That was for a particular vaccine that the CDC also went antivax on:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/health/cdc-flumist-nasal-spray-flu-vaccine/index.html
Also ACIP :
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html
And only for someone who got severe symptoms, 2 years in a row with this vaccine.
Much as I would love to say nasty things about him, he is not touting antivax in that thread. He is saying that his kid has a bad reaction to flu shots, from past experience. That does happen, and is the reason why it is important for those of us who do not have bad reactions to vaccines to get them.
Bullshit. Did you even read your own cites? The CDC recommended against it because it was less effective, not because it was actively dangerous. That first article even mentions the CDC would be willing to recommend it again once its success rates improve.
If the only options were “no vax” and “flu mist”, are you honestly suggesting the CDC would tell people not to vaccinate? Fuck no. They still recommend getting the regular shot, which is, if my English is still correct, the exact opposite of anti-vax, you fucking loon.
I didn’t say the CDC said it was dangerous, just they went anti-vax on that one , which it was as he got the flu with that, or at least flu like symptoms.
I said the CDC went antivax on that particular vax, I was not implying that they went cookoo antivax :smack::rolleyes:
Coming clean:
I will admit I have personal reasons to not trust the flu vaccine in particular because what happened with my kid with the vaccine for 2 years and went without for 4, and got the flu once which was about the same as the side effects of the vaccine. With that I am comforted by antiviral meds that can lessen the duration of the flu if one is given proper medical attention which he is given. If we were not told he could get the flu, or then didn’t know that he could get the flu from flumist, they dropped the ball. I don’t want him to suffer again like that.
Additionally I and am somewhat suspect with a new vaccine (I would like a few years for them to find out the long term effects) and a flu vaccine is new every year, so I am a bit uneasy about that one in particular.
Other than that I feel vaccines are great, don’t plan to opt out as I would want him to ge them, and myself. We do plan to get him the HVP one when he starts reaching that age.
Nope. You’re still pushing anti-vax bullshit.
And The Niece is at it again, posting preachy stuff from this self-professed expert:
Worth reading just for the smh factor, but I will boil it down to a few main points:
*Vaccines are full of nasty stuff/contaminants and dead babies.
*You should stop buying into “Fear propaganda.”
*Vaccines are sorcery, which is evil.
Not really, no.
Why link to an idiot scumbag site like this - just seems like you’re pushing traffic to it.
Aren’t 1 & 3 “fear propaganda”?
Well, yes, but I was looking specifically at the part about how people should stop being afraid of polio and iron lungs.
It’s just an example of what we’re dealing with when we’re up against the anti-vaccination crowd, especially the very religious ones. Since they sincerely believe that vaccines are inherently immoral and evil, there is no way to reason them out of it.
I ran into a comment on an online book review a few days ago, in which the commenter said we need to get the image of iron lungs out of our heads.
It’s also important to never never think about kids with birth defects caused by congenital rubella infection, which is why we should denounce the news media for reporting on all the people who may have been exposed to rubella recently at a Detroit auto show.
It’s what happened to Golden Age Hollywood actress Gene Tierney in 1943. She was working the Hollywood Canteen while pregnant with her daughter Daria and a fan broke her rubella quarantine to see the star. Tierney contracted rubella and it profoundly disabled her daughter while in gestation. The incident was used by Agatha Christie as backstory for her novel “The Mirror Crack’d From Side To Side”.
Say what? Did you take your kid to the hospital when those reactions happened? Either your kid had a severe reaction to the shot, or you have no idea what the symptoms of the flu actually are.
It’s more an issue of her confusing correlation and causation. In general, neither Democrats nor Republicans in legislatures are antivax. However, Republicans tend to sponsor lots of “religious liberty” bills that permit religious exemptions to public health measures, which typically include mandatory vaccination. Democrats tend to sponsor public health measures, which typically include mandatory vaccination.
Outside legislatures, anti-vaccination views are only a little bit more common among liberals. Vaccination tends to correlate quite strongly with race; black children are most likely to be *under-*vaccinated, while other studies show that white kids are most likely to be unvaccinated.
I pretty much agree, though it’s difficult to see a significant difference among the liberal and conservative rank and file regarding vaccination. Older Americans (who tend to be somewhat more conservative) remember the consequences of vaccine-preventable diseases and generally support vaccination, while younger people never experienced them and often are unaware of their consequences.
I’ve been rereading Paul Offit’s “Autism’s False Prophets” and it’s interesting to see how the political winds have shifted. In the early heady days of the modern antivax movement (when thimerosal and the alleged perils of the MMR vaccine were getting considerable serious media attention, before good science refuted claims about them), both Democratic and Republican politicians glommed onto antivax sentiment (on the Dem side, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were involved).
In recent times, the small minority of pols who espouse antivax ideas and attempt to push antivax bills through legislatures (many under the guise of “health freedom”) are heavily Republican/conservative, while Democrats steer away from such tactics and tend to support pro-immunization initiatives like California’s SB277, introduced and successfully brought to a positive vote by state Sen. Richard Pan, who has become a leading bogeyman among antivaxers.
While I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton, she does deserve praise for being an unabashed supporter of vaccination (her daughter Chelsea has been viciously attacked for similar views).
The anti vaxxers often mention Pan and HRC when declaring that they don’t want somebody to force them to vaccinate their kids and that they want to maintain their parental rights.
Now that I’ve read this, I’m going to make sure I raise it with every anti-vaxxer I meet.
Measles, it turns out, suppress the immune system for two to three years after infection. And a new theory holds that it also wipes out the immune system’s “memory” of other diseases, so the immunity developed before measles has to be redeveloped. It’s called immune amnesia.
Of course they’ll refuse to believe it, but I intend to hit 'em with all the science I can. Refusing to vaccinate is child endangerment, in my book.
I wish you luck. You’re going to need a lot of it. They will tell you that vaccines are dangerous, immoral, full of contaminants, poisonous, and loaded with aborted fetal tissue… and that they cause not only autism but also cancer, Alzheimer’s, and pretty much everything else you can think of.
Oh God, you are so right. (I’m not calling you God, though, you know, if the shoe fits…) I posted the link on a social media account and I already have a friend who’s posted those very concernsI’m encouraged that after reading the article, science-background friend said she’s now unsure what to think.
Thanks for wishing me luck. I know I won’t succeed most of the time, but I refuse to let these claims go unchallenged. What is it with these people who trust science on one issue but not another? Both my anti-vaxxer friends are ardent environmentalists. People are change.