Basically, a vaccine doesn't make you immune to a disease, it makes you highly resistant to it. There's still a risk you can catch it, especially if you have prolonged exposure to people who have it. See, the longer a disease stays in someone, the more chance it has to reproduce and change itself, mutating into a strain the vaccine does not protect against. This is also why you take some vaccines only once, and others every year or so. Essentially, having large groups of people resistant to the disease means there is less chance of the disease getting a foothold in any member of the population, which means less chance overall of someone then catching the disease from another person in the group, and simultaneously reducing the chance of the disease mutating, either into something more virulent, or into something the vaccine can't cover. Eventually, without the ability to spread from host to host, the disease either dies, is overcome by immune systems, or kills the host, and eventually there is no risk of infection for the population. So vaccines work best when everyone takes them, which is the issue here. I'm not quite sure what you mean in the rest of your post. Do you mean you don't like taking medicine YOUNGER than you, due to a lack of knowledge of long term effects? Most "studies" are published and peer-reviewed, and would probably be available to the public, and would likely describe in detail how they came to their results. In general, a drug goes through periods of preliminary testing, animal testing, then human testing, before it goes through an approval process, which often takes time on its own. True, in terms of multiple decades, long-term effects are not known, but at that point it becomes extremely difficult to determine what effects would be due to a single-time vaccine anyway. The fact that people's bodies can react differently to the same stimulus doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of people, results will be reasonably similar.
Thanks. "The more you know..." I meant in the way of if it isn't made before I was born. I'm not taking it. I've list some examples of drugs, including Phen-Fen which I believed had government approval to be in the market. Then they backtracked. Not to sound like a nut but do anyone find it suspicious that H1N1 came about out of the middle of nowhere (its not like that town was isolated) and spread to other parts of the world. I think the vaccine came out too fast too. (Except the thought of because the H1N1 is a cocktail of flus.) Not to mention the medical drugs are a multibillion dollar industry itself. That's why they have commercials that make you think something wrong with you. according to this one article I've read that also mentions other countries banned that practice. All in all diseases (unlike conditions) are doing what war isn't, and vice versa. If you're religious, you have a countdown. If you believe in evolution, believe that humans will develop natural immunity. But if Austism is cause by something that didn't exist before it's first case, then that is what people should avoid. (Even if that includes videogames. What? It's logical to add it to the list. LOL)
Unfortunately we will never develop full natural immunity, because evolution works both ways. Diseases evolve, probably faster than humans do, and we're all stuck with the genes we were born with no matter what. Also something like autism, it's hard to say if there is an 'autism epidemic'. They weren't really looking for it in the past. I don't think as much attention was paid to mental health issues. There were things like Polio and TB to worry about then.
I've never read any research that's convinced me there is a link, and the logic behind the argument for a link is...well, unconvincing to say the least. Your position is such a frustrating one. Your daughter has what sounds to be like some sort of benign skin condition. I can't venture as to what it is, so I won't. But it borders on insane to me that you would choose not to vaccinate a child against potentially lethal diseases because of a skin issue that you have no way of knowing is related to the vaccine and certainly sounds like it's harmless. And no, everyone is not entitled to raise their children the way they think is best. You participate in society, you have to play by certain rules. I'm not saying that necessarily applies to vaccines, but the suggestion that you're somehow allowed to do whatever you think is best regardless of the reality of the situation is ridiculous. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the concept that people are somehow entitled to "not be judged." Sorry, dude, but if you're arguing a fallacious position or doing things that put your children at risk, you're goddam right I'll judge you. I mean, if you're doing something silly, it's silly, right? Just because you think it's okay, in rejection of common sense or evidence, doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you, right? I'm not even talking about vaccines here, just with your position in general. People don't need to respect anything, especially if it's wrong. That being said, I certainly wouldn't have any issue with anyone spacing vaccines out, especially when they do so in consultation with their provider. I love the natural argument! You know, some of the first vaccines were "natural." Smallpox, for example. What's natural? I mean, vaccines are just weakened or inactivated samples of natural diseases. Yes, sometimes there are other chemicals, but thimerosal (the chemical that was most concerning to folks) has been removed. Hell, mercury, which is also a preservative, is natural. And it's known to be toxic, in sufficient doses. So the "natural" tag is pretty useless there. Sure, unnatural things have side effects...but so do natural things. You know, like cocaine. Or aspirin. Or hemlock. There isn't a lack of information available, either. There's plenty of information on how clinical trials on conducted--the fact that you're not medical, and as such, don't have easy access to that information (or, to be real, the foundation of knowledge to understand some of it) doesn't mean it isn't out there. The fact that we figured out Phen Fen is bad is because we were responsible and continued to do research and monitor it. Same as with Yaz--the FDA monitored the sale, quality, and marketing of the drug and followed up on it. Well...no. The fact that everyone has their own way of thinking doesn't make every way correct. And he isn't inherently logical. His position on, say, "natural" things is grounded entirely in "feelings," not logic. Your English is...well, I'll do my best. H1N1 emerged because it mutated. THAT HAPPENS. There's no mystery or conspiracy behind it--it was just time. The vaccine isn't a mystery either. H1N1 is essentially just another strain of influenza, not significantly any more different from the 2009/10 flu is from, say, the 2008/09 strain. Yes, some other countries banned pharmaceutical advertising. I'm torn on that. On one hand, I think people in the country shouldn't have to rely solely on their doctors to get medical information. On the other hand...those companies don't necessarily have patient's best interest in mind and I'm not convinced that most people are smart/educated/motivated enough to synthesize advertising with their own research to make the right decision. But the fact that we have pharmaceutical advertising (and didn't until relatively recently) doesn't have any direct impact on the efficacy of any given medication. Evolution to develop immunity is fine, but you know that works by killing people who aren't immune off, right? I mean, what you seem to be advocating is just letting people die so that we don't need vaccines or medicines to protect them. The cause of "austism" isn't clear, so I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to something that didn't exist before the first case. We've also discussed correlation/causation errors before, so I don't know how I can explain any better how absurd your comment about vaccines and video games in regard to autism is. Also, "All in all diseases (unlike conditions) are doing what war isn't, and vice versa" is a little unclear. What does disease do in place of war, and what does war do "vice versa?"
FDA. I could think of that acronym. "Balance human population," of course. But talking more about this will shift the subject. I know not all natural occurring things healthy to ever form of life. But from what I learned in my university history class that people of African descent was used to fight a war (Can't remember which one, but it was fought South of the U.S) because they had immunities (along with their enemies) against disease that was affecting those of European descent. It proves human adaption. More are less, natural herd immunity. Now in another note, (I wish these articles was cataloged somewhere). I also read that "germs" are becoming more resistance to antibacterial formula. Yes microorganism adapted faster than humans. But don't you think these vaccinations are probably helping them. It's not enough to infect its host but if it is passed to a different host or if it does eventually affect its host, then that microorganism has mutated. Last year, another article mention why its bad to raise children in a germ free environment (I've read it, but it's not archive anywhere) due to lack of developing immunities for adulthood. It doesn't mean one should try to catch everything. But, like allergies, a little bit of whatever could make the body adapt, or not. I don't believe everything I read to be true. But I do like to read both sides and form a conclusion. Is autism a genetic defect? Is it caused by artificial cocktails in our bodies? I don't know, and I'm not in the business to personally find out.
Yeah, that's an elusive one. You don't get off that easy. First off, saying wars do what disease does and disease does what war does still doesn't make any sense. And what does "balance human population" mean? You say "of course" like it's obvious...but I mean, balance with what? Or in accordance with what standards? And what's that have to do with vaccines or natural things or anything else? I mean, you brought it up. ...it doesn't prove anything. It's an anecdote. And what does "more are less" mean? I mean, that's just nonsense, words strung together. Like on Google? And antibiotic resistance is well-established. But no, I don't think vaccines have shit to do with it. I think overpresciption (by providers) and poor compliance (by patients) are the culprits. Vaccines have nothing to do with antibiotic resistance--hell, if anything, they may help prevent it by reducing the need for antibiotic therapy, and thus, reducing the opportunities for microorganisms to adapt. The final sentence of your preceding paragraph demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about pathophysiology. Sure, I've read that before and believe it to be worth considering (it's "archived" all over the place, Google the hygiene hypothesis). What's your point? Vaccines only protect against maybe a dozen diseases, and are unlikely to impair the development of a healthy immune system with no allergies. And in the absence of that knowledge, how can you justify advocating against vaccines that protect against diseases whose cause and consequences are known?
How would vaccines reduce the need for antibiotic therapy? By reducing the risk of viruses compromising the immune system, leaving it open to bacterial infection? I'm curious here, as I thought antibiotics (besides sanitizing agents) only really had an effect on bacterial infections, and vaccines on viral ones.
There are vaccines for a number of bacterial infections: diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, strep pnemoniae, and bacterial meningitis, just offhand. Secondarily, successful prevention of viral illnesses helps reduce the need for antibiotic therapy by reducing the risk of misdiagnosis (can't think someone has a bacterial infection instead of a viral one if they're not sick at all), reducing the incidence of concomitant illnesses, and reducing the rate of empiric treatment.
Thanks, Bryan! Now I know! Here's another question though. Not everyone is vaccinated against everything, such as diseases that are more regional in nature (hence getting your shots before you go abroad). Other than the risk of allergic reaction or side-effects (which I imagine are relatively rare), are there any potential risks of vaccination that are known?
I've got acronyms up the yin-yang. All what matter is you know what I'm talking about. Google. For the key words I've remembered from that article, I'm gonna sift through 47,000 links. To find out where. Google can't always return links from news sites. Especially if it became a subscription afterward. Does me no good when looking up some IEEE info. Please. I take it parse it. File it in my brain and move on. Believe what you want to believe. But through human history, one can see new diseases and cancers infect people. And if medicine was such a profitable industry, I think more careful studies will be taken to find out who it side-effects effect. Going back on the subject. Is Autism a side-effect of out modern era? A genetic defect? or a part of evolution?
Autism may just be one extreme in the neurological spectrum of differing factors that give us individual personalities. Autism as an academic advantage - Boing Boing
