Forced Vaccination is Wrong

[CabinetMaker]

No, he certainly wasn't but the newborn's foot being so small it makes the incision and blood loss proportionately bigger. My son also reports to this day that the poke of the nail hurt "way worse" than a bee sting (we keep bees now and then and our garden has bumblebees too, many kinds of stinging critters in our yard...)

a newborns heel is just slightly larger than an adult thumb and the lance is the same size you would use to prick a finger for a blood test. Sorry, not buying what your selling.

I don't really see the relevance, because my son also has a much higher pain tolerance than a newborn.

newborn heel skin versus 7 year old heel skin. Which one do you think is thicker and tougher?

I'm not being cavalier, I'm trying to point out something to Ty who was claiming that it would be too much invasive trouble to add that vaccine vulnerability screen to the baby schedule. Do you understand my point? If we will be serious about a risk like the rose diseases, being so rare and all, then why not equally serious about the risks from vaccine vulnerability? That's not asking too much at all, considering the stakes are just as high in that category, being also life long or fatal in nature.

(If vaccines are to be forced, or even chosen freely, it's unreasonable to not also first screen for all known potential contraindications first.)

Yes you are cavalier about. You have made several comments about it. You even seen to support the idea if a measles party. Tell me, you you take your children to a polio party?

 

[User Name]

You even seen to support the idea if a measles party. Tell me, you you take your children to a polio party?

Is getting the measles vaccine worse than getting measles?

 

[Tyrathca]

You just defeated your earlier argument against screening for vaccine damage risks.

No I did not, you are simply struggling with the concept of over investigation.

Thanks. I'm not anti-PKU, BTW. I fail to see why I need it for my family, considering what you said, though. I mean, if you won't support thorough screening for risk of vaccine reactions, I don't need to take the PKU test for my newborns and they'd love to avoid the pain and inconvenience, anyway.

I would support screening if the evidence was that it would be useful. The facts are that it currently wouldn't be because:

A) Primary immune deficiency (PID) is not a single disease but instead a group of disorders which are extremely heterogenous.
B) There is no good screening test for them
C) A good screening test is unlikely to exist given how heterogenous PID is, instead one would expect any effective screening tests to exist only for individual disorders within the grouping (which individually much rarer).
D) The important variants that may be adversely affected by vaccinations are very rare compared to PID as a whole
E) The screening test (if it existed) has to give some benefit, unlike PKU where a known intervention can improve outcomes but only if started before clinical diagnosis is possible with PID what to do about a diagnosis is less clear (immunizations aren't known to be contra-indicated in most I believe, in fact in some it seems vaccinations are important!)
F) A good follow up test is needed to confirm the screening test, in PID many of the variants have very difficult tests to perform and interpret and are only done in very specialised research labs.

That is probably the main list of issues with primary immune deficiency screening though not an exhaustive one

That was a test for your logic. If you support that, you should support the other thing I suggested.

If a good screening test and follow-up regime/intervention were available I would support it, but that does not exist and given the nature of the issue I think it is unlikely to exist for a looong time. In particular I think that screening for the reasons you have suggested is especially unlikely to occur within any reasonable time frame. We will probably develop some possible screening tools for specific disorders of primary immune deficiency, and they MIGHT be worth implementing, but not for PID as a whole.

You've got so caught up in your seemingly clever logic of "if you support X then you should support Y" seemingly only looking at relative frequencies when you haven't asked any other important questions. My rejection boils down to these realities:
Is PKU screening technologically feasible? Yes
Is primary immune deficiency screening technologically feasible? No

I think it is, especially when you consider the revolving doors of politics and business. It's called Fascism.

O...K.... now the whole developed world (and probably developing world too) is run in the background by fascist conspiracies....

You do like hyperbole don't you?

 

[Tyrathca]

Is getting the measles vaccine worse than getting measles?

No. Getting measles is worse than getting the measles vaccine.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

a newborns heel is just slightly larger than an adult thumb and the lance is the same size you would use to prick a finger for a blood test. Sorry, not buying what your selling.

I'm selling screening for vaccination risks prior to vaccination. Using PKU testing as my rational. It's invasive for a sensitive newborn.

If it's worth it for 10,000 newborns to suffer for the sake of 1... than surely we can justify screening for vaccination risks.

...And did you know that PKU has a 90%+ false positive rate?

Yes you are cavalier about.

Says who? I said I support screening. I have two objections to the current method at this time which doesn't negate the coolness of the basic concept of screening. 1. Genetic privacy and 2. the need for less invasive DNA sampling.

You have made several comments about it. You even seen to support the idea if a measles party. Tell me, you you take your children to a polio party?

No way do I support a measles party. I support control of epidemics and avoidance of infection risk for all people. You won't find a single praise of a measles OR polio party from me. Read again.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

No I did not, you are simply struggling with the concept of over investigation.

You've got no problem with a 90%+ false positive on PKU.

I would support screening if the evidence was that it would be useful.

We aren't ready for forced vaccination if we aren't ready to eliminate the risk of vaccine injury.

The facts are that it currently wouldn't be because:

A) Primary immune deficiency (PID) is not a single disease but instead a group of disorders which are extremely heterogenous.
B) There is no good screening test for them
C) A good screening test is unlikely to exist given how heterogenous PID is, instead one would expect any effective screening tests to exist only for individual disorders within the grouping (which individually much rarer).
D) The important variants that may be adversely affected by vaccinations are very rare compared to PID as a whole
E) The screening test (if it existed) has to give some benefit, unlike PKU where a known intervention can improve outcomes but only if started before clinical diagnosis is possible with PID what to do about a diagnosis is less clear (immunizations aren't known to be contra-indicated in most I believe, in fact in some it seems vaccinations are important!)
F) A good follow up test is needed to confirm the screening test, in PID many of the variants have very difficult tests to perform and interpret and are only done in very specialised research labs.

A. As of now, there needs to be a public campaign to raise awareness for prevention and detection of PID. It harms people in numerous ways and makes mingling in society at large risky individually and for society. It's impossible to vaccinate against all dangerous viruses for those individuals, considering there are millions of viruses that pose a threat.

B. The fact that there is no good screening test means we need a moratorium on vaccinations until we can resolve this and protect those at risk from vaccines.

C. If you think they can only screen a handful of risk factors then let them make money and screen away. That might be a proper use of commercial science.

D. You can't say that reactions based on PID are rare without further investigation, which may be actually hampered by commercial science. They don't want a big chunk of their burgeoning market to go away.

E. Since there are more practical and effective methods of disease control than vaccines, we should not shrink from identifying those who need the alternate routes, even if it scoops more people out of the "herd" of "immunity" that you count on.

F. There are limitations on the PKU test, as well. Test too soon and you will miss diagnosing a dangerous disease, test later and miss another disease... It's the same dumb test for 30 years. 5 one-inch circles to fill with blood.

That is probably the main list of issues with primary immune deficiency screening though not an exhaustive one

Sorry. :sigh: You are going to have to do better than that.

If a good screening test and follow-up regime/intervention were available I would support it

Case closed.

but that does not exist

Then dismiss the coercive nature of vaccine programs.

and given the nature of the issue I think it is unlikely to exist for a looong time.

Then that's how long it should take to eliminate those diseases from the face of the earth at worst. At best, we will eliminate those diseases without requiring global vaccination. But barring that, deal with it. There are millions of other viruses you must also put up with. And new ones all the time.

In particular I think that screening for the reasons you have suggested is especially unlikely to occur within any reasonable time frame. We will probably develop some possible screening tools for specific disorders of primary immune deficiency, and they MIGHT be worth implementing, but not for PID as a whole.

You aren't going to get support for universal vaccination that way, and you shouldn't expect it.

You've got so caught up in your seemingly clever logic of "if you support X then you should support Y" seemingly only looking at relative frequencies when you haven't asked any other important questions. My rejection boils down to these realities:
Is PKU screening technologically feasible? Yes
Is primary immune deficiency screening technologically feasible? No

Then that's what my vaccine refusal also boils down to. First, do no harm.

O...K.... now the whole developed world (and probably developing world too) is run in the background by fascist conspiracies....

Well, not the FDA .... not HUD... wait... no wait... Um, find me a righteous regulatory agency or large corporation, will ya, and get back to me?

You do like hyperbole don't you?

Is liberty hyperbole?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Why are we having a culture war over vaccines when we should put that energy into reforming and preventing mass extinction?

 

[Tyrathca]

You've got no problem with a 90%+ false positive on PKU.

For a screening test of a rare condition? No. Would it be better if the false positive rate were lower/positive predictive value were higher? Of course.

The reason for this are multiple. Firstly, it is a screening test ergo it's most important feature is to have near 100% sensitivity (i.e. near no false negatives/very high negative predictive value) while its false positive rate/PPV is less important because the whole point is to identify those who should have further testing. Second, a high false positive rate is rather expected in disease such as this where the rate is low and does not indicate a bad test - instead it means that the very low pre-test probability magnifies the impact of the tests specificity.

Now if we were going to rely on this test alone and then treat people there would be a problem, but that is not the case.

We aren't ready for forced vaccination if we aren't ready to eliminate the risk of vaccine injury.

Well I disagree with that conclusion. I do not think that risks need to zero, I think that they need to be relatively low compared to not vaccinating. No one has claimed in this thread or others that vaccines have no risks but the fact of the evidence is that vaccines are comparitively safe due to their very low incidence of significant adverse affects.

I'd like to point out also that you are arguing a point over an extremely rare condition having a seemingly extremely rare complication where the incidence so far as been presented n=1 (a single case report)

A. As of now, there needs to be a public campaign to raise awareness for prevention and detection of PID. It harms people in numerous ways and makes mingling in society at large risky individually and for society. It's impossible to vaccinate against all dangerous viruses for those individuals, considering there are millions of viruses that pose a threat.

That sounds very nice, if you can explain how your campaign will improve detection and patient outcomes I'd support it. However I'm fairly cynical about "raise awareness" campaigns, many seem to be just "pat yourself on the back" affairs about making campaigners feel good and maybe a small psychological boost to patients without actually achieving any other useful health outcomes. But that's just me.

B. The fact that there is no good screening test means we need a moratorium on vaccinations until we can resolve this and protect those at risk from vaccines.

You want a moratorium regardless of the actual risk. Hell you want a moratorium on vaccines unless they have no risks at all (not even 1:1,000,000,000 it seems...)

D. You can't say that reactions based on PID are rare without further investigation, which may be actually hampered by commercial science. They don't want a big chunk of their burgeoning market to go away.

I can when the variants of of PID which have a known or theoretical mechanism for risk with live virus or bacterial vaccines are extremely rare. I can when we know that most of these (very rare) children with these variants don't present with infections or complications of these types of vaccines.

E. Since there are more practical and effective methods of disease control than vaccines, we should not shrink from identifying those who need the alternate routes, even if it scoops more people out of the "herd" of "immunity" that you count on.

We have more reason than just vaccine risk to want good screening programs for conditions which predispose to vaccine complications. The conditions themselves are generally severe enough that vaccine risk is probably comparatively low in importance compared to other concerns.

Doesn't change the fact that at best we have only a few variants with potential screening tests/programs. We can hope together that research into these screening tests goes well.

You aren't going to get support for universal vaccination that way, and you shouldn't expect it.

Well there is pretty strong support for it already...

Then that's what my vaccine refusal also boils down to. First, do no harm.

Nice history and general prinicple though Hippocrates is the idea is a little simplistic. In a way you can cause harm by inaction. Furthermore if we went by the strict idea of "do no harm" you espouse in this thread then no medicine anywhere would EVER be done (not even herbal remedies) because there is always a risk of harm however remote.

Even feeding a baby has a risk of serious harm (even though exceptionally remote) but we still feed them so clearly we all understand in someway that reality is a little more complicated than you allow for...

Well, not the FDA .... not HUD... wait... no wait...

I point out your claims would suggest a world wide conspiracy and your rebuttal is examples of corruption in the USA where crony capitalism is a well known and entrenched problem. Once again an American acts like their is representative of the whole world...

Um, find me a righteous regulatory agency or large corporation, will ya, and get back to me?

"Righteous" regulatory agency? "Righteous" corporation? I'm not even sure what that would look like let alone why I would want it to exist.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

For a screening test of a rare condition? No. Would it be better if the false positive rate were lower/positive predictive value were higher? Of course.

The test is a bit of a joke these days, sadly. It needs an overhaul. (at least as it's seen done in the USA) Screening needs to keep genetic information private and secure while being more comprehensive and less invasive, all possible with the right motivation. But since money is typically the first thing to motivate, we'll have to wait for a generous brain of a person or philanthropist to start a "methuselah project" type race to the solution to our inadequacies. If we are serious about saving lives, that is.

The reason for this are multiple. Firstly, it is a screening test .....

Mhmmm.... Didn't say that it was a bad test for that reason...

Well I disagree with that conclusion.

For utilitarian reasons?

I do not think that risks need to zero, I think that they need to be relatively low compared to not vaccinating.

Since no one has done the actual research (nor do they posses the motive) to prove vaccinated people are overall healthier during their lifespans and to the second generation when cumulative problems may appear we are not ready to make that claim. Also our preliminary data is flawed and largely inadequate.

No one has claimed in this thread or others that vaccines have no risks

Good. Ever heard of a nocebo? http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150210-can-you-think-yourself-to-death

Not smart to frighten and threaten families with shots they believe can harm them. If that doesn't do harm then their reaction to society because of it is a social threat to collective moral and well-being.

I'd like to point out also that you are arguing a point over an extremely rare condition having a seemingly extremely rare complication where the incidence so far as been presented n=1 (a single case report)

Do you remember the post where I showed you that it was not just Hannah Polling?

That sounds very nice, if you can explain how your campaign will improve detection and patient outcomes I'd support it.

That's nice, but how would commercial science be motivated to do this? They plan to multiply business and don't need any barriers to that goal. (notice how we also see that globally, gas efficiency is hampered by the oil industry - which in turn influences the auto industry)

You want a moratorium regardless of the actual risk. Hell you want a moratorium on vaccines unless they have no risks at all (not even 1:1,000,000,000 it seems...)

Try to not get impatient with me. I've been glad to communicate with you. I need to know what reasons the other side has to offer and you need to know what my side of the picture has to offer. Again, Hannah Polling is far from alone.

I can when the variants of of PID which have a known or theoretical mechanism for risk with live virus or bacterial vaccines are extremely rare.

We don't know that. Reconsider for a moment that for us to know that we'd have to screen and follow up on a large and diverse population.

I can when we know that most of these (very rare) children with these variants don't present with infections or complications of these types of vaccines.

Says who with what data?

The conditions themselves are generally severe enough that vaccine risk is probably comparatively low in importance compared to other concerns.

Agreed, but that simply means they should avoid infection, a good idea for all people, since all people could get PID under the right circumstances. Otherwise, we should have screening to protect all people from the disorder so that they can take risks that can only be partially addressed (if one argues vaccines work) vs preventing exposure to infections and doing remedial work on the health to correct the underlying issues.

Well there is pretty strong support for it already...

I should have said universal acceptance for universal forced vaccination. It doesn't impress me if sheeple go along to get along or even bleet it like gospel. The fraction of holdouts presents a major social challenge with ethical questions that cannot be blithely dismissed.

Nice history and general prinicple though Hippocrates is the idea is a little simplistic. In a way you can cause harm by inaction. Furthermore if we went by the strict idea of "do no harm" you espouse in this thread then no medicine anywhere would EVER be done (not even herbal remedies) because there is always a risk of harm however remote.

Actually, there are treatments that are safe with no side effects, but all the FDA's drugs are dangerous or at least risky.

Screening tests, on the other hand, are not dangerous if they are non-invasive. There are many tests I approve of, even some minimally invasive ones, and I've certainly made labs a little money over the years. It has improved my quality of life in subtle ways, as I used it.

Even feeding a baby has a risk of serious harm (even though exceptionally remote)

But the act does no harm. Infecting a child and breaking their skin is an arguable harm to all children, especially since you can't eliminate the risk, no matter how mild the harm may be considered, whereas a food product that is non-toxic and non-allergenic to the child is essential for life and is not inherently harmful in any way. So the food isn't first harming to help, which is what the writer intended. He was talking about stuff like bleeding patients or using toxic medicines.

I point out your claims would suggest a world wide conspiracy and your rebuttal is examples of corruption in the USA...

Do you deny the influence of the USA or the fact that the same corporations feeding off us flourish with you? Can you find me other agencies that are satisfactory concerning corruptibleness?

"Righteous" regulatory agency? "Righteous" corporation? I'm not even sure what that would look like let alone why I would want it to exist.

As in non-corrupted by monetary influences.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rents-will-lose-benefits-20150411-1mie6x.html

Parents who do not vaccinate their children will lose welfare payments of up to $2100 per child under a federal government policy set to be announced before the May budget.

Under changes that could save more than $50 million a year, Social Services Minister Scott Morrison is preparing to scrap a “conscientious objection” provision which allows anti-vaccination parents to still claim welfare benefits including childcare assistance and Family Tax Benefit A.

Notice how they anticipate pushing those resisters out of the payments rather than getting them vaccinated... They will "save" 50 million/yr!

It always comes down to money, it seems.

 

[Rusha]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rents-will-lose-benefits-20150411-1mie6x.html

Notice how they anticipate pushing those resisters out of the payments rather than getting them vaccinated... They will "save" 50 million/yr!

It always comes down to money, it seems.

From the article:

Parents of about 39,000 children have signed "conscientious objection" forms that certify they have a "personal, philosophical, religious or medical" objection to immunisation. This form, which requires a consultation with a doctor or immunisation nurse, is necessary for the parents to receive Family Tax Benfit A. But access is means tested so not every one of those parents would be receiving the payment.

The policy comes amid rising concern about whooping cough deaths and fears of disease outbreaks in some parts of Australia where many unvaccinated children live in small communities.

Mr Morrison believes proper immunisation of children against severe diseases protects them and other children from deadly diseases and as such should be a prerequisite for receiving taxpayer assistance. He said the rules need to be tightened.

He is absolutely correct. It's bad enough that these parents have no conscience when it comes to their children infecting other children, but to the demand the same benefits as those whose concern also includes the well being of ALL children may motivate these parents out of their carelessness.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

From the article:

Parents of about 39,000 children have signed "conscientious objection" forms that certify they have a "personal, philosophical, religious or medical" objection to immunisation. This form, which requires a consultation with a doctor or immunisation nurse, is necessary for the parents to receive Family Tax Benfit A. But access is means tested so not every one of those parents would be receiving the payment.

The policy comes amid rising concern about whooping cough deaths and fears of disease outbreaks in some parts of Australia where many unvaccinated children live in small communities.

Mr Morrison believes proper immunisation of children against severe diseases protects them and other children from deadly diseases and as such should be a prerequisite for receiving taxpayer assistance. He said the rules need to be tightened.

He is absolutely correct. It's bad enough that these parents have no conscience when it comes to their children infecting other children, but to the demand the same benefits as those whose concern also includes the well being of ALL children may motivate these parents out of their carelessness.

You are assuming there are no other alternatives to vaccination that are acceptable. These children are not an infection risk if they practice disease containment and prevention. There have been no scary outbreaks in those communities or they would have been widely reported on.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'm selling screening for vaccination risks prior to vaccination. Using PKU testing as my rational. ...And did you know that PKU has a 90%+ false positive rate?

Why would you push a test that has such a high false positive rate for a very condition using methods that you see as invasive? Why not do the PKU test when there are other reasons that indicate the test would be a good idea? Test when needed.

It's invasive for a sensitive newborn.

Its common for all newborns to have a heel prick done to draw blood. Are you saying you want to stop that practice 'cause its just darn intrusive?

If it's worth it for 10,000 newborns to suffer for the sake of 1... than surely we can justify screening for vaccination risks.

Again, why not test when doing so is indicated for other reasons such as a family history of reactions to vaccines or other specific indicators?

Says who? I said I support screening. I have two objections to the current method at this time which doesn't negate the coolness of the basic concept of screening. 1. Genetic privacy and 2. the need for less invasive DNA sampling.

What does this have to do with anything.

[/quote]No way do I support a measles party. I support control of epidemics and avoidance of infection risk for all people. You won't find a single praise of a measles OR polio party from me. Read again.[/QUOTE]Do you understand that people can be contagious for up to 4 days before showing any symptoms? How do you propose to avoid giving people a disease that you don't even know you have yet? BY the time you realize your sick, its to late. You have already infected others.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Why would you push a test that has such a high false positive rate for a very condition using methods that you see as invasive? Why not do the PKU test when there are other reasons that indicate the test would be a good idea? Test when needed.

I agree with the test in principle. But I believe that it's about 30 years out of date and not privacy protected enough.

Internal memos indicate that when the agency was preparing to start making their store of newborn blood spots available to researchers in 2003, officials acknowledged that parents "never consented for blood spots to be used for research," but decided to sidestep the issue.

Thankfully the S. Court recently ruled they cannot patent the human DNA they isolate. But... that doesn't rule out other potential abuses of genetic privacy. I would prefer to see a little more freedom of choice and control over storing the results of the tests for parents.

...

Of course, if you could show me an alternative to PKU that made sense, I'd jump on that, since I don't want to sell my privacy away for information, even valuable information.

Its common for all newborns to have a heel prick done to draw blood. Are you saying you want to stop that practice 'cause its just darn intrusive?

Name a good reason it's still done the same way for 30 years now. I think we could do better and be kinder, don't you? Genetics shouldn't require a bone marrow sample, so why 5 huge blood circles?

Again, why not test when doing so is indicated for other reasons such as a family history of reactions to vaccines or other specific indicators?

Because PID is more heterogenous than genetic. Screening would need to be multifaceted and must be done before the first shot and before all others after, since heath fluctuations make a difference.

What does this have to do with anything.

I'm not cavalier. That's what it has to do with anything.

No way do I support a measles party. I support control of epidemics and avoidance of infection risk for all people. You won't find a single praise of a measles OR polio party from me. Read again.

Do you understand that people can be contagious for up to 4 days before showing any symptoms?

Yes, I do. I also see how we handled and contained Ebola without a vaccination. All I have to do is isolate my child from public interaction for a few weeks if they came in contact with another child exposed to the measles. I don't need to know that kid in the middle of that vector chain was sick before acting. That's how Ebola was halted here, not through a vaccine.

How do you propose to avoid giving people a disease that you don't even know you have yet? BY the time you realize your sick, its to late. You have already infected others.

You don't wait for symptoms, CM. Once you suspect exposure, that's when quarantine starts. It works. Quarantine ends when you pass the prodromal period without raising a fever. (2 weeks or whatever, I'd double check with a search right after exposure.)

 

[CabinetMaker]

I agree with the test in principle. But I believe that it's about 30 years out of date and not privacy protected enough. Thankfully the S. Court recently ruled they cannot patent the human DNA they isolate. But... that doesn't rule out other potential abuses of genetic privacy. I would prefer to see a little more freedom of choice and control over storing the results of the tests for parents.


Of course, if you could show me an alternative to PKU that made sense, I'd jump on that, since I don't want to sell my privacy away for information, even valuable information.

Given the potential damage caused by PKU, a heel stick doesn't bother me much. In case you haven't noticed, medicine tends to be invasive and uncomfortable.

Name a good reason it's still done the same way for 30 years now.

Because it works.

I think we could do better and be kinder, don't you? Genetics shouldn't require a bone marrow sample, so why 5 huge blood circles?

I doubt we can do better. The simple fact of the matter is that a blood test is required. How do you propose to get the blood out of the newborns body for testing?

Because PID is more heterogenous than genetic. Screening would need to be multifaceted and must be done before the first shot and before all others after, since heath fluctuations make a difference.

Why are we suddenly talking about PID instead of PKU?

I'm not cavalier. That's what it has to do with anything.

Yes, you are. At your core you don't believe any o fthese diseases are that big a deal.

Yes, I do. I also see how we handled and contained Ebola without a vaccination. All I have to do is isolate my child from public interaction for a few weeks if they came in contact with another child exposed to the measles. I don't need to know that kid in the middle of that vector chain was sick before acting. That's how Ebola was halted here, not through a vaccine.



You don't wait for symptoms, CM. Once you suspect exposure, that's when quarantine starts. It works. Quarantine ends when you pass the prodromal period without raising a fever. (2 weeks or whatever, I'd double check with a search right after exposure.)

Care to speculate on how the Ebola outbreak got so big? Couple of hints: People are contagious while being asymptomatic. The initial symptoms of Ebola are fever, headach and muscle pain which are very similar to a common cold. Are you going to isolate your kids for two weeks every time they talk to another kid with a runny nose? You should because that runny nose could be the symptom for something far worse than the allergy reaction the kids is having.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Given the potential damage caused by PKU, a heel stick doesn't bother me much.

It should if it's needless suffering. You should be able to get that information in a more humane way with less blood or even no blood, since genetic material is also in cheek swabs and hair.

In case you haven't noticed, medicine tends to be invasive and uncomfortable.

It shouldn't be needlessly so. It also tends to hurt people and kill them even when it's properly proscribed or standard care, but that's not the intended consequence or a desirable one.

Because it works.

It is inadequate. Things can and do get missed. Test too early and miss diagnosing hypoglycemia, too late and miss catching something else.

I doubt we can do better. The simple fact of the matter is that a blood test is required. How do you propose to get the blood out of the newborns body for testing?

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/

We're in the process of reinvention for blood testing now.

Theranos requires only a pinprick and a drop of blood. With that they can perform hundreds of tests, from standard cholesterol checks to sophisticated genetic analyses. The results are faster, more accurate, and far cheaper than conventional methods.

Why are we suddenly talking about PID instead of PKU?

Because we are talking about the worth of screening for vaccination risks.

Yes, you are. At your core you don't believe any o fthese diseases are that big a deal.

That's completely untrue, and it's unreal that you've stereotyped me as anti-medicine. I'm not anti-medicine, I'm a liberty-loving skeptic, that's all.

Care to speculate on how the Ebola outbreak got so big?

It didn't in the USA. Did it? Containment works here. How come we haven't seen a major incident with USA hospitals overflowing with Ebola patients?

Couple of hints: People are contagious while being asymptomatic.

Hint: a person with Ebola knowingly risked exposing the USA on an airplane, and when he tried to get help for Ebola in the States it took him passing out in the front of his lawn before being carted away to confinement but then his whole family and all exposed were quarantined and watched.

The initial symptoms of Ebola are fever, headach and muscle pain which are very similar to a common cold. Are you going to isolate your kids for two weeks every time they talk to another kid with a runny nose?

I don't let my kids get close to another child with a runny nose. They sometimes can't play with other kids for weeks to keep them healthy. We won't be spreading diseases, even if we pay a small price for it.

You should because that runny nose could be the symptom for something far worse than the allergy reaction the kids is having.

You aren't any safer from runny noses.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It should if it's needless suffering. You should be able to get that information in a more humane way with less blood or even no blood, since genetic material is also in cheek swabs and hair.

A heel stick does not rise to the level of "needless suffering" in my mind. Your hyperbole does nothing to help your case.

It shouldn't be needlessly so. It also tends to hurt people and kill them even when it's properly proscribed or standard care, but that's not the intended consequence or a desirable one.

Even when done right, people die. Medicine is not needlessly painful, in fact, it is much less so than even ten years ago because so many surgeries can now be done through incisions that are closed with a band-aid.

It is inadequate. Things can and do get missed. Test too early and miss diagnosing hypoglycemia, too late and miss catching something else.

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/

We're in the process of reinvention for blood testing now.

But you still have to get the blood sample. How do you get the blood sample from a newborn with out making them cry?

Because we are talking about the worth of screening for vaccination risks.

Better take a moment to define your acronyms.
PID =Primary Immune Deficiency but ti can also mean Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.

That's completely untrue, and it's unreal that you've stereotyped me as anti-medicine. I'm not anti-medicine, I'm a liberty-loving skeptic, that's all.

Your rhetoric is all I have to go by.

It didn't in the USA. Did it? Containment works here. How come we haven't seen a major incident with USA hospitals overflowing with Ebola patients?

So all those Afircan had to die first so that we could be safe in the US. Obviously your world view doesn't extend much past your front door.

Hint: a person with Ebola knowingly risked exposing the USA on an airplane, and when he tried to get help for Ebola in the States it took him passing out in the front of his lawn before being carted away to confinement but then his whole family and all exposed were quarantined and watched.

Because they had reason to suspect he might have been exposed to Ebola. Had that not been suspected the outcome may have been very different. You are attempting to analyze this at some point after an outbreak has been identified. You need to look at this from case 1, from the earliest stages of an out break when people are sick but the cause has not yet been determined. That is part of the reason the outbreak was so large in Africa and killed so many.

I don't let my kids get close to another child with a runny nose. They sometimes can't play with other kids for weeks to keep them healthy. We won't be spreading diseases, even if we pay a small price for it.

Poor kids.

You aren't any safer from runny noses.

Nor am I paranoid about them. My kids have played with others with runny noses and have caught colds from them. They never caught anything worse than a cold because they were vaccinated. Imagine that.

 

[fzappa13]

They have found other preservatives that work equally well but the Thimerosal is still found to be the best preservative for certain fish.

I'm a little curious what it is you think is being preserved by Thimerosal.

Honestly, not sure where our fish come from. We get it from one of two Asian markets in Denver. If I special order from King Soopers they have a very nice sashimi grade tuna.

:shut:

Yes. Fresh caught fish are per-iradiated! Pretty cool, huh.

I kinda thought that was where you would go. You're frivolity will come back to haunt you.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

A heel stick does not rise to the level of "needless suffering" in my mind. Your hyperbole does nothing to help your case.

I've been very clear. It's not hyperbole. If a parent was making a keepsake for their baby, decorating it in the child's blood via heel-stick, would you consider that abusive?

Even when done right, people die.

It's too primitive and monetarily influenced to be done right, and that's what is standard of care these days. So if that's what you mean, then yes, people die with that kind of medicine.

What's especially sad is the level of forcefulness and arrogance many doctors use in applying that standard of care.

Medicine is not needlessly painful, in fact, it is much less so than even ten years ago because so many surgeries can now be done through incisions that are closed with a band-aid.

Any time a painful method is used when a better, gentler method is available is de-facto needlessly painful. And that's a heel stick for you, and the link I gave is all the evidence you need that we could be doing better by now. Priorities are what shaped the standard of care in screening newborns. Priorities don't include what could be gentler to Baby.

But you still have to get the blood sample. How do you get the blood sample from a newborn with out making them cry?

A tiny drop can be gotten from a less painful area than fingertips or delicate feet. Like the skin of the knee or something. And there is a good chance I really could distract and prevent crying for a tiny drop like that.

Better take a moment to define your acronyms.
PID =Primary Immune Deficiency but ti can also mean Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.

That was done post ago, but perhaps you've been rushing through this thread. You should have noticed I've been talking about PKU/PID with Ty already. It was clear what was meant in that exchange.

Your rhetoric is all I have to go by.

You have to make assumptions BIG ones to assume I'm anti-medicine. I've not portrayed myself as such.

So all those Afircan had to die first so that we could be safe in the US.

What? Why? The patient was knowingly in contact with Ebola, then came over and reported it - and was ignored until he finally passed out on his lawn.

Over there they also knew about quarantine and when it was practiced it saved lives, of course.

Obviously your world view doesn't extend much past your front door.

That's an out of place comment like the other one, since quarantine working here doesn't negate the fact it works over there.

Because they had reason to suspect he might have been exposed to Ebola.

They repeatedly dropped the ball and it still worked. Notice the lack of epidemic with a supremely contagious disease...

Had that not been suspected the outcome may have been very different.You are attempting to analyze this at some point after an outbreak has been identified. You need to look at this from case 1, from the earliest stages of an out break when people are sick but the cause has not yet been determined. That is part of the reason the outbreak was so large in Africa and killed so many.

Then you understand that you are avoidably living a risky lifestyle. A dirty one, because you could easily get sick and become patient zero for a novel disease. It would be harder to do that to our family. Vaccines won't save you from patient zero.

Poor kids.

Why would anyone think my kids are poor when they don't swim in public toilets - er - I mean public "pools" where urine becomes cyanogen chloride, nor do they needlessly swap germs with other children and put their under 1 year old siblings at risk of sick. Instead, my kids have friends online and some that are both online and in real life, they go swimming in clean, urine free swimming holes, they don't play in the MD's playplace and get impetigo or roll in a filthy ball pit at C. Cheese.

My kids have played with others with runny noses and have caught colds from them.

Colds can kill; millions of strains kill. They are a risk and you never know if it's a cold or worse. Just because your kiddos have been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't catch the flu and die. Or kill someone else with those filthy germs they share around.

They never caught anything worse than a cold because they were vaccinated. Imagine that.

They caught every viral stain you injected.

How do you know that they didn't get anything worse? Did you test them recently for evidence of exposure to any of the more contagious HPV viruses that cause cancer?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I've been very clear. It's not hyperbole. If a parent was making a keepsake for their baby, decorating it in the child's blood via heel-stick, would you consider that abusive?

This deserves no response and will receive non. If you honestly think that a medical test and bad parent poking their kid for fun are even remotely synonymous then there is no point to this conversation.

It's too primitive and monetarily influenced to be done right, and that's what is standard of care these days. So if that's what you mean, then yes, people die with that kind of medicine.

To primitive. Primitive compared to what? Again, you cannot lob out these unsupported assertions and expect people to reasonably accept them as factual.

What's especially sad is the level of forcefulness and arrogance many doctors use in applying that standard of care.

Yep, there are bad and arrogant doctors practicing medicine. Ever hear of a second opinion?

Any time a painful method is used when a better, gentler method is available is de-facto needlessly painful. And that's a heel stick for you, and the link I gave is all the evidence you need that we could be doing better by now. Priorities are what shaped the standard of care in screening newborns. Priorities don't include what could be gentler to Baby.

A tiny drop can be gotten from a less painful area than fingertips or delicate feet. Like the skin of the knee or something. And there is a good chance I really could distract and prevent crying for a tiny drop like that.

Your equivocating. It does not matter how tiny the sample is, in order to draw blood you must break the skin. If you poke a knee you might prick a growth plate causing bones to grow improperly. Do you want to risk that? So tell us, how are you going to painlessly break a babies skin to draw blood?

That was done post ago, but perhaps you've been rushing through this thread. You should have noticed I've been talking about PKU/PID with Ty already. It was clear what was meant in that exchange.

I am not following your exchange with Ty.

You have to make assumptions BIG ones to assume I'm anti-medicine. I've not portrayed myself as such.

Its not that far a jump from where I'm sitting. Do you prefer homeopathics or a GP?

What? Why? The patient was knowingly in contact with Ebola, then came over and reported it - and was ignored until he finally passed out on his lawn.

Over there they also knew about quarantine and when it was practiced it saved lives, of course.

That's an out of place comment like the other one, since quarantine working here doesn't negate the fact it works over there.

They repeatedly dropped the ball and it still worked. Notice the lack of epidemic with a supremely contagious disease...

Nope, you still to get it. Can't see past your own front yard.

Then you understand that you are avoidably living a risky lifestyle. A dirty one, because you could easily get sick and become patient zero for a novel disease. It would be harder to do that to our family. Vaccines won't save you from patient zero.

Life is not without risk. Its all about risk management. You are extremely risk averse so your kids play with on line friends. I am less risk averse so my kids ride horses. We have been known to eat lunch after grooming our horses, including picking their feet, without first washing our hands. It is amazing how few colds we have had over the last 5 years. Live dirty! Its healthier! (I'm not being glib. I have observed how well Americans travel to foreign countries and exactly how week our immune systems are compared to someplace like Mexico. Get your immune system out and use it. That is what makes is strong enough so that your kids don't have to have on-line friends.)

Why would anyone think my kids are poor when they don't swim in public toilets - er - I mean public "pools" where urine becomes cyanogen chloride, nor do they needlessly swap germs with other children and put their under 1 year old siblings at risk of sick. Instead, my kids have friends online and some that are both online and in real life, they go swimming in clean, urine free swimming holes, they don't play in the MD's playplace and get impetigo or roll in a filthy ball pit at C. Cheese.

You buy into all this stuff, don't you. Did you even research what it takes to actually form cyanogen chloride in a public pool? From the link:

Casey Johnston at Ars Technica calculated how much pee it might take for an Olympic-sized pool to produce cyanogen chloride at a level that would quickly cause “coma, convulsions and death”: 2,500 parts per billion. Her answer:“In the end, we need a pool that is two parts water to one part chlorine and would probably burn the eyeballs out of your sockets and make your skin peel away from your bones.… If you and three million other people could get at this pool and unload your pee into it before your bodies melted, before the crowd crushed you to death, and before you drowned from the massive tidal wave of pee ... yes, you could feasibly die of cyanogen chloride poisoning.”

Colds can kill; millions of strains kill. They are a risk and you never know if it's a cold or worse. Just because your kiddos have been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't catch the flu and die. Or kill someone else with those filthy germs they share around.

Flu vaccines. Not perfect, of course, but helpful. Actually, our doctors say we don't need flu vaccines because of our lifestyle, we're a pretty healthy lot. In any case, yes, we know that we could die from exposure to some exotic bug. Our choice is to hole up in the house or to go out and live. Guess which path we chose.

They caught every viral stain you injected.

Again, there is a difference between receiving the measles vaccine and catching the measles. I am truly sorry that you cannot grasp that concept.

How do you know that they didn't get anything worse? Did you test them recently for evidence of exposure to any of the more contagious HPV viruses that cause cancer?

How do I know? I don't. My daughters are not sexually active so I am not over concerned about HPV. They know about it and are aware of the risks. As the grow up and leave the house they will make their choices accordingly. In a broader sense, we don't worry about infectious disease much. Matthew 6:27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

Life is short. It messy and dangerous, grossly unfair and is not for the faint of heart. It comes with but a few promises, requires lots of hard work and much sacrifice. It is also wonderful and joyful and beautiful. I don't worry about diseases. We take reasonable precautions but we go out, jump down into the trenches and live and laugh and love.