A YouTube video by a Montreal “certified naturopath” that critics are calling out for offering “completely insane” advice — including false claims that vaccines poison babies and cause autism
The efforts to defeat a plague childhood diseases was a monumental achievement of mankind lead by the United States which was comparable to putting men on the Moon and yet antivavers, uterly ignorant of all of this, are vainly willing to throw it all away at all of our children's perils..
Vaccination has saved exponentially far more lives than all other medical "advances" in history. The only measure that has saved more are water cleanliness standards--another public health measure rather than some new "miracle drug."
That was almost 40 years before Koch actually isolated the bacteria (vibrio cholerae) thus well before the idea of what's popularly referred to as the germ theory of disease had been accepted by the medical world; and get this: the doctor's name was John Snow.
At the risk of being categorized, as often I post a different perspective and some fail to read the full context, I will say few things in life are absolute.
So, I know a fella who is a career ANZAC who has had several stints in Afghanistan. Very healthy young man at the age of 31. Very athletic at 6'5" perfect BMI (not that I am sold on BMI), participates in extreme sports. Unbelievable picture of some of his "stunts". Don't know what else to call them
However, he had some predisposition to some some things. Previous medical people did not want him to have a certain vaccination.
New Med officer in charge demands he get said vaccination prior to a deployment. Other Med folks petition against it. New Med officer overrules. He is given the vaccination and within hours he is in hospital with a stroke. Yes a stroke.
New Med officer is reassigned off his case and others more familiar with his situation reassigned on his case.
He was fortunate to be in the right place at the right time along with being VERY healthy that the damage was contained and minimized quickly. Still took a long to to recover and be in a position of re-deployment.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be in hospital at the time of a stroke, induced by another form of ideology overruling situations.
Vaccinations by and large are a good thing. We just do not know as much as we think we do.
But I have to wonder about some of the people denouncing others' choices in medical care.
I can understand why many have this mentality. It only takes a few who abstain from vaccinations to endanger the whole "tribe". The mentality comes from a sense of self preservation. For oneself and for those we love and know and our society as a whole.
My concern is often we think "we know it all", when, in fact we often just see the tip of the iceberg.
In general, vaccinations have been good, yet we have examples such as This fella Jake who just about died and suffered serious problems because of a hard decision in the wrong direction concerning his health.
I know, this is only one example. I wonder how many other "one examples" there are among the billions of us?
I am not saying vaccinations should stop, but we need to quit pretending we know it all and continue to become smarter about it.
"It only takes a few who abstain from vaccinations to endanger the whole "tribe"". If the rest of the tribe is already vaccinated, what is the danger from the non-vaccinated?
With herd immunity you can have up to twenty percent unvaccinated for some diseases such as polio and it would have little effect on overall transmission rates.
This varies depending on the germ and how contagious it is. The more contagious it is then the more people need to be vaccinated for herd immunity to work. For example, measles is very contagious. Before the use of the measles vaccine, every person with measles would infect another 10-15 people and so the disease would spread very quickly. To achieve herd immunity for measles at least 90-95% of the population need to be vaccinated. A disease like polio is less contagious, and 80-85% of the population would need to be vaccinated for herd immunity to work. Although this is lower it is still a very high proportion, especially given that some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
In all honesty, I would like to know the definitions of "works".
When I was much younger I suffered an injury that blew out L4 and L5. There I am in hospital, the doc wanted to fuse 3 vertebrae together. I asked him the chance of success. He said 50%. Then I asked what does success mean? He said there was a 50% I will NOT BE WORSE. Nup. I passed on that offer.
The devil is in the details.
Maybe it is just me, but I don't want to be "that one".
Tell me about it, in the early 80's my sister contracted the measles even though she had received the vaccine years earlier. It was later determined that the vaccine she received was a faulty batch, but everyone around her, including me, never contracted the disease, because the rest of us received effective vaccines. She came through it just fine, no complications.
If the rest of the tribe is already vaccinated, what is the danger from the non-vaccinated?
"The rest" needs to be at least 90% of the population in order to be protected and since no vaccine is 100% effective in 100% of the people receiving it some vaccinated people will get sick.
People don't have the right to infect others who for some reason are unable to receive the vaccine. There are people with compromised immunities who can't receive a vaccine. Therefore, I get my vaccinations to protect those people.
Some people will never get it, Atheist, am I right?
So you are saying people don't have the right to their own health choices?
Nope, I'm saying if they make choices that put others in jeopardy for preventable diseases, they don't have a right to deliberately expose others. IOW, there is no right to spread disease.
Isn't it all about one's own personal bodily control and choices?
Nope, again. Personal "choices" does not include spreading disease. That was a really transparent (and failed) move, Tex.
Why should a bunch of old white men be making health care choices for all?
Wow, this coming from a die-hard Republican is really hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
Sometimes it is perfectly fine for old white men to make health care choices for all, and sometimes (usually when people don't like those "choices") it isn't.
Nope, I'm saying if they make choices that put others in jeopardy for preventable diseases, they don't have a right to deliberately expose others. IOW, there is no right to spread disease.
If you are vaccinated, there is minimal risk of you getting measles. And how do you know who is infected with measles that you claim is spreading it?
Nope, again. Personal "choices" does not include spreading disease.
Again, how will you catch measles if you have been vaccinated? How do you know those people have measles to force them to get a vaccine?
Wow, this coming from a die-hard Republican is really hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
Man, all my years in the GOP, and not once has anyone ever told me that the GOP is against vaccines! You keep grasping at that straw, though!
Sometimes it is perfectly fine for old white men to make health care choices for all, and sometimes (usually when people don't like those "choices") it isn't.
I'm not sure what "old white men" has to do with anything. But when it comes to public health issues like vaccinations and preventing the spread of disease, clearly some people are stupid when they irrationally avoid vaccinations and put public health at risk.
Nothing contradictory there.
Of course not.
If you are vaccinated, there is minimal risk of you getting measles.
The risk declines as long as there is good her immunity. Not getting vaccinated diminishes herd immunity.
Again, how will you catch measles if you have been vaccinated?
Individually, you can't, unless you become immunocompromised or are exposed to a particularly virulent strain. About 3/100 people can still catch measles even if they are vaccinated. But others who are not or cannot be vaccinated are at risk. Vaccinated people still have a chance, albeit a relatively low one, to spread measles to others.
How do you know those people have measles to force them to get a vaccine?
If they display symptoms, that is a good clue. If one is already infected with measles, then a vaccination may help with the severity of the disease, if they are vaccinated within a certain time.
If that "choice" contributes to the spread of preventable diseases, then yes, the government should be getting involved.
Then advocating for illegal aliens to come here and stay here without benefit of medical exams and immunizations and vaccines is really stupid. As is our policy of letting visitors in who have not been vaccinated, but strangely, no one is bothered by that shit.
I do, you just don't like it because I am not part of your herd mentality.
Of course not.
LOL
The risk declines as long as there is good her immunity. Not getting vaccinated diminishes herd immunity.
We allow millions of people to come here and stay here, and we don't have a clue who has been vaccinated or not. If you are seriously worried, why not push for all visitors to be vaccinated before entry? Why not push to end illegal entry to the US? Why not push to rid ourselves of people who we simply don't know have been vaccinated?
you just don't like it because I am not part of your herd mentality.
What's my "herd mentality" exactly? Logic!
We allow millions of people to come here and stay here, and we don't have a clue who has been vaccinated or not.
And I take issue with that.
If you are seriously worried, why not push for all visitors to be vaccinated before entry? Why not push to end illegal entry to the US? Why not push to rid ourselves of people who we simply don't know have been vaccinated?
I'm all for that!
Then advocating for illegal aliens to come here and stay here without benefit of medical exams and immunizations and vaccines is really stupid. As is our policy of letting visitors in who have not been vaccinated,
With herd immunity you can have up to twenty percent unvaccinated for some diseases such as polio and it would have little effect on overall transmission rates.
That experiment has already been done, Dean. Before the polio vaccine era (i.e., when we relied on "natural" herd immunity) there were about 15,000 cases of paralytic disease a year in the U.S. Since vaccination against that disease began in the early 50s the disease has disappeared and no cases of polio have originated here since 1979. The U.S. population now is twice that of 1950 so is it your position. is that having 30,000+ cases of polio would be a fair cost for letting natural herd immunity do the job?
We allow millions of people to come here and stay here, and we don't have a clue who has been vaccinated or not.
That's an even stronger case for making sure the indigenous population is maximally immunized. Most of the recent cases of measles in the NE U.S. resulted from a visitor coming in legally. How would you propose preventing that?
That's an even stronger case for making sure the indigenous population is maximally immunized. Most of the recent cases of measles in the NE U.S. resulted from a visitor coming in legally. How would you propose preventing that?
Actually, the vast majority of native-born Americans are vaccinated.
Ignoring millions of people who might not be, especially those coming from countries which do not have vaccine programs or those countries with very low vaccination rates would be more of priority for me.
Just because someone came here legally has no bearing on whether they have been vaccinated or not.
We could simply demand that all visitors show proof of vaccinations.
True, Pretty freaking hard to "get" something any other way,
How about from logical and rational sources, discussions, ect.. So far, you're only convincing yourself of something.
but perhaps you are "special"
You said it, i didn't.
Sure. /s
You still haven't explained what my "mentality" is.
Yet you didn't even mention it until I brought it up
Because immigration is not the topic here.
Then you should exhibit that in some of your positions.
Start an article about it and i will consider it.
Actually, the vast majority of native-born Americans are vaccinated.
Which is good. The problem is some native born citizens do not want to receive or have their children receive vaccinations.
Ignoring millions of people who might not be, especially those coming from countries which do not have vaccine programs or those countries with very low vaccination rates would be more of priority for me
It should all be prioritized.
We could simply demand that all visitors show proof of vaccinations.
See, I provided a real solution, why does that seem to bother you?
If you think the fact that some Americans don;t want to get vaccinations or for their kids to is more of a problem than hundreds of thousands of people coming form countries where medical care is rather suspect tell me you aren;t looking for a solution to anything, other than to vent your personal rage about Americans not getting vaccines.
My point is that some want health care decisions left entirely up to the individuals and some want only selective issues to be addressed through laws.
Either be for govt. intervention in all things related to health care or not in any. Be consistent, in other words.
See, I provided a real solution, why does that seem to bother you?
What solution was that? I agreed with some of your points.
If you think the fact that some Americans don;t want to get vaccinations or for their kids to is more of a problem than hundreds of thousands of people coming form countries where medical care is rather suspect tell me you aren;t looking for a solution to anything, other than to vent your personal rage about Americans not getting vaccines
It's ALL a problem. But one difference is, some Americans are also spreading lies or misinformation and/or advocating against vaccinations. That contributes to the problem and potential public health crises. I'm simply discussing the issue of anti-vaxxer nonsense. If you want to come up with solutions, be my guest.
My point is that some want health care decisions left entirely up to the individuals and some want only selective issues to be addressed through laws.
Obviously that is not rational or realistic. Individuals should be allowed to make their own health care decisions. But when their decisions potentially affects society as a whole, like anti-vaxxer idiocy, then clearly such issues need to be addressed further.
Either be for govt. intervention in all things related to health care or not in any. Be consistent, in other words.
An all-or-none approach is neither necessary or feasible. The government can be involved in issues that affect public health. Individuals can be involved in their own personal health.
And how do you know who is infected with measles that you claim is spreading it?
I read (definitely not eat) the news. Here's how you could, too (even though it's several weeks old). On your web browser's search line, type in large measles outbreak in U.S introduced by tourist/visitor. That's how you could learn about it but I very seriously doubt you will since you never have accepted facts even when we do all the work of showing them to you and giving you links to follow to learn more. I guess there could be a first time...............nahhhhhhhhh.
Ignoring millions of people who might not be, especially those coming from countries which do not have vaccine programs or those countries with very low vaccination rates would be more of priority for me.
You'll just need to tell us which countries you are referring to and please show source documents that they do not have vaccination programs and while you're at your research also provide documentation (with sources) of any outbreaks of communicable disease into the general population* for which there are vaccines where the source is an immigrant. But you actually do have a point in that the best protection from that happening is for US children (and adults) to be fully vaccinated but, of course, that should be the case anyway. And it makes an even stronger case to have an orderly processing of immigrants entering the US instead of deliberately bogging it down in order to gin up a deliberately orchestrated "crisis" for political reasons and resulting in many more people trying to come in at all points.
While you're busy doing all that, here's a graph from the WHO showing vaccination coverage in Latin America and the US:
source:
Look who's not No. 1 in that group.
*this means outbreaks that are contained in the detention facilities cannot be counted.
I am curious for a definition of the effectiveness of herd immunity on a percentage basis.
Are you talking about naturally-acquired herd immunity? If so, I alluded to it indirectly in a response to Dean about polio. Before the vaccination in the early 50s for that disease there were 30,000 cases of paralytic polio per annum. That eventually came down to 0, i.e. no cases, annually once immunizations became universal in this country. So, compared to natural herd immunity, vaccine induced herd immunity to polio is 100% effective.
Not sure what your purpose was supposed to have been with those two links other than how being immunized for measles reduces both the incidence of the disease as well as the complications, including death. Is this news to you?
Ignoring millions of people who might not be, especially those coming from countries which do not have vaccine programs or those countries with very low vaccination rates would be more of priority for me.
Nice combination of the straw-man dodge with wildly exaggerated (i.e., false) numbers.
at the moment, at present, just now, right now, at the present time, at the present moment, at this time, at this moment in time, currently , here and now ; More
2.
used, especially in conversation, to draw attention to a particular statement or point in a narrative.
"now, my first impulse was to run away"
conjunction
as a consequence of the fact.
"they spent a lot of time together now that he had retired"
Had you ever bothered to actually read what I have written, you would see that I am not opposed to abortion.
And yet your attempt at coyness in trying to introduce the phrase often used by pro-choice advocates of "body control" into this discussion was a blatantly transparent (haven't you realize how much of a reputation you'd established for that?) and clumsy attempt to conflate the vaccination issue with freedom of reproductive choice. I notice you don't use the term "pro-choice" to describe your position. That indicates some kind of fence position that you think makes you think you're good on this issue.
Wow, this is good news. You must actually know how to look up words. The bad news is now you've reduced yourself to trying to make points on typos. And this is what you consider "debating," Tex? You are nothing if not hilarious.
Do you think only Mexicans are coming here illegally?Really?
This is your response to me proving you wrong with regards to immunizations in Mexico? Your post makes no sense as it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
This is your response to me proving you wrong with regards to immunizations in Mexico? Your post makes no sense as it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Sorry about that--I thought you were informed on the topic and already knew that many people travel through Mexico from other countries to get to the US.
I can find no info on whether Mexico requires people travelling through it to be immunized. But I do know for a fact that when you visit Mexico, they damn sure ain't ensuring people have been vaccinated.
Are you saying that all the people traipsing through Mexico have been vaccinated?
The chart I provided you above shows that the immunization rate in Mexico is higher than in the U.S. You might have noticed that if you weren't skulking around hoping to find typos to pounce on (but I suspect that you would have ignored that fact in any case).
The chart I provided you above shows that the immunization rate in Mexico is higher than in the U.S. You might have noticed that if you weren't skulking around hoping to find typos to pounce on (but I suspect that you would have ignored that fact in any case).
Gee, somefolks are not naïveenough or ignorantenough to not know that other folksfrom other countries regularly travel through Mexico to get here.
He was lucky, but still a stroke is going to take the edge off in any extreme activity he might want to do.
Having a stroke doesn't make a person stronger or more resistant to anything, or decrease your chances of having another stroke, contrary to anti-vaxxers beliefs.
From time to time I wear a t-shirt that reads "Vaccines Cause Adults." I haven't had any hostile reactions yet but I'm sure I'll eventually get one. It's a very hot issue in OR right now.
Well I am not quite sure they are the worse sort of folks,
I don't know: potentially jeopardizing your health, your children's health, and other peoples health by not getting vaccinated all because of some ignorant and irrational fear of vaccines seems pretty bad to me.
but they are certainly are in the running for the most dim witted.
Right up there with creationists and flat earthers. Who wins 1st place?
Anti-vaxxers because believing in Creation Science or a flat earth won't get anybody killed
Good point. But then, Flat earthers and creationists also spread ignorance and misinformation like a plague, much like anti-vaxxers contribute to the spread of disease through their ignorance and misinformation. It's a close competition between them.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If you are opposed to vaccinations you are a) a total asshole, and b) a fucking idiot.
And c) Both! Among other things.
Maybe it can be explained as pseudo-intelligence arrogance, "I know better than any stupid Doctor with all their medical schoolin' and training."
No, it's just plain stupidity!
I choose (a)!
I don't demonize whole groups of people but make an exception for anti-vaxers.
Same here. They are literally the pro-disease crowd.
As I have repeatedly said, let's see how long anti-=intelligence communities would last when good ol smallpox shows up.
The efforts to defeat a plague childhood diseases was a monumental achievement of mankind lead by the United States which was comparable to putting men on the Moon and yet antivavers, uterly ignorant of all of this, are vainly willing to throw it all away at all of our children's perils..
Those people sicken me.
That is the best description I have heard for them.
Because of anti-vaccers, measles has resurfaced in this country, after being eradicated here in the early 2000's.
The kind of shit that makes me wish an asteroid would hit earth.
Hey, Hey ……. Hey ……………… HEEEEEEYYYYYYY !
It ain't my fault some folks do what they do. Why do you want me killed !
If there were such a anarchic state called Jefferson, I would expect it to break out there first.
Pretty sure that the rest of us have a right to quarantine anti-vaxers.
And their children will, as well. Are they not the same as those opposed to GRAVITY?
Asteroid struct EARTH the day that POS in the WH walked illegally into the Oval Office.
These folks are its spawn. They are spreading like the Measles.
Vaccination has saved exponentially far more lives than all other medical "advances" in history. The only measure that has saved more are water cleanliness standards--another public health measure rather than some new "miracle drug."
That is so correct! There's a story about a doctor in London who figured out where, why, and how cholera kept breaking out in one section of the city.
It was all about a public use well.
That was almost 40 years before Koch actually isolated the bacteria (vibrio cholerae) thus well before the idea of what's popularly referred to as the germ theory of disease had been accepted by the medical world; and get this: the doctor's name was John Snow.
The older I get, the more gravity just pisses me off!
Maybe we should have a state of Jefferson and use it as a quarantine zone. Or wall it in and turn it into a prison a la Escape From New York.
Somebody took a course in microbiology, didn't he? <smile>
Well, sorta. It felt like taking one on seeing a documentary about it a few years ago.
I also make that exception for flat earthers and creationists. But only because their intellectual dishonesty and cowardice annoys me.
They are either religious fanatics or greatly misguided ignoramuses. They are the REAL baby-killers.
Anti-Vaxxers
At the risk of being categorized, as often I post a different perspective and some fail to read the full context, I will say few things in life are absolute.
So, I know a fella who is a career ANZAC who has had several stints in Afghanistan. Very healthy young man at the age of 31. Very athletic at 6'5" perfect BMI (not that I am sold on BMI), participates in extreme sports. Unbelievable picture of some of his "stunts". Don't know what else to call them
However, he had some predisposition to some some things. Previous medical people did not want him to have a certain vaccination.
New Med officer in charge demands he get said vaccination prior to a deployment. Other Med folks petition against it. New Med officer overrules. He is given the vaccination and within hours he is in hospital with a stroke. Yes a stroke.
New Med officer is reassigned off his case and others more familiar with his situation reassigned on his case.
He was fortunate to be in the right place at the right time along with being VERY healthy that the damage was contained and minimized quickly. Still took a long to to recover and be in a position of re-deployment.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be in hospital at the time of a stroke, induced by another form of ideology overruling situations.
Vaccinations by and large are a good thing. We just do not know as much as we think we do.
I have had all my vaccines as a kid, just like most kids whose parent was in the military.
I am all for getting them.
But I have to wonder about some of the people denouncing others' choices in medical care.
Some want no laws governing personal medical choices, and some just want certain medical things to be legalized or required.
I can understand why many have this mentality. It only takes a few who abstain from vaccinations to endanger the whole "tribe". The mentality comes from a sense of self preservation. For oneself and for those we love and know and our society as a whole.
My concern is often we think "we know it all", when, in fact we often just see the tip of the iceberg.
In general, vaccinations have been good, yet we have examples such as This fella Jake who just about died and suffered serious problems because of a hard decision in the wrong direction concerning his health.
I know, this is only one example. I wonder how many other "one examples" there are among the billions of us?
I am not saying vaccinations should stop, but we need to quit pretending we know it all and continue to become smarter about it.
That goes for our "applied" sciences in general.
"It only takes a few who abstain from vaccinations to endanger the whole "tribe"". If the rest of the tribe is already vaccinated, what is the danger from the non-vaccinated?
Just like birth control, vaccination are not 100%.
More importantly, the very young will not have been vaccinated and will be more susceptible.
The, "well, someone else will do it" attitude is a really poor way to take care of your children.
With herd immunity you can have up to twenty percent unvaccinated for some diseases such as polio and it would have little effect on overall transmission rates.
Here is the paragraph with that reference:
In all honesty, I would like to know the definitions of "works".
When I was much younger I suffered an injury that blew out L4 and L5. There I am in hospital, the doc wanted to fuse 3 vertebrae together. I asked him the chance of success. He said 50%. Then I asked what does success mean? He said there was a 50% I will NOT BE WORSE. Nup. I passed on that offer.
The devil is in the details.
Maybe it is just me, but I don't want to be "that one".
Tell me about it, in the early 80's my sister contracted the measles even though she had received the vaccine years earlier. It was later determined that the vaccine she received was a faulty batch, but everyone around her, including me, never contracted the disease, because the rest of us received effective vaccines. She came through it just fine, no complications.
The problem is, herd immunity becomes less effective if m ore people are unvaccinated. There is a greater risk of contracting a preventable disease.
Good point. The 'herd' culling itself?
That's good.
At least 90% of the vaccinated population is protected.
"The rest" needs to be at least 90% of the population in order to be protected and since no vaccine is 100% effective in 100% of the people receiving it some vaccinated people will get sick.
People do not have the right to expose the general population to diseases they refuse to get vaccinated for or have their children get.
So you are saying people don't have the right to their own health choices?
Isn't it all about one's own personal bodily control and choices?
Why should a bunch of old white men be making health care choices for all?
People don't have the right to infect others who for some reason are unable to receive the vaccine. There are people with compromised immunities who can't receive a vaccine. Therefore, I get my vaccinations to protect those people.
Some people will never get it, Atheist, am I right?
So we want governmental interference with SOME health care choices, but not all, right?
It is okay of a bunch of old white men make this choice for you but you are uncomfortable letting them make all of the choices?
Nope, I'm saying if they make choices that put others in jeopardy for preventable diseases, they don't have a right to deliberately expose others. IOW, there is no right to spread disease.
Nope, again. Personal "choices" does not include spreading disease. That was a really transparent (and failed) move, Tex.
Wow, this coming from a die-hard Republican is really hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
Yep. It's called making rational decision-making, Tex. What is so difficult to "get" about that?
If that "choice" contributes to the spread of preventable diseases, then yes, the government should be getting involved.
Okay, I got i.
Sometimes it is perfectly fine for old white men to make health care choices for all, and sometimes (usually when people don't like those "choices") it isn't.
Nothing contradictory there.
If you are vaccinated, there is minimal risk of you getting measles. And how do you know who is infected with measles that you claim is spreading it?
Again, how will you catch measles if you have been vaccinated? How do you know those people have measles to force them to get a vaccine?
Man, all my years in the GOP, and not once has anyone ever told me that the GOP is against vaccines! You keep grasping at that straw, though!
Not difficult to understand--just disgusted with the rank hypocrisy.
Nonsense. There are laws governing 'personal medical choices'.
Apparently you don't.
I'm not sure what "old white men" has to do with anything. But when it comes to public health issues like vaccinations and preventing the spread of disease, clearly some people are stupid when they irrationally avoid vaccinations and put public health at risk.
Of course not.
The risk declines as long as there is good her immunity. Not getting vaccinated diminishes herd immunity.
Individually, you can't, unless you become immunocompromised or are exposed to a particularly virulent strain. About 3/100 people can still catch measles even if they are vaccinated. But others who are not or cannot be vaccinated are at risk. Vaccinated people still have a chance, albeit a relatively low one, to spread measles to others.
If they display symptoms, that is a good clue. If one is already infected with measles, then a vaccination may help with the severity of the disease, if they are vaccinated within a certain time.
Then advocating for illegal aliens to come here and stay here without benefit of medical exams and immunizations and vaccines is really stupid. As is our policy of letting visitors in who have not been vaccinated, but strangely, no one is bothered by that shit.
I do, you just don't like it because I am not part of your herd mentality.
LOL
We allow millions of people to come here and stay here, and we don't have a clue who has been vaccinated or not. If you are seriously worried, why not push for all visitors to be vaccinated before entry? Why not push to end illegal entry to the US? Why not push to rid ourselves of people who we simply don't know have been vaccinated?
Only in your mind.
What's my "herd mentality" exactly? Logic!
And I take issue with that.
I'm all for that!
I agree.
True, Pretty freaking hard to "get" something any other way, but perhaps you are "special"?
Sure. /s
Yet you didn't even mention it until I brought it up.
Then you should exhibit that in some of your positions.
That experiment has already been done, Dean. Before the polio vaccine era (i.e., when we relied on "natural" herd immunity) there were about 15,000 cases of paralytic disease a year in the U.S. Since vaccination against that disease began in the early 50s the disease has disappeared and no cases of polio have originated here since 1979. The U.S. population now is twice that of 1950 so is it your position. is that having 30,000+ cases of polio would be a fair cost for letting natural herd immunity do the job?
That's an even stronger case for making sure the indigenous population is maximally immunized. Most of the recent cases of measles in the NE U.S. resulted from a visitor coming in legally. How would you propose preventing that?
So, is that anti-vaxxer-Lite?
Now that's guffaw worthy, so
No, you quite obviously didn't, won't and never will.
Actually, the vast majority of native-born Americans are vaccinated.
Ignoring millions of people who might not be, especially those coming from countries which do not have vaccine programs or those countries with very low vaccination rates would be more of priority for me.
Just because someone came here legally has no bearing on whether they have been vaccinated or not.
We could simply demand that all visitors show proof of vaccinations.
How about from logical and rational sources, discussions, ect.. So far, you're only convincing yourself of something.
You said it, i didn't.
You still haven't explained what my "mentality" is.
Because immigration is not the topic here.
Start an article about it and i will consider it.
Which is good. The problem is some native born citizens do not want to receive or have their children receive vaccinations.
It should all be prioritized.
That might be a good idea.
See, I provided a real solution, why does that seem to bother you?
If you think the fact that some Americans don;t want to get vaccinations or for their kids to is more of a problem than hundreds of thousands of people coming form countries where medical care is rather suspect tell me you aren;t looking for a solution to anything, other than to vent your personal rage about Americans not getting vaccines.
My point is that some want health care decisions left entirely up to the individuals and some want only selective issues to be addressed through laws.
Either be for govt. intervention in all things related to health care or not in any. Be consistent, in other words.
What solution was that? I agreed with some of your points.
It's ALL a problem. But one difference is, some Americans are also spreading lies or misinformation and/or advocating against vaccinations. That contributes to the problem and potential public health crises. I'm simply discussing the issue of anti-vaxxer nonsense. If you want to come up with solutions, be my guest.
Obviously that is not rational or realistic. Individuals should be allowed to make their own health care decisions. But when their decisions potentially affects society as a whole, like anti-vaxxer idiocy, then clearly such issues need to be addressed further.
An all-or-none approach is neither necessary or feasible. The government can be involved in issues that affect public health. Individuals can be involved in their own personal health.
I read (definitely not eat) the news. Here's how you could, too (even though it's several weeks old). On your web browser's search line, type in large measles outbreak in U.S introduced by tourist/visitor. That's how you could learn about it but I very seriously doubt you will since you never have accepted facts even when we do all the work of showing them to you and giving you links to follow to learn more. I guess there could be a first time...............nahhhhhhhhh.
You'll just need to tell us which countries you are referring to and please show source documents that they do not have vaccination programs and while you're at your research also provide documentation (with sources) of any outbreaks of communicable disease into the general population* for which there are vaccines where the source is an immigrant. But you actually do have a point in that the best protection from that happening is for US children (and adults) to be fully vaccinated but, of course, that should be the case anyway. And it makes an even stronger case to have an orderly processing of immigrants entering the US instead of deliberately bogging it down in order to gin up a deliberately orchestrated "crisis" for political reasons and resulting in many more people trying to come in at all points.
While you're busy doing all that, here's a graph from the WHO showing vaccination coverage in Latin America and the US:
source:
Look who's not No. 1 in that group.
*this means outbreaks that are contained in the detention facilities cannot be counted.
Just like every medical treatment is not 100%.
So you are pro-choice now?
Close, but mot exactly the answer to the context of the question.
The other poster tried to take a pro vaccination article and turn it in to herd immunity declaration.
I am curious for a definition of the effectiveness of herd immunity on a percentage basis.
Perhaps this will help.
What do you mean by "now"?
https://allcountries.org/health/measles.html
vaxopedia.org/2018/04/15/when-was-the-last-measles-death-in-the-united-states/
Thank you Gordy.
What I get out of that is, I don't want me or mine to be one of those red guys in the last graphic.
Your welcome.
I would say not.
Are you talking about naturally-acquired herd immunity? If so, I alluded to it indirectly in a response to Dean about polio. Before the vaccination in the early 50s for that disease there were 30,000 cases of paralytic polio per annum. That eventually came down to 0, i.e. no cases, annually once immunizations became universal in this country. So, compared to natural herd immunity, vaccine induced herd immunity to polio is 100% effective.
Not sure what your purpose was supposed to have been with those two links other than how being immunized for measles reduces both the incidence of the disease as well as the complications, including death. Is this news to you?
Nice combination of the straw-man dodge with wildly exaggerated (i.e., false) numbers.
I trusted you could put two and two together.
My mistake, obviously.
Ooops!
I did the best with the turds you gave me to the work with.
And yet you continue to display no understanding whatsoever.
I have faith in you.
You can do this if you just keep trying!
Take your pick, Tex:
I enjoy watching you
Had you ever bothered to actually read what I have written, you would see that I am not opposed to abortion.
THAT is why I asked him about the use of the word "NOW".
Makes sense IF one follows along and comprehends what they read.
Mexico has mandatory vaccinations, unlike here where morons can just abstain.
Are you saying that all the people traipsing through Mexico have been vaccinated?
HA!
And yet your attempt at coyness in trying to introduce the phrase often used by pro-choice advocates of "body control" into this discussion was a blatantly transparent (haven't you realize how much of a reputation you'd established for that?) and clumsy attempt to conflate the vaccination issue with freedom of reproductive choice. I notice you don't use the term "pro-choice" to describe your position. That indicates some kind of fence position that you think makes you think you're good on this issue.
Keep on trying, you are getting a little closer every day.
Damn close.
Do you think only Mexicans are coming here illegally?
Really?
Don't see trump trying to build a wall on the Canadian border do you?
Of course not. That would be fucking stupid.
Now, if Canada had caravans travelling through it full of people coming here, many illegally, then it would not be so stupid.
And you're sinking lower by the minute.
And you were doing so well, too.
Don't let this little setback bring you down, though!
I just feel sorry for you now, Tex. Watching someone drown, even figuratively, is really sad.
It is going to be really slow going if you keep taking one step forward and two steps back!
Try harder!
Ahh, a glimmer of self-recognition!! Could this be the embyonic new Tex?
Perhaps learning what the word "you" means as I used it would be beneficial to you.
And I believe in your haste to chastise me, you forgot how to spell embryonic.
Wow, this is good news. You must actually know how to look up words. The bad news is now you've reduced yourself to trying to make points on typos. And this is what you consider "debating," Tex? You are nothing if not hilarious.
This is your response to me proving you wrong with regards to immunizations in Mexico? Your post makes no sense as it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Sorry about that--I thought you were informed on the topic and already knew that many people travel through Mexico from other countries to get to the US.
I can find no info on whether Mexico requires people travelling through it to be immunized. But I do know for a fact that when you visit Mexico, they damn sure ain't ensuring people have been vaccinated.
It always amuses me when people try to use big words unfamiliar to them and then can't spell them when trying to dis on another poster.
You seem to be in such a hurry to get the words out that you can't spend any time reading what you yourself write.
It isn't a good look, frankly.
Mexico does require vaccinations. Some folks act like it's a third world shithole
Catching people out on typos is about the most desperate and laziest way to try to score points. It's the gambit that only losers use.
The chart I provided you above shows that the immunization rate in Mexico is higher than in the U.S. You might have noticed that if you weren't skulking around hoping to find typos to pounce on (but I suspect that you would have ignored that fact in any case).
Gee, some folks are not naïve enough or ignorant enough to not know that other folks from other countries regularly travel through Mexico to get here.
Pity it is just some of us.
He was lucky, but still a stroke is going to take the edge off in any extreme activity he might want to do.
Having a stroke doesn't make a person stronger or more resistant to anything, or decrease your chances of having another stroke, contrary to anti-vaxxers beliefs.
Yes, he was lucky.
It was kind of shocking to see him skying down a glaciers one day and in a hospital bed with tubing and monitors hooked up to him a couple days later.
He has worked hard with the therapy and even recently was cleared for re-deployment.
Agree, he will never have the same physical abilities as before, he has done a good job coming back as far as he has.
few things in life are absolute.
The only absolute I know of in life is death.
Maybe taxes?
And Uncle Ben stays dead (Spider-Man reference)
Not if you're in the top 1% and Republicans are running the show.
The 'anti-vaxers' and the 'Brexit' thing have one thing in common. Russian fingerprints.
There's no question these lying morons are part of a general anti-science claque in this country. Know anyone else like that?
From time to time I wear a t-shirt that reads "Vaccines Cause Adults." I haven't had any hostile reactions yet but I'm sure I'll eventually get one. It's a very hot issue in OR right now.
Anti-Vaxxers are the Worst Kinds of People
Well I am not quite sure they are the worse sort of folks, but they are certainly are in the running for the most dim witted.
A pox upon them.
I don't know: potentially jeopardizing your health, your children's health, and other peoples health by not getting vaccinated all because of some ignorant and irrational fear of vaccines seems pretty bad to me.
Right up there with creationists and flat earthers. Who wins 1st place?
Anti-vaxxers because believing in Creation Science or a flat earth won't get anybody killed
Good point. But then, Flat earthers and creationists also spread ignorance and misinformation like a plague, much like anti-vaxxers contribute to the spread of disease through their ignorance and misinformation. It's a close competition between them.
Let's not forget the anti-science AGW deniers.
I wish I could forget about them
AGW deniers are to the environment what anti-vaxxers are to public health.
Bullseye! See my comment #8