While I know shingles and the pox are the same thing I am actually wondering how long the vax (double dose… we already know a single dose is not enough) for CP actually lasts vs getting the wild version. I know those of us who had the joy of getting the wild version have a 1/3 chance* of getting shingles later in life… I’m also sort of wondering how the vax will affect kids later in life. Along those lines I also also wonder how having herpes (mouth, genital or mono) affects your chances of shingles when you are older.
After watching my oldest being absolutely miserable and only being told “give him uber-dosages of Benadryl-- which is now a no-no drug” I wonder what is in store for me the next 10-20 years when grandkids show up (since no vax is 100% and I hope to be babysitting at some point).
*
Can we also make sure political appointees dont run the CDC or that its leaders dont leave and get high paying jobs with the same corporations they have been doing research about?
I mean do you really think Merck or Pfizer would hire someone who has done research where the results were critical of their products?
The former director of the CDCJulie Gerberding, is now head of Merk’s vaccination department.
Interesting that Merck makes 14 of the 17 vaccines for children and 9 of 10 for adults recommended by the CDC.
I want to address this.
Just because a person has concerns with vaccines does not make them anti-vaxxer. We still support them in general but just feel our kids are over-vaccinated and vaccinated too young before their bodies are able to handle it. My kids for example are fully vaccinated but we did them later than CDC guidelines.
The question is, what did you fear would happen if you had vaccinated them according to the CDC schedule, and what is the medical theory behind that outcome? Why is it bad to “over-vaccinate” a child? What is the mechanism that exceeds their body’s ability to handle it?
You feel a number of things, you pose questions based on those feelings and propaganda from people who’ve created a web of lies based on such feelings, but you consistently ignore the actual, well researched, rock solid answers to those questions.
Fear Itself is trying the Socratic approach in the previous post. I think that’s futile, as you’ve shown no ability to evaluate your stance, so here’s the reality those questions are attempting to help you grasp.
Most importantly there is very good evidence from the data gathered about medical safety in every first world country in the world and additional medical research, much of it outside the control of the CDC and big pharmaceuticals that the CDC schedule does not pose a risk over other schedules or a risk not worth the benefits.
There is no theoretical way for the concept of “over-vaccination” as described to exist.
Stop asking questions if you’re just going to ignore the actual answers.
A person who claims to have read what you say you have in the OP, posts questions that have already been addressed in what he claims to have read, refuses to respond to those who address his OP, then posts a new list of questions?
Seems anti-vaxish to me.
Given that the purpose of this site is fighting ignorance, would it be out of line to request the mods add a disclaimer to the title of this thread or something?
I have a PhD in immunology. My thesis involved vaccine development. I work for a drug development company. If there is a conspiracy around vaccines, I would personally have to be in on it.
I have three kids that are fully vaccinated on exactly the recommended schedule. Because there isn’t a conspiracy.
Well shit, work with us here. Help us find a new term to describe people like you - people who don’t think all vaccines are bad, but are still willing to ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus with regards to their safety and when and how it is safe to administer them, while also sharing and endorsing blatantly dishonest and unreasonable sources which push a far more extreme anti-vaccine position - and advocating absurd conspiracy theories about vaccines and the scientific method:
(Oh, and who, by the way, cite websites which are definitely anti-vaccine in the extreme as his primary sources.)
I’m sorry, what, exactly is the problem supposed to be here? Julie Gerberding is an expert on infectious diseases. It is her field of study. If she leaves a government job, it is entirely expected that she goes on to work in industry. It’s either that or academia, and you can have one guess which pays better. Should we just expect government workers to never work in their field of expertise again after leaving their previous employ? Why do you think this matters at all? Conflict of interest? Well then it should be really easy for you or some other concerned scientist to go through the research surrounding her decisions and show why she’s wrong. Show where her conflict of interest colored her decisions, and how she ignored or unreasonably weighted the existing research. I don’t think you can do that. I don’t think you actually spent more than five minutes thinking about this before posting it. The fact is that the decisions made by the CDC are backed up by mountains of evidence. Her successor did absolutely nothing to overturn her decisions - is that person bought by big pharma as well?
Oh, and on what basis do you make the claim that a company would never hire someone, regardless of how qualified, that had done research critical of their products? That sounds like pure WAG to me.
Oh, that reminds me. Thought of a better term yet? While we’re thinking about that term, keep in mind that that same group includes, among other people, Jenny McCarthy.
Nah, dude. The shoe fits. I love how you’re unwilling to address any of the evidence put forward that “Vaxxed” is a pile of utter shite - unwilling to defend or retract the position of your first post, in other words - but you are willing to drop everything and object to us calling a spade a spade, as well as throw up another conspiracy that makes very little sense.
So your children had a delayed vaccination schedule, and one has autism, right? So in your opinion, did the delayed schedule still cause autism? If you believe that even a delayed schedule causes autism, why wouldn’t you call yourself an anti-vaxxer?
If you had another child, right now, today, would you vaccinate the child fully?
Yes. Vaccines are quite different in how they work and whether boosters are needed. She’s off visiting her father now, but there are many government websites with good information on this kind of thing.
You “feel” that way. And your feelings of course trump careful scientific investigations. People also “feel” that homeopathy works, and they “feel” that the magic supplement sold on the internet will cure their cancer or their ED or their bonkus of the conkus.
The problem is that those who feel strongly about this and never get their children vaccinated put children who can’t be vaccinated at risk.
Then you should be especially leery of “Vaxxed” and those who made it and are out promoting it, because they are delivering an explicit antivaccine message. To remind you of what that is, it goes well beyond endorsing the view that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
*"…in several cities, the Vaxxed team – discredited scientist Andrew Wakefield, his collaborator Polly Tommey, and producer Del Bigtree, and occasionally others – followed certain screenings with a question and answer session. In those sessions they made false claims that could mislead parents away from protecting their children by vaccinating.
The Vaxxed team claimed that preventable diseases were not prevented by vaccines. Among other things they claimed that vaccines were both ineffective and unsafe, ignoring abundant research showing the opposite: modern vaccines are extremely safe and effective.
Del Bigtree falsely described the hepatitis B vaccine – that protects against a virus that can cause liver disease and cancer – as “injecting a sexually transmitted disease”, potentially scaring parents off protecting their children against this dangerous infection. Finally, the Vaxxed team warned listeners against seeing pediatricians, because they can’t be trusted".*
I’d like to see how you reconcile your support for this movie with the statement that you generally endorse vaccination. But I doubt such an explanation will be forthcoming.
The revelation that your children are fully vaccinated on a delayed schedule is nice - but since there’s zero actual evidence that a delayed schedule reduces vaccine-associated risks (and only increases the chance of disease), it doesn’t make sense - unless your “gut” feeling again outweighs science and clinical experience.