• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

Yes Peacegirl a lot of them are fools. People who are given a voice solely because of their notoriety not because of any math or science knowledge.

In medicine and science in general there can always be dissent.

'Scientists' appear in the media on topic who appear to have their head up their asses.

In my world having an engineering degree and job title did not mean competence. Some were quite incompetent, and some of them managed to rise in a company with influence.

One tactic was known little about an issue loudly and aggressively tossing questions at those who knew what they were talking about. Like politicians.


Having a medical or science degree does not imply experience or competence. They can be quite incompetent.

So when you say scientists are questioning, you need to qualify exactly who thy are, their experience, accomplishments.

RFKjr has purged a lot if the accomplished scientists and replaced them with those who will support his personal unscientific opinions.

That is the Trump administration, ideology not facts.

All you are doing is echoing some of what you see in media online. Yu have no clue.
 
These derails are diverting attention away form the most serious and impactful discussion on the revolutionary new thoughts on free will and determinism.

It is no less than the future and survival of the human race.
That is true, but my hands are tied. Pood keeps diverting attention away from the reason for this thread to try to discredit me. Moreover, if no one desires to read the book (I even gave people the first three chapters to no avail), this discussion will be unproductive because there will be gaps in understanding. Think about it. We are talking about a claim that is extraordinary and cannot be explained in a few words, no matter how much you demand that it should.
EDxcuse and whing. You have deraied yur own t
These derails are diverting attention away form the most serious and impactful discussion on the revolutionary new thoughts on free will and determinism.

It is no less than the future and survival of the human race.
That is true, but my hands are tied. Pood keeps diverting attention away from the reason for this thread to try to discredit me. Moreover, if no one desires to read the book (I even gave people the first three chapters to no avail), this discussion will be unproductive because there will be gaps in understanding. Think about it. We are talking about a claim that is extraordinary and cannot be explained in a few words, no matter how much you demand that it should.

Whining and excuses. You have derailed your own thread several times.

Take it over to natural science on the new thread.
 
These derails are diverting attention away form the most serious and impactful discussion on the revolutionary new thoughts on free will and determinism.

It is no less than the future and survival of the human race.

Started a vaccination thread on Natural Science 'Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions'

Suggest Peacegirl take it there, there will probably be a wider response.
I have no desire to start a vaccination thread. I didn’t bring this topic up. Pood did to try to get people to question my credibility.
 
I have asked the mods to derail the vaccination debate over to the new thread I started..

I am sure that will make oiu happy so we can go back to your book.

Vaccination ARE an important topic. Literally life and death. Look ate natutinal flu deth.

The CDC estimated there have been at least 7.5 million flu cases this season as of Dec. 20, as well as at least 81,000 hospitalizations and 3,100 deaths.1 day ago


Flu is surging nationwide, and doctors say we're nowhere near the peak

In the global new a new agree flu strain spreading around the world did not make it into this tear vaccines.

Determinism and free will kinda of pale in comparison, don;t you think?

Did you say the book is about getting rid of suffering? Seems like you have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to free will, determinism, and vaccination.
 
I have asked the mods to derail the vaccination debate over to the new thread I started..

I am sure that will make oiu happy so we can go back to your book.

Vaccination ARE an important topic. Literally life and death. Look ate natutinal flu deth.

The CDC estimated there have been at least 7.5 million flu cases this season as of Dec. 20, as well as at least 81,000 hospitalizations and 3,100 deaths.1 day ago


Flu is surging nationwide, and doctors say we're nowhere near the peak

In the global new a new agree flu strain spreading around the world did not make it into this tear vaccines.

Determinism and free will kinda of pale in comparison, don;t you think?

Did you say the book is about getting rid of suffering? Seems like you have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to free will, determinism, and vaccination.
No. It doesn’t tell anyone what to do. It will be up to one’s conscience to guide their actions. There will be no government to enforce laws that have become obsolete.
 
Yes Peacegirl a lot of them are fools. People who are given a voice solely because of their notoriety not because of any math or science knowledge.

In medicine and science in general there can always be dissent.

'Scientists' appear in the media on topic who appear to have their head up their asses.

In my world having an engineering degree and job title did not mean competence. Some were quite incompetent, and some of them managed to rise in a company with influence.
You're preaching to the choir.
One tactic was known little about an issue loudly and aggressively tossing questions at those who knew what they were talking about. Like politicians.


Having a medical or science degree does not imply experience or competence. They can be quite incompetent.
That is true.
So when you say scientists are questioning, you need to qualify exactly who thy are, their experience, accomplishments.
You are right that a person does not have to have a degree to be experienced. I don't know why I'm posting this. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment. :cautious:

Introduction

<snip<

People have often questioned, “Well, assuming that you did make a fantastic discovery, why bring it to me? You should run to the nearest university so it can be acknowledged. Then you would be acclaimed a genius and become famous the world over.”

“That’s exactly what I did, but when one professor heard my claims, he smiled and lost all interest. Another used a method for screening out the wrong applicants for such a discovery. He immediately questioned my educational background and wanted to know from what university I graduated, to which I replied, ‘I have no formal education because I never completed the 7th grade.’ Then, without giving me a chance to tell him that my informal education was far superior to his formal education, he responded without giving much thought to what he was about to say, ‘And you dare to come in here with such outrageous claims about solving all the problems of human relations!’”

“I couldn’t believe my ears, and my blood was beginning to boil.”

“Well tell me,” I said, trying to control myself, “what is your formal education?”

“I graduated from Harvard with many honors and credentials.”

I then inquired, “With all your formal education, your honors, your degrees and diplomas, what discoveries have you made to solve the problems plaguing mankind?” There was no answer, and he hung up.

After that I was completely frustrated. Did you ever hear of anything so insulting, as if a discovery could not be made unless someone graduates college first? Which of these universities taught Newton, Edison, or Einstein, or did they perceive relations their professors were unable to understand until explained to them? Instead of being centers of investigation where new knowledge can be thoroughly analyzed, the professors use what they have been taught as a standard of truth from which vantage point they survey the landscape of divergent views for the sole purpose of criticism and disagreement. Isn’t this a perfect example of putting the proverbial cart before the horse, which should be a lesson to all professors that they should never become so dogmatic about their theories or opinions that they won’t take the time to investigate anything that might lead to the truth.

Unbeknownst to the highest-ranking scholars, the universities have been handing along from generation to generation conceptions, not verified knowledge, that will be exploded once certain undeniable relations are perceived and pointed out to man’s common sense. Now let me make something very clear. To teach that 2+2=4 doesn’t depend for its truth on who is doing the teaching because the one being taught can perceive this undeniable relation. But when the relation revealing any truth is not obvious or difficult to grasp, or fallaciously logical, or logically inaccurate, then its acceptance depends more on who is doing the teaching and the long tenure of its existence rather than on what is being taught. For example, if students who cannot perceive undeniable relations are taught by their professor that 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 9 because he also cannot perceive that this is false, they will be compelled to reject your explanation of it being 8 because they compare the rank of the teacher and the long tenure of what is taught with your upstart disagreement. Who are you to disagree with these distinguished professors? Everywhere you look, people are using fallacious standards to judge the truth. To further illustrate this, I recently gave a math problem to a student of mathematics. I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be paired with any other letter. Since he assumed that I did not know the answer, he worked on the problem to determine if he thought it could be solved. After two weeks and feeling inadequate to the task, he responded, “My own personal opinion is that it cannot be done; however, I’m not an expert, but my professor is. I’ll give it to him.” “By the way,” he inquired (using the same fallacious standard as the Harvard graduate), “did you ever study higher mathematics in one of the universities, and if you didn’t, how far did you go in school?” Once again, I replied, “Only to the 7th grade.” He then took the problem to his professor with this knowledge of the 7th grade, and after another two weeks told me very positively that his professor said it could not be done, which is false.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean ‘undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ to be exact and scientific.

Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed if you can.

RFKjr has purged a lot if the accomplished scientists and replaced them with those who will support his personal unscientific opinions.

That is the Trump administration, ideology not facts.

All you are doing is echoing some of what you see in media online. Yu have no clue.
I don't agree that RFK is supporting his personal, unscientific opinions. He is trying to confirm the science that claims the safety of vaccines is settled. Is it really? He is putting his entire career and public trust on the line to find out if this claim is true. Look what he's up against, but he isn't backing down. I give him credit for withstanding the horrible attacks on his character. I believe he is concerned for good reason regarding the adjuvants used and the combination and number of jabs that could be leading to an outcome that isn't even being considered (i.e., the general health of our kids, which has suffered a decline). You don't know the answer to this either, Steve, so don't be so quick to conclude that he is a fool. I am glad he is questioning because it's not a settled science, as much as you believe that it is.
 
Last edited:
Peacegirl

You are not in the choir, you standing outside the church.

I usually like sports metaphor, but religion will do.
 
Could this be true?

Given its source, a well known anti-vaccination propaganda website, I will go with "It could be true, in the same way that it could be true that I am actually a talking dog, but actual evidence of it would be needed for any sane person to give it the slightest credence".
The reason that idiots believe some of this stupidity is because SIDS often happens around the same time that babies are given DPT vaccines. SIDS has nothing to do with vaccines.

While the causes are not all known, there is no evidence that it's related to vaccines.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...t-death-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20352800

Both physical and sleep factors put an infant at risk of SIDS. These factors vary from child to child.

Physical factors​

Physical factors associated with SIDS include:

  • Brain defects. Some infants are born with problems that make them more likely to die of SIDS. In many of these babies, the part of the brain that controls breathing and waking up from sleep hasn't developed enough to work properly.
  • Low birth weight. Being born early or being part of a multiple birth increases the chances that a baby's brain hasn't fully developed at birth. The baby may have less control over such automatic processes as breathing and heart rate.
  • Respiratory infection. Many infants who died of SIDS had recently had a cold. A cold may lead to breathing problems.

Sleep factors​

A baby's sleeping position, items in the crib and other conditions may increase the risk of SIDS. Examples include:

  • Sleeping on the stomach or side. Babies placed in these positions to sleep might have more trouble breathing than those placed on their backs.
  • Sleeping on a soft surface. Lying face down on a fluffy comforter, a soft mattress or a waterbed can block an infant's airway.
  • Sharing a bed. The risk of SIDS rises if a baby sleeps in the same bed with parents, siblings or pets. But it may help if the infant sleeps in a separate bed in the same room with parents. That seems to lower the risk of SIDS.
  • Overheating. Being too warm while sleeping can increase a baby's risk of SIDS.

Risk factors​

SIDS can happen to any infant. But researchers have found several factors that might raise the risk. They include:

  • Sex. Boys are slightly more likely than girls to die of SIDS.
  • Age. Infants are at higher risk between the second and fourth months of life.
  • Race. For reasons that aren't well understood, SIDS occurs more often in Black, Native American and Alaska Native infants.
  • Family history. Babies with siblings who died of SIDS are at higher risk of SIDS.
  • Secondhand smoke. Babies who live with smokers have a higher risk of SIDS.
  • Premature birth. Being born early and having a low birth weight increase a baby's chances of SIDS.

Now pertussis is on the rise and while rare, it sometimes is deadly, or requires hospitalization. There has never been any evidence that pertussis vaccines are a problem other than in those that have uncontrolled seizures and maybe one other thing that I don't recall what it is right now. Those who have never had the DPT vaccines should get them, especially now that pertussis, aka whooping cough is on the rise due to the anti vaccine movement. Tetanus vaccines are given every 10 years. One can get tetanus from a cut that is infectious. I had my latest one about a year ago.

As one who once gave vaccines as part of my job, and not one of my patients ever had a negative reaction to any vaccine, it's very disturbing for me to see a safe and effective way to end or greatly decrease certain serious diseases is now being threatened.

Okay, I moved this reply here, but it doesn't appear as if anyone is interested in having a separate thread on this topic, at least no so far.

While it's true that this year's flu vaccine, at least the one that we get in the US isn't effective against the newest variant, but I've read that those who have been vaccinated and get the flu have much milder cases compared to those who don't. Only 40% of Americans have had their flu vaccine so far this year.

The same goes for COVID. I've had about 11 COVID vaccines and I only had COVID once. I had very mild symptoms for one day and my husband had an asymptomatic case. So, seasonal vaccines almost always give some protection from severe cases, even when they don't cover every variant.

I read a comment in WaPo this morning from a woman whose granddaughter gave her and her husband the flu. Her granddaughter was very sick but she and her husband only had mild symptoms despite being over 70.
 
It is all statistics.

For communicable diseases which have vaccines when vaccination rates go up infection rates go down. And vice versa.

A particular life long chain smoker may not get lung cancer.

Antivaccers will cite one or a small group of results and argue that as a proof angst vaccinations.

Ignoring the large scale global sttat6istics
 
RFKjr has purged a lot if the accomplished scientists and replaced them with those who will support his personal unscientific opinions.

That is the Trump administration, ideology not facts.

All you are doing is echoing some of what you see in media online. Yu have no clue.
He is putting his entire career and public trust on the line to find out if this claim is true.
Then why did his MAHA Commission put out fake studies?

 
Could this be true?

Given its source, a well known anti-vaccination propaganda website, I will go with "It could be true, in the same way that it could be true that I am actually a talking dog, but actual evidence of it would be needed for any sane person to give it the slightest credence".
I would have no problem checking the design of the study, but bear in mind that just because these people are concerned about the vaccine schedule does not make this study flawed. They actually have to be more careful about the kind of information they put out, or they would be criticized even more. To even suggest that what they published could be as true as it would be true if you were a talking dog shows me that you will have a very hard time accepting that your take on vaccines might have serious issues. What if babies that are vaccinated die more than the unvaccinated babies? Who would be evil then? :oops:
You mean you haven't even checked the study yourself? I'm certain that website published the whole thing in the open on that website.
 
Could this be true?

Given its source, a well known anti-vaccination propaganda website, I will go with "It could be true, in the same way that it could be true that I am actually a talking dog, but actual evidence of it would be needed for any sane person to give it the slightest credence".
I would have no problem checking the design of the study, but bear in mind that just because these people are concerned about the vaccine schedule does not make this study flawed. They actually have to be more careful about the kind of information they put out, or they would be criticized even more. To even suggest that what they published could be as true as it would be true if you were a talking dog shows me that you will have a very hard time accepting that your take on vaccines might have serious issues. What if babies that are vaccinated die more than the unvaccinated babies? Who would be evil then? :oops:
No. Those people have been sowing doubt about vaccines for a long time. Their track record is abysmal, why should I pay one bit of attention to their latest deposit in the toilet? It's impossible to adequately debunk all garbage because the debunking is a lot harder than the creating. But there is one yardstick that works pretty well: what is the past history of the author, and what is the past history of claims related to whatever the issue is.

Denmark has had universal health care and electronic medical records for quite some time now--absolute paradise for medical researchers who get access to anonymized health data of an entire nation. And they've studied vaccination status against various endpoints--all the horrors ascribed to vaccines can't stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
 
I would have no problem checking the design of the study, but bear in mind that just because these people are concerned about the vaccine schedule does not make this study flawed.
No, what makes that study flawed is that the authors are lying liars who lie, and are in this case lying once again.
You have a hatred for anti-vaxxers. Saying they are lying doesn’t mean they are.
But saying they are not liars doesn't make them truthful.

Nobody other than their cult of vaccination haters takes them seriously. The lead author is a committed supporter and close friend of Andrew Wakefield, who is known to have invented the entire link between vaccination and autism from whole cloth, in a cynical effort to make millions of pounds.
Who is “nobody?” You can’t blame everything on Andrew Wakefield. and call it a day.
He's not blaming it on Wakefield. Rather, he's saying that any competent researcher who looked at Wakefield's work would know it's garbage--even many of the people involved promptly denounced it when they discovered the deceptions. Thus a Wakefield supporter either is a charlatan or not a competent researcher--and in neither case should you consider them competent to determine the sun is shining.

The "paper" they are pushing (which no reputable journal will publish) is a simple case of p-hacking, a well known trick to make results appear significant when they are not.
You say they are tricking the public to make their paper appear significant, so point where they are doing this, otherwise you’re attacks against the people who have concerns about the vaccine schedule is without merit.
Do you not understand p-hacking? Assuming their data isn't an outright fabrication it's actually an expected result. You would expect in a modern society to see very little difference in 3-month mortality between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Hepatitis B is about liver damage, not death. So, if you compare enough groups of vaccinated vs unvaccinated someday you will expect to find more death in the vaccinated group. Report that positive result, ignore all the times you didn't find it.


That, and not some grand conspiracy to silence The TruthTM, is the reason they have to publish their "results" themselves - no honest person wants to help them in their campaign to spread dangerous lies that kill children.
The reason they have to publish themselves is because they are being silenced by media, not necessarily because their concerns are not valid. As long as you don’t respect me, I will never respect you. You refuse to listen because you are convinced you are right. This is not a discussion I want to engage in. Why should I?
The media isn't silencing them. You make a paper that can actually stand up to scrutiny and it will get published. It's just the fraudsters have discovered they can release stuff that hasn't been peer reviewed and people will mistake it for actual science.
 
You have a hatred for anti-vaxxers. Saying they are lying doesn’t mean they are.
Indeed. Some are sincere but gullible.

Why you expect me not to hate people who want something that will lead to the needless deaths of children is a mystery to me.
You keep saying that as if your insistence that people accept the very heavy vaccine schedule (at least in the U.S.) is the only way to keep children from dying. You don't know that.


kxjbvjnkshfsijlslkjdfojserljhlsijdlhsldijfsfd




One of the most revealing moments from the CDC’s annual Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting didn’t come from an argument—it came from a comparison.

Other countries vaccinate less.
They mandate less.

And guess what?

Their children are healthier.

Take Denmark.

Fewer childhood vaccines.
No mandates.
No culture war.
Better overall health outcomes.

They administer hepatitis B vaccines only when there is a real risk. And despite dramatically lower usage, the rate of harm from childhood hepatitis B in Denmark is essentially no different from those in the United States.

That fact alone shatters a long-standing narrative. And it strikes terror in the hearts of those who oppose us.

It proves something the establishment hates to admit:
More force does not equal better health.

That’s why this moment is so dangerous to the old guard.

For the first time in decades, leaders are openly discussing comparative studies.

For the first time, “Why do we do it this way?” is being asked in official rooms.

You can’t blame everything on Andrew Wakefield.
Sure I can - it's his fucking fault. And he did it for money. He is utter scum and should be in jail.
You can't prove that money was his motive, just like you're accusing me of. Your accusations fit neatly into your narrative, that's all.
Reality check time.

They're comparing Denmark.

A country with universal health care. A country with a strong social safety net. A country lacking in many of the occupational toxin industries.

If they weren't healthier I would be very surprised.
 
Could this be true?

Louisiana has one or the highest infant mortality rates of any state and our infant vaccination rate is lower than average.

A lot of babies die. I'm sure there are plenty of correlations that have no effect one way or the other.

I'm old enough to remember adults who were polio survivors, neighbors who could barely walk on twisted legs. I also remember the relief my parents showed after we all ate our sugar cube with the red dot.

Between first and third grade, I missed 6 weeks of school because of bouts of measles, mumps, and chicken pox. Thanks to vaccines, none of my children had to experience that.

I don't know if you have ever had measles, mumps, or chicken pox, but I can tell you, it's a miserable experience. Any parent who would risk their child suffering like that, with the risk of far worse complication is a sadistic bastard to a degree that can't be explained by ignorance or gullibility.
 
I have asked the mods to derail the vaccination debate over to the new thread I started..

I am sure that will make oiu happy so we can go back to your book.

Vaccination ARE an important topic. Literally life and death. Look ate natutinal flu deth.

The CDC estimated there have been at least 7.5 million flu cases this season as of Dec. 20, as well as at least 81,000 hospitalizations and 3,100 deaths.1 day ago


Flu is surging nationwide, and doctors say we're nowhere near the peak

In the global new a new agree flu strain spreading around the world did not make it into this tear vaccines.
The strain didn't but my understanding is the vaccine generally protects you from death.
 

While it's true that this year's flu vaccine, at least the one that we get in the US isn't effective against the newest variant, but I've read that those who have been vaccinated and get the flu have much milder cases compared to those who don't. Only 40% of Americans have had their flu vaccine so far this year.

The same goes for COVID. I've had about 11 COVID vaccines and I only had COVID once. I had very mild symptoms for one day and my husband had an asymptomatic case. So, seasonal vaccines almost always give some protection from severe cases, even when they don't cover every variant.
Fundamentally, vaccines are always about making milder cases. It's just the ideal case is reduced to way below the threshold where you can notice it. But even an imperfect shot is usually better than none.
 
Fundamentally, vaccines are always about making milder cases.
Not really. Milder cases and fewer fatalities are side effects; The primary goal of a vaccine is at the population level - to get the case infection rate below one, so the pathogen goes extinct for lack of transmission. Individual benefits are secondary to population benefits; They make the sales pitch easier, but ultimately if a vaccine blocks transmission, it's worth having even without those individual level bonuses.

And it needn't even block all transmission; If the vaccine raises the minimum innocculation for infection, such that standard barrier precautions (masks, gloves, isolation, etc.) are more effective, it can get the CIR below one as part of a wider attack on the pathogen, even though it only has a fairly small influence. But only if the vast majority of potential new hosts are protected.

Hence the disproportionate hazard posed by selfish and self-centred vaccine deniers and refusers.
 
Last edited:
Fundamentally, vaccines are always about making milder cases.
Not really. Milder cases and fewer fatalities are side effects; The primary goal of a vaccine is at the population level - to get the case infection rate below one, so the pathogen goes extinct for lack of transmission. Individual benefits are secondary to population benefits; They make the sales pitch easier, but ultimately if a vaccine blocks transmission, it's worth having even without those individual level bonuses.

And it needn't even block all transmission; If the vaccine raises the minimum innocculation for infection, such that standard barrier precautions (masks, gloves, isolation, etc.) are more effective, it can get the CIR below one as part of a wider attack on the pathogen, even though it only has a fairly small influence. But only if the vast majority of potential new hosts are protected.

Hence the disproportionate hazard posed by selfish and self-centred vaccine deniers and refusers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was only referring to seasonal vaccines like flu vaccines, which don't always cover every new strain but almost always protect one from hospitalization or death.

The vaccines like the MMR, DPT, polio etc. protect you from the disease itself and there are very few diseases that might interfere with those vaccines. I've never known anyone who had a serious side effect from any of those vaccines. Anyway, the point is that vaccines are safe and effective and seasonal vaccines provide some degree of protection from serious illness. Regardless, my husband and I have not had the flu since our mid 30s when we skipped the flu vaccine. He was extremely ill since he has mild asthma. We have never missed another flu vaccine and now we are in our 70s.

Viruses like the flu and COVID mutate quickly so it's difficult to have vaccines that cover every variant, but unless one is allergic to an ingredient in a vaccine, they are safe and effective. I mentioned in the other thread that doctors or pharmacists tell those who receive vaccines that they should wait for about 20 minutes before leaving the area in case of a rare anaphylactic response, so it can be quickly treated. Such reactions are due to allergies to an ingredient in the vaccine, and are very rare. My neighbor can't take the flu vaccine due to an allergy to something in the vaccine. She is terrified of getting he flu this year since she is almost 80 and has some chronic diseases that put her at high risk if she gets the flu.

Vaccine deniers are ignorant and their ignorance often causes a lot of preventable illness and sometimes death to others, including sometimes their own children. The deniers sometimes deny the death was due to the disease that a vaccine could have prevented. I read about such a case last week. A little boy died from measles and an asshole doctor tried to say it wasn't measles that killed the boy. Imo, he should have lost his medical license if he is that stupid. Sadly, having a medical degree doesn't always equate with wisdom.

I am also old enough to have known a lot about polio victims. It's a disease that can leave one disabled.
I recall seeing people in what were called iron lungs on the news. I worked with a polio survivor who had a severe limp and had to wear a brace on her leg because the vaccine had not been approved until I was in grade school and she was about my age. I had measles, a horrible, itchy, feverish disease. I already mentioned in the other thread that I once had a patient who was in close to a vegetative state from brain damage from measles, leaving his elderly mother to care for him. We grew up prior to the development of the MMR vaccine. Since I never had the mumps, I had an MMR vaccine as an adult, even though the mumps is a less serious disease compared to the measles. I had no side effects. The so called German measles, is usually not serious, but it can severely impact the fetus of a pregnant woman if she gets it.

Vaccines are one of the most life saving medical developments and yet we have ignorant people who refuse to learn about the science behind them, who refuse to help protect themselves and others get herd immunity. I know one. She is a sweet person full of stupid ideas. I read recently that this isn't just happening in the US. Canada and probably other countries are also dealing with such ignorant people. Humans are irrational, but I never expected this level of stupidity among even highly educated people. I have lots of friends who barely made it through high school who have more common sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom