you do is a form of bullying. Which is a fundamentalist attitude.

I don't have the time nor the patience to deal with that. Therefore this conversation, for me, is done.

 

[Kramodlog]

And I didn't say you did. But your comment was the very thing I discussed in my original post; shaming, ridiculing, or marginalizing people who believe differently than you do is a form of bullying. Which is a fundamentalist attitude.

Not all beliefs are valid and some are more toxic and harmful than others.

Just as someone is free to have an opinion and voice it, I am also free to criticize them and there is nothing fundamentalist about that. When a belief is harmful, it shouldn't be tolerated. I have no problem calling out racists, climate skeptics, cross-fitters, etc.

 

[Umbran]

And I didn't say you did. But your comment was the very thing I discussed in my original post; shaming, ridiculing, or marginalizing people who believe differently than you do is a form of bullying. Which is a fundamentalist attitude.

Bullying is found among fundamentalists. But not all bullying is fundamentalist. I daresay, bullies are found in all corners, not just the fundamentalist one.

I can understand not wanting people who share your opinion to be insulted. But slapping labels on others isn't an appropriate response. It is understandable, but not appropriate.