"not caring about herd health is stupid"
they care about the health of their own kid more.
"have the stats at hand but I'd wager unvaccinated children"
"But six of the cases got their measles-mumps-rubella vaccine—the MMR shot—and still managed to get infected. And all but two of them had gotten at least two doses, the standard recommendation."
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-disneyland-blame-unvaccinated/
I'm not arguing against MMR or polio or chickenpox vaccines, but I appreciate how some parents don't want their children sick, injured, dead from vaccines.
vaccines do make some very sick. eg, google "hpv vaccine adverse events"
You're really going to play that card?
I assume your all for the outright ban on fast food restaurants, junkfood, tobacco, and alcohol?
I do remember Texas having a lot of cities in the top ten fattest with Fat Antonio leading the way about ten years ago.
And your pointing out what may be the legality of a seat belt law?
Then they should vaccinate their children.
You assume wrong.
I am, however all for tax rates that accurately reflect the true cost of something, and using the funds raised from those taxes to mitigate the worst of the effects.
Seatbelt laws are the closest we can get to taxing such risky behavior.
Don't get me started on the ing dolts on motorcycles who don't wear helmets. They should be pulled over and beaten about the head with batons, not given tickets.
And yes, I will play that card, because it is basic economics, and basic science.
People who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children affect the rest of us.
Do you think that isn't the case?
YOU ARE going to have to make that case a bit better and clear if so. YOU ARE going to have to cite some reasoned explanations, and hopefully some actual science on the subject. I am afraid though, YOU ARE not going to do that.
Actually they do, just like any decision. What that affect is, beyond the obvious saving of lives in the case of certain life-threatening pregnancies is another matter.
Killing of an innocent person is not a public issue?
Whatever makes you rest easy.
Everyone seems to have glossed over that I am not an anti vaccer.
I brought up a real world example of someone I know who has had a bad experience with vaccines in a unmentioned consequence.
I said it changes how I judge people on that issue. I'm sorry that this is apparently a close minded group.
guns and police killing 10Ks innocent people every year, THAT's a public health issue, and you don't GAF. A weeks-old fetus, or fertilized egg (1000s flushed away by fert clinics and you pro-life Christians say nothing), isn't a "person".
An abortion is like any other medical procedure, with risks and consequences. Further on down the line, you also have other economic impacts of kids or no kids, depending on who is having them.
I would point out that denying an abortion in the case that a mothers life is in jeopardy has some very specific consequences, and leads to a large amount of expense, and potentially death.
Killing innocent people does worry me. It is one of the reasons I oppose the death penalty.
Of course, abortions don't do that, so I am fine. The government forcing women to be pregnant is not something I am comfortable with.
Perhaps I was too general in my wording but overall abortions don't have a direct impact on public health...at least not a measurable direct impact.
Public issue isn't the same as public HEALTH issue.
This only follows if these people you're judging are the people you know, who happen to have experience with adverse vaccine reactions. People that use adverse reactions as an excuse, with no background for assuming higher risk in their children, are using information improperly. Any potential adverse event should be informed on but should never be used as a reason to forgo vaccination, assuming there is no do ented individual predisposition. If that is too "close minded" for you I don't know what to tell you.
Seems to me i'm the one that brought up a real case of a vaccine causing irreversible damage, and bascially said "hey, keep an open mind about this, I'm not against vaccines and IMO your dumb if you don't but this is real" I've never heard of that condition before and i've had to google it more than once.
And i'm getting blasted for this? And that's not close minded?
And boutons, sorry but i'm not pro-life. I'm not pro-choice either.
Like the vast majority of americans, i lie in the middle who believe that its not a right of every woman but should be available in medical/rape/other scenario's.
They should make a law that killing people is illegal Boutons and that would solve the murder issue.
Because cases of vaccines causing problems happened within your realm does not change the numbers. You do a great diservice to your child and those around. I imagine some people don't wear seat belts because they know someone who died because of the restraint. Except they usually don't kill others around them by becoming a human projectile.
I have NEVER had the flu. Even before I started getting vaccinated. I get vaccinated every year by choice because I realize I can be a real risk to those around me as a carrier. My choice. When you are waiting to get vaccinated and hear the stories of people around you... it helps understanding. My world.
We appreciate your info but it's purely anecdotal. It really should have no bearing on vaccination decisions. If you did say people who don't vaccinate are "dumb" then that's good. I just don't recall that.
Well, given that the demographics of women who seek abortion tends toward the poor side, and poor people tend to be, overall, less healthy, I would again disagree.
I think the impact on overall public health and costs of the health care system would be quite substantial, although determining what the exact impact is to a reasonable degree would be rather difficult due to the number of variables.
I think we're arguing over semantics at this point. We agree on the main issue and that's all that really matters.
HPV vaccine carries 25% chance of lifelong sterilization,
25% of girls who receive the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine end up sterilized. They will never be able to conceive children.
Researchers examined 8 million women in the United States between 25 and 29.
Among married women who had never been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, 75% had had at least one child.
Among married women who had been vaccinated, the number was 50%.
The same gap existed in unmarried women – about 25% fewer vaccinated women had conceived children.
The study’s authors report that statistically if all 8 million women in the study had been vaccinated,
the United States would have suffered a catastrophic drop in the US birth rate that would have translated into 2 million fewer babies.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...udy-finds.aspx
“scientific paper” authored by professor in economics and finance
ive only been able to read the abstract for free, and all it does is point out some percentages while providing no reasoning or medical mechanism to support the link between them.
Booboo sharing trash per par
Not really all that comfortable with forced pregnancy. A woman should have the FINAL say in her own body, period.
Booboo: anti-science repugs are dangerous
also booboo: Ooga-booga vaccines are bad!
Well, the author's statement is well within his area of expertise. Data regression is the economists purview.
"Further research is warranted". It would seem worth doing some research on.
It was in a credible, peer-reviewed journal.
Does it prove "sterilization"? NO.
You are exactly right that no mechanism is identified. That would be required to prove linkage, and eliminate other possibilities for reduced instances of pregnancy, such as say, also having access to birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, something that would FULLY explain lowered fertility rates, just as easily.
This is a perfect example of stupid anti-vaxxers say.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-24-2018 at 10:44 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)