By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Are mandatory vaccinations good or bad for us?

curl-6 on 27 March 2012
Metallicube said:

 Better to let your immune system work itself and do its own thing. It's like George Carlin says, your immune system needs germs to practice on.


There's plenty of germs out there to "practice on" without risking diseases like Measles, Polio, etc

I have a incredibly strong immune system (probably from playing around with a lot of dirt and stuff when I was a kid) and I've had tons of vaccines; MMR, DTP, Hep B, Polio...



Around the Network
curl-6 on 27 March 2012
Stefl1504 said:
Rath said:
Metallicube said:

Good for kids and old people/ those with weak immune systems? Yes. Good for anyone else? No. Better to let your immune system work itself and do its own thing. It's like George Carlin says, your immune system needs germs to practice on.

And I don't know about you, but I don't exactly trust getting shot with high concentrations of mercury into my bloodstream. Those who create the vaccines will always be one step behind anyway, since there will always be new viruses out there that are immune to it.


Yes, letting your immune system practice on measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, polio, tetanus etc. would be a great thing /sarcasm

It's true that exposure to germs strengthens your immune system, however exposure to deadly diseases kills/cripples people. Also the vaccines haven't fallen behind - smallpox is now only in labs, polio is nearly gone too and measles, mumps and rubella have all been drastically reduced.

@ bolded, smallpox still being existent in labs is actually pretty dangerous, if it ever got loose it would be one hell of a catastrophy... but it is a good biological weapon nowadays :D - the human of today sadly never encountered the smallpox, so we do not have anything that can harm the illness... its like being a native american first encountering european diseases... well probably not that bad since the smallpox isn't gone that long... well to the point... they should just kill them all (the smallpox ;P)! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

It's still dangerous, true, but think of the lives that have been saved by it's eradication. As recently as 1967, 2 million p[eople wer dying of it every year, and that was even WITH widespread vaccination in many countries. It's been 35 years since the world's last case of smallpox, so even wihout factoring in population growth or anything since then, that's 70 million lives saved.



Rath on 27 March 2012
curl-6 said:
Stefl1504 said:
Rath said:
Metallicube said:

Good for kids and old people/ those with weak immune systems? Yes. Good for anyone else? No. Better to let your immune system work itself and do its own thing. It's like George Carlin says, your immune system needs germs to practice on.

And I don't know about you, but I don't exactly trust getting shot with high concentrations of mercury into my bloodstream. Those who create the vaccines will always be one step behind anyway, since there will always be new viruses out there that are immune to it.


Yes, letting your immune system practice on measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, polio, tetanus etc. would be a great thing /sarcasm

It's true that exposure to germs strengthens your immune system, however exposure to deadly diseases kills/cripples people. Also the vaccines haven't fallen behind - smallpox is now only in labs, polio is nearly gone too and measles, mumps and rubella have all been drastically reduced.

@ bolded, smallpox still being existent in labs is actually pretty dangerous, if it ever got loose it would be one hell of a catastrophy... but it is a good biological weapon nowadays :D - the human of today sadly never encountered the smallpox, so we do not have anything that can harm the illness... its like being a native american first encountering european diseases... well probably not that bad since the smallpox isn't gone that long... well to the point... they should just kill them all (the smallpox ;P)! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

It's still dangerous, true, but think of the lives that have been saved by it's eradication. As recently as 1967, 2 million p[eople wer dying of it every year, and that was even WITH widespread vaccination in many countries. It's been 35 years since the world's last case of smallpox, so even wihout factoring in population growth or anything since then, that's 70 million lives saved.


He's not complaining about the fact that it's been removed from the human population - he's complaining about it still existing at all.

I kind of agree with him, though there is scientific interest in examing smallpox samples still I'm not sure it's worth the risk...



curl-6 on 27 March 2012
Rath said:
curl-6 said:
Stefl1504 said:
Rath said:

Yes, letting your immune system practice on measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, polio, tetanus etc. would be a great thing /sarcasm

It's true that exposure to germs strengthens your immune system, however exposure to deadly diseases kills/cripples people. Also the vaccines haven't fallen behind - smallpox is now only in labs, polio is nearly gone too and measles, mumps and rubella have all been drastically reduced.

@ bolded, smallpox still being existent in labs is actually pretty dangerous, if it ever got loose it would be one hell of a catastrophy... but it is a good biological weapon nowadays :D - the human of today sadly never encountered the smallpox, so we do not have anything that can harm the illness... its like being a native american first encountering european diseases... well probably not that bad since the smallpox isn't gone that long... well to the point... they should just kill them all (the smallpox ;P)! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

It's still dangerous, true, but think of the lives that have been saved by it's eradication. As recently as 1967, 2 million p[eople wer dying of it every year, and that was even WITH widespread vaccination in many countries. It's been 35 years since the world's last case of smallpox, so even wihout factoring in population growth or anything since then, that's 70 million lives saved.


He's not complaining about the fact that it's been removed from the human population - he's complaining about it still existing at all.

I kind of agree with him, though there is scientific interest in examing smallpox samples still I'm not sure it's worth the risk...

I don't trust Russia with it given their habit of screwing around with biological weapons, but the US stocks are very carefully handled. They actually only work with a section of the virus's DNA at a time, not a whole virus. (The whole ones are kept locked away under constant guard)

What makes smallpox especially valuable as an object of study is that it uses so many tricks to fight and evade our immune systems that if we can figure out how they work we can potentially cure many other diseases.



Superman4 on 27 March 2012
curl-6 said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
Depending where you live, there's no such thing as "mandatory vaccination". All medical procedures in Canada require consent; if the parents refuse to have their children vaccinated then there's nothing anybody in Health Care can do about it.

Without a doubt the vaccine has been the most important and effective product of medical science and one of the most beneficial advancements in any scientific field. Bad science, illogic and loud celebrities have raised a lot of unfounded fears regarding vaccines, but the truth is that they are the safest way to protect one's self against infection and the best way to protect entire populations. Adverse reactions are exceptionally rare and usually manifest as a rash or flu-like symptoms. Anyone who believes that vaccines and disorders such as autism have a positive correlation should be taken to task and shown the facts; this might help them protect themselves and their children from a whole slew of nasty illnesses.

But there are those who have decided against them for ethical reasons, and while I may disagree with their conclusion, I find that rationale acceptable. Choosing not to be vaccinated for whatever moral reason is one thing. Choosing not to because of bad science is another.

If you want my advice, get all your shots as scheduled and be sure to continue receiving them throughout your adult life as recommended. There may not be mandatory vaccination everywhere, but there should be.


Could not have said it better.

The thing is, by resisting vaccines you're not only putting yourself or your children in danger, but the people around you as well; your community, your country, the world. A certain percentage of immunity is needed in a population to achieve "herd immunity," where epidemics cannot or are extremely unlikely to occur because there are too few vulnerable hosts.

After the MMR vaccine scare in 1998, where is was (falsely) claimed that then vaccine caused autism in children, many parents refused to vaccinate their kids. The result? Immunity levels dropped sharply, and outbreaks of measles and mumps skyrocketed. By 2008, measles had became in the UK again, for the first time since 1994.

Similrly, when religious extremists in Nigeria branded vaccine as a Western ploy to infect their children with HIV or sterilise them, and discouraged parents from vaccinating their children, diseases like polio made a dramatic comeback, ravaging not only Nigeria, but neighbouring countries.

That part I disagree with. There has been no proof that it does not cause it. In fact a vast majority of syptoms occur directly after injection. I am ok with vaccination because I understand the resoning. I do not ever get a flu shot because I would rather take my chances than their best guess as to what version will hit. I rarly get sick. What I do not like about the kids vaccine and the reason I waited as long as possible to get them for my kids is that they stack a number of them into 1 or two shots. This is where I feel the issues with Autism come in to play. 1 vacccine at a time over a longer duration would be much easier on the system. I would much rather get 1 shot per month for each issue. Instead of having 6 rolled up into one and given the same day. It kinda puts the body on fuul attack mode.



Around the Network
Rath on 27 March 2012
curl-6 said:
Rath said:
curl-6 said:
Stefl1504 said:
Rath said:

Yes, letting your immune system practice on measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, polio, tetanus etc. would be a great thing /sarcasm

It's true that exposure to germs strengthens your immune system, however exposure to deadly diseases kills/cripples people. Also the vaccines haven't fallen behind - smallpox is now only in labs, polio is nearly gone too and measles, mumps and rubella have all been drastically reduced.

@ bolded, smallpox still being existent in labs is actually pretty dangerous, if it ever got loose it would be one hell of a catastrophy... but it is a good biological weapon nowadays :D - the human of today sadly never encountered the smallpox, so we do not have anything that can harm the illness... its like being a native american first encountering european diseases... well probably not that bad since the smallpox isn't gone that long... well to the point... they should just kill them all (the smallpox ;P)! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

It's still dangerous, true, but think of the lives that have been saved by it's eradication. As recently as 1967, 2 million p[eople wer dying of it every year, and that was even WITH widespread vaccination in many countries. It's been 35 years since the world's last case of smallpox, so even wihout factoring in population growth or anything since then, that's 70 million lives saved.


He's not complaining about the fact that it's been removed from the human population - he's complaining about it still existing at all.

I kind of agree with him, though there is scientific interest in examing smallpox samples still I'm not sure it's worth the risk...

I don't trust Russia with it given their habit of screwing around with biological weapons, but the US stocks are very carefully handled. They actually only work with a section of the virus's DNA at a time, not a whole virus. (The whole ones are kept locked away under constant guard)

What makes smallpox especially valuable as an object of study is that it uses so many tricks to fight and evade our immune systems that if we can figure out how they work we can potentially cure many other diseases.

The WHO apparently disagrees and thinks they should be destroyed.



curl-6 on 27 March 2012
Superman4 said:
curl-6 said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
Depending where you live, there's no such thing as "mandatory vaccination". All medical procedures in Canada require consent; if the parents refuse to have their children vaccinated then there's nothing anybody in Health Care can do about it.

Without a doubt the vaccine has been the most important and effective product of medical science and one of the most beneficial advancements in any scientific field. Bad science, illogic and loud celebrities have raised a lot of unfounded fears regarding vaccines, but the truth is that they are the safest way to protect one's self against infection and the best way to protect entire populations. Adverse reactions are exceptionally rare and usually manifest as a rash or flu-like symptoms. Anyone who believes that vaccines and disorders such as autism have a positive correlation should be taken to task and shown the facts; this might help them protect themselves and their children from a whole slew of nasty illnesses.

But there are those who have decided against them for ethical reasons, and while I may disagree with their conclusion, I find that rationale acceptable. Choosing not to be vaccinated for whatever moral reason is one thing. Choosing not to because of bad science is another.

If you want my advice, get all your shots as scheduled and be sure to continue receiving them throughout your adult life as recommended. There may not be mandatory vaccination everywhere, but there should be.


Could not have said it better.

The thing is, by resisting vaccines you're not only putting yourself or your children in danger, but the people around you as well; your community, your country, the world. A certain percentage of immunity is needed in a population to achieve "herd immunity," where epidemics cannot or are extremely unlikely to occur because there are too few vulnerable hosts.

After the MMR vaccine scare in 1998, where is was (falsely) claimed that then vaccine caused autism in children, many parents refused to vaccinate their kids. The result? Immunity levels dropped sharply, and outbreaks of measles and mumps skyrocketed. By 2008, measles had became in the UK again, for the first time since 1994.

Similrly, when religious extremists in Nigeria branded vaccine as a Western ploy to infect their children with HIV or sterilise them, and discouraged parents from vaccinating their children, diseases like polio made a dramatic comeback, ravaging not only Nigeria, but neighbouring countries.

That part I disagree with. There has been no proof that it does not cause it. In fact a vast majority of syptoms occur directly after injection. I am ok with vaccination because I understand the resoning. I do not ever get a flu shot because I would rather take my chances than their best guess as to what version will hit. I rarly get sick. What I do not like about the kids vaccine and the reason I waited as long as possible to get them for my kids is that they stack a number of them into 1 or two shots. This is where I feel the issues with Autism come in to play. 1 vacccine at a time over a longer duration would be much easier on the system. I would much rather get 1 shot per month for each issue. Instead of having 6 rolled up into one and given the same day. It kinda puts the body on fuul attack mode.

The study that claimed the MMR vaccine was linked to autism was found to be fraudulent and retracted, and its author was found guilty of manipulating evidence and was bannd from practising as a doctor.

Numerous studies by groups such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the UK National Health Service have shown no link.



Mendicate Bias on 27 March 2012
Ancalagon The Black said:
Mandatory vaccinations are not a good idea. They used to be when all they did was cover the basics (mumps, measles, rubella, chicken pox etc.) It was tried and true and seemed to work well for a long time.

In the last 2 decades though they have been treating us as guinea pigs and adding things to the mix that simply do not need to be there.

These new vaccines that the drug companies are pushing are based on fear mongering with very little science involved. These are simply money generators and have been shown to have adverse side effects.

Examples.

H1N1 swine flu vaccination

(HPV) vaccine. They are even trying to give this one to boys even though it's been shown by the FDA that it does nothing to prevent papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer.

The yearly flu vaccine they cook up and have no time to test due to rapid mutation in the flu virus. (Kills more people than it helps)


Keep it simple and take care of the basics i say. These cocktails they try and pawn off on us these days are bad for us plain and simple.

Please stop talking out of your ass and show proof that the FDA said HPV vaccine does not prevent papillomavirus.

And I want scientific articles, not some bullshit blog.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

curl-6 on 27 March 2012
Rath said:
curl-6 said:
Rath said:
curl-6 said:
Stefl1504 said:
Rath said:

Yes, letting your immune system practice on measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, polio, tetanus etc. would be a great thing /sarcasm

It's true that exposure to germs strengthens your immune system, however exposure to deadly diseases kills/cripples people. Also the vaccines haven't fallen behind - smallpox is now only in labs, polio is nearly gone too and measles, mumps and rubella have all been drastically reduced.

@ bolded, smallpox still being existent in labs is actually pretty dangerous, if it ever got loose it would be one hell of a catastrophy... but it is a good biological weapon nowadays :D - the human of today sadly never encountered the smallpox, so we do not have anything that can harm the illness... its like being a native american first encountering european diseases... well probably not that bad since the smallpox isn't gone that long... well to the point... they should just kill them all (the smallpox ;P)! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

It's still dangerous, true, but think of the lives that have been saved by it's eradication. As recently as 1967, 2 million p[eople wer dying of it every year, and that was even WITH widespread vaccination in many countries. It's been 35 years since the world's last case of smallpox, so even wihout factoring in population growth or anything since then, that's 70 million lives saved.


He's not complaining about the fact that it's been removed from the human population - he's complaining about it still existing at all.

I kind of agree with him, though there is scientific interest in examing smallpox samples still I'm not sure it's worth the risk...

I don't trust Russia with it given their habit of screwing around with biological weapons, but the US stocks are very carefully handled. They actually only work with a section of the virus's DNA at a time, not a whole virus. (The whole ones are kept locked away under constant guard)

What makes smallpox especially valuable as an object of study is that it uses so many tricks to fight and evade our immune systems that if we can figure out how they work we can potentially cure many other diseases.

The WHO apparently disagrees and thinks they should be destroyed.

Well, I think the WHO is wrong. 

The DNA of smallpox has been sequenced; it could be synthesized from scratch by an advanced enough lab with the right peope and knowledge, so destroying all remaining stocks, (assuming Russia wouldn't secretly keep stocks, and I don't trust them not to) would do nothing but rob of us the opportunity to learn about the virus and use this knowledge to save lives.



Stefl1504 on 27 March 2012
curl-6 said:
Rath said:

The WHO apparently disagrees and thinks they should be destroyed.

Well, I think the WHO is wrong. 

The DNA of smallpox has been sequenced; it could be synthesized from scratch by an advanced enough lab with the right peope and knowledge, so destroying all remaining stocks, (assuming Russia wouldn't secretly keep stocks, and I don't trust them not to) would do nothing but rob of us the opportunity to learn about the virus and use this knowledge to save lives.

I trust neither in case of potential biological weaponry, not the US and not Russia, I think such health risks should be destroyed before giving anyone the opportunity to tamper with its genetical material, possibly creating a ultra-smallpox-virus, were vaccines may not be helping anymore or a new vaccine has to be found in order to protect people from it. About the possibility of rebuilding Smallpox - well doing something against it now is to late, but at least there isn't the possibility of an outbreak as long as no one artificially reproduces them. How often have we heard of catastrophies caused by "safe" facilities up to now.

On the other hand, we could say that humankind is once again on the edge of letting an 'animal' get extinct... well more like extincting it ;P



Currently Streaming: Tales of Xillia & Best Doto - My DotA 2 stats