Have there ever been any imperfect vaccines or vaccine ingredients in the history of vaccination?

[mhatrw]

Has there ever been a vaccine whose costs and risks exceeded its benefits?

Have there ever been any ingredients put into any vaccine that on retrospective examination perhaps should not have been injected into large cohorts of human beings?

Have there ever been any vaccines that were manufactured using inherently dangerous processes?

Have there ever been any recalls for defective, unsafe or inefficacious vaccines?

Has vaccination ever increased the prevalence of the very disease it was designed to protect against?

Note that I am not condemning vaccination in any way with these questions. Consider what your response to these questions would be if the word "vaccine" were replaced with the word "medicine". Just as the fact that there have been a few medicines that have done more harm than good certainly does not condemn all medicine, the fact that there there may have been a few vaccines that may have done more harm than good certainly does not condemns all vaccination.

What is it about vaccination in general that makes it so sacrosanct to its defenders that anyone who questions any vaccine or vaccine ingredient for any reason is roundly vilified as anti-science with the religious fervor of the Spanish Inquisition?

Is it even possible to have a rational, balanced discussion weighing the pros and cons of any specific vaccine in a public forum? Or is discussing this issue the medical equivalent of the Israeli/Palestinian forum? If so, why? Is it possible for individuals to reasonably differ on the issue of whether every single vaccine or vaccine ingredient is miraculous and wonderful? Why is such discussion so inevitably divisive?

Why, for example, is it OK to take issue with Vioxx or Lipitor without being branded as an anti-science Luddite, but not OK to say anything even remotely untoward about any vaccine or vaccine ingredient?

Why, for example, can one be mercilessly attacked simply for suggesting that single dose thimerosal-free flu vaccines are preferable to multi-dose vials that contain thimerosal? Is there some ready made argumentative construct that demands that even such a seemingly innocuous, common sense statement as this be met with the staunchest possible resistance?

Is such a charged and polemic atmosphere of debate conducive to science or the dissemination of scientific knowledge?

Are Straussian principles at work here? Is it OK for certain experts to rationally and impassionately discuss the pros and cons of individual vaccines and individual vaccine ingredients but deemed too dangerous for such rational discussion to occur in the public arena?

[hobbit709]

1. NO vaccine is perfect

But those that make unfounded biased claims about any given vaccine are not helping anything.

[mhatrw]

3. What is that supposed to mean?

If you can't discuss specific concerns about specific vaccines and vaccine ingredients, what else is left?

How can "unfounded" concerns ever become founded if they are not even allowed to be broached?

[HuckleB]

25. It's quite obvious what it means.

Your response shows that your OP is nothing but SPAM!!!!

[pnwmom]

16. You don't have to make an unfounded claim to get attacked

as an anti-vaccine or anti-science person. All you have to do is have a concern about a brand new vaccine suddenly being mandated, or post about a peer-reviewed study in a reputable medical journal showing a possible risk to a vaccine adjuvant. Suddenly the usual suspects are out in force, attacking the OP as being anti-science or anti-vaccine. (And this doesn't happen when new or old drugs are posted about -- only with vaccines.)

What should be happening is a back-and-forth discussion on the merits of the various studies or the need for particular vaccines. What happens all too often is an attempt by some posters to derail any real discussion by immediately accusing the OP of being anti-science or anti-vaccine.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

89. I LOVE THIS ENTIRE THREAD!!!

This entire thread clearly PROVES the exact point of the original post.

Anyone with the stomach to simply peruse even the subject titles of this entire thread can quickly discern that this thread contains a surfeit of personal attacks, tit for tat antagonistic nonsense, bizarre personal accusations and historical recriminations, nit picking, seemingly purposeful misunderstanding, and completely empty bickering.

I started this thread with the best of intentions. Sure, it was a little adversarial (bygones being bygones), but I was actually hoping to gain some insight into the motivations of my occasional adversaries and hopefully come to some understanding with them. But, with a few commendable exceptions, note the complete lack of any debate that led anyone to a greater understanding of any issue or even managed to engender a modicum of adversarial respect.

It is as if the discussion of even the potential of any imperfect vaccine causes some sort of rhetorical black hole from which no civil, rational or informative debate can ever emerge.

Why? Why can't vaccines be discussed like other medicines and therapies?

[pnwmom]

91. Excellent question. n/t

[mzmolly]

95. Because vaccination is a religion to some who have exchanged one

idol for another? No amount of logic and/or impartial science can overcome religious zealotry. Especially when PR machines like those funded by the Koch brothers are behind much of the "don't dare question vaccines" propaganda.

[uppityperson]

2. Of course there have but that doesn't outweigh the good most do.

"What is it about vaccination in general that makes it so sacrosanct to its defenders that anyone who questions any vaccine or vaccine ingredient for any reason is roundly vilified as anti-science with the religious fervor of the Spanish Inquisition?"

Well, when you post correlation vs causation and that "proof", you are being anti-science.

Unrec for wild jumps and insults throughout your post. On the other hand, you have shown a big reason why civil discussion is difficult.

"Why, for example, is it OK...not OK to say anything even remotely untoward about any vaccine or vaccine ingredient?" WHO is saying anything like that? No one I've read here. Unrec for false assertions.

[mhatrw]

5. Correlation causation, but correlation is a precondition for causation.

I'm wondering where I contended differently.

And, yes, I have been uncivil at times. I am certainly not blameless. But that has never been my intent with any OP I have ever begun.

I'm wondering just what it is about this specific topic that typically makes reasonable discussion deteriorate so rapidly on both sides.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

42. That is a problem, you do support correlation causation. Even in this post you do.

Correlation does not equal causation.

"What is it about vaccination in general that makes it so sacrosanct to its defenders that anyone who questions any vaccine or vaccine ingredient for any reason is roundly vilified as anti-science with the religious fervor of the Spanish Inquisition?"

Yeah, ignoring your edit in the OP, this paragraph sure shows NO intent to be uncivil. :sarcasm:

[mhatrw]

52. OK, so I had one sentence of overcharged rhetoric.

I also tried to say that correlation <> causation, but for some reason the <> (tags?) did not appear in the subject line.

It seems to me that you are picking nits with me here instead of addressing the overall gist of the OP.

Do you feel I am your enemy because I am concerned about thimerosal and alum in in vaccines?

Do you feel I am your enemy because I do not think the benefits of Gardasil outweigh its risks and costs for the US population (male and female)?

[uppityperson]

55. Why do you continue to say I feel you are my enemy? Speaking of overcharged rhetoric.

Look in the mirror.

[mhatrw]

62. I did not say anything overcharged. I asked you two questions, which you sidestepped

with a personal attack.

I am sincerely curious as to how you view me. I view you as someone whom I disagree with sometimes and typically have a hard time engaging in a rational discussion with. I like to question authority more than you do, and you spend a lot of time defending the science quo from its heretical questioners. Sometimes you appear bent on derailing rational debate rather than engaging in it, but I cannot cast the first stone on that account.

I assume your heart is in the right place, and sincerely wonder just what is about the issue of vaccines that sets off so many like you. Do you have any actual insight into this or are we simply engaging in a little antipathetic gamesmanship as usual?

[uppityperson]

67. How is questioning your "Do you feel I am your enemy" a personal attack?

Why do you continue to say I feel you are my enemy? Why do you assume you "like to question authority more than you do"?
"Sometimes you appear bent on derailing rational debate rather than engaging in it"? Yes, " are we simply engaging in a little antipathetic gamesmanship as usual?" is sooo rational.

:eyes:
bye

[mhatrw]

70. You have not addressed the issue of the OP in any one of your dozen or so posts in this thread.

Every single one of your posts is an attempt to portray my rhetoric as overheated and irrational in order to pretend my discourse is the cause of your complete non-response to any of the issues in the OP. Why?

Do you have anything to say about the OP, or are you just going to continue to parse my personal rhetoric, claim it is somehow impolitic and toss it back at me?

[uppityperson]

71. You never answer my questions. eom

[mhatrw]

73. Just antipathetic gamesmanship. Got it....nt

[uppityperson]

75. you never answer my questions. just bash.

No, I'm tired of getting flamed by you. And if I say "bye" you tell me I'm taking my ball home.

And you wonder why there is no reasonable discussion.

Why do you never answer my questions? WHY do you bash and flame rather than clarifying? Now it is your turn to yell at me again.

Why would I want to play with you?

[mhatrw]

77. What is it about the topic of vaccines that always engenders this sort of nonsense non-discussion?

?

[HuckleB]

79. Asks the person who always pretends reality is something else during these discussions.

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

9. The OP wasn't being anti-science.

He or she was asking why anyone who has concerns about particular vaccines is immediately attacked by a small but dedicated group of posters as anti-science or anti-vaccine. Whereas rarely is anyone with a concern about a particular drug accused of being anti-science or anti-medication.

My children are fully vaccinated except for one particular vaccine, and so am I. We also get yearly flu vaccines. But I can't count the number of times I've been accused of being anti-vax or anti-science, simply because I think we should be as careful of the vaccines we put into our bodies as we are of the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the medications we take.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

41. OP wrote this, which is highly inaccurate.

(edited for typo in subject line)

"What is it about vaccination in general that makes it so sacrosanct to its defenders that anyone who questions any vaccine or vaccine ingredient for any reason is roundly vilified as anti-science with the religious fervor of the Spanish Inquisition?"

Aside from the inflammatory language, this is not what happens.

OP asks "Is it even possible to have a rational, balanced discussion weighing the pros and cons of any specific vaccine in a public forum? Or is discussing this issue the medical equivalent of the Israeli/Palestinian forum? If so, why? Is it possible for individuals to reasonably differ on the issue of whether every single vaccine or vaccine ingredient is miraculous and wonderful? Why is such discussion so inevitably divisive?"

Is the above an example of that "rational, balanced discussion"? Pshaw.

[mhatrw]

45. You're right.

I should have said Spamish Inquistion. B-)

[pnwmom]

46. uppityperson, didn't you see all the flaming going on in this very thread?

Someone has been repeatedly accusing me, the OP, and MzMolly of being the same person merely because we have had, at times, various concerns about particular vaccines. This person (whose name has been "removed" over and over again) is attempting to derail any serious discussion with his repeated attacks. This is the kind of thing the OP is talking about. Not people like you who are actually trying to have a discussion.

[uppityperson]

48. I see the flames starting with the OP's rhetoric. Perhaps starting with a more civil

tone, not getting into hyperbole and call outs right away in the OP might be a good start.

For you, the only MzMolly I see written here is by you. Like the OP edited some inflammatory language from OP, delete probably had some also, but you are the only one mentioning the other poster.

[mhatrw]

51. OK. So maybe there was some rhetorical hyperbole in the OP, but the deleted posts

on this very thread have borne out the OP's overall thesis quite well.

Wouldn't you agree?

[pnwmom]

56. No, the flamer, in one of the posts deleted by the mod,

accused me of being MzMolly and of being the OP -- he named MzMolly specifically at least once, maybe twice.

And I see the OP's post as born of long frustration. It is very discouraging to know that you can't have a thoughtful discussion on vaccine issues without running into someone who will instantly, and repeatedly, try to shut the discussion down.

[uppityperson]

58. You mean like "medication could possibly be in order"?

That sort of "thoughtful discussion"?

[pnwmom]

60. I don't know what you're referring to. n/t

[mhatrw]

65. What is your point? That I cannot return fire?

What is up with the gamesmanship? Why do you refuse to engage in discussion on the OP, instead confining every one of your replies to your judgments of my personal behavior?

"Well, she did it second!"

Is that your idea of a rational discussion?

[uppityperson]

66. Your OP IS about personal behavior. I am only allowed to criticize others, not you?

Bye

[mhatrw]

68. LOL. The OP is NOT about personal behavior.

But every single one of your posts on this thread are, and now that I am calling you out about this you are taking your ball and leaving.

How am I supposed to interpret this? Is it even possible for you have a discussion about this issue in good faith?

[uppityperson]

69. Your OP is not about personal behavior? Wtf?Yes, it is. It is about how people behave posting here

Is it even possible to have a rational, balanced discussion weighing the pros and cons of any specific vaccine in a public forum? Or is discussing this issue the medical equivalent of the Israeli/Palestinian forum? If so, why? Is it possible for individuals to reasonably differ on the issue of whether every single vaccine or vaccine ingredient is miraculous and wonderful? Why is such discussion so inevitably divisive?

This is NOT about personal behavior? This is NOT about how people behave here? Seriously? Seriously?

None is this is about personal behavior?

Why, for example, is it OK to take issue with Vioxx or Lipitor without being branded as an anti-science Luddite, but not OK to say anything even remotely untoward about any vaccine or vaccine ingredient?

Why, for example, can one be mercilessly attacked simply for suggesting that single dose thimerosal-free flu vaccines are preferable to multi-dose vials that contain thimerosal? Is there some ready made argumentative construct that demands that even such a seemingly innocuous, common sense statement as this be met with the staunchest possible resistance?

Is such a charged and polemic atmosphere of debate conducive to science or the dissemination of scientific knowledge?

Are Straussian principles at work here? Is it OK for certain experts to rationally and impassionately discuss the pros and cons of individual vaccines and individual vaccine ingredients but deemed too dangerous for such rational discussion to occur in the public arena?"

You are seriously now saying you don't want to talk about what you write in your OP? Seriously? WHAT issue are you trying to discuss " in good faith"? Having a civil discussion? Personal behavior?

"Now that I am calling you out about this you are taking your ball and leaving." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[mhatrw]

72. Again, you are making this discussion about my rhetoric.

All you have done in every post on this thread is throw my words back at me.

Every post you have made has had the exact same gist which is that you cannot address the OP because of my rhetoric or my hypocrisy or something.

You have parried the OP as well as every single question I have asked you in this exact same manner.

Is there something about discussing the topic of vaccine that causes you to behave this way? Can you have a discussion in good faith about the potential problems with specific vaccines or vaccine ingredients? Can you even have a discussion in good faith about why this topic is hot button issue for you?

[uppityperson]

74. You never answer my questions, just blast me. Try again...

WHAT issue are you trying to discuss " in good faith"? Having a civil discussion? Personal behavior?

WHAT issue?

I copy paste yout OP, trying to figure it out and you will not help beyond blasting me for not discussing your OP.

WHAT issue?

Can you answer this? I copy/pasted your OP showing a lot of talk about personal behavior. YOU complain I "throw my words back at me". You say those words, the ones YOU wrote in your OP are not indicative of wtf the OP is about. WHAT IS THE OP ABOUT if NOT what you wrote, what I copy/pasted?


GOOD LORD!

What is your issue?

[mhatrw]

76. What is it about the topic of vaccines that always engenders this sort of nonsense non-discussion?

?

[pnwmom]

86. In another post, s/he gave an example of a recent discussion

that had been derailed by the same poster who tried to derail this one. In it she had posted an article about a peer-reviewed study by a reputable researcher about the use of aluminum as an adjuvant. She was immediately attacked in the way that is all too familiar here. Is it wrong to even talk about this issue? Is it wrong to wonder why it is possible to talk about issues of drug safety here, but almost impossible to bring up issues of vaccine safety without being accused of being anti-vaccine or anti-science?

[mzmolly]

96. I consider myself

complimented by the zealot in question pnwmom. :hi:

[mhatrw]

97. Good to see you, my long, long lost alter ego!

LOL

:toast:

[mzmolly]

98. LOL

Good to see you too! :pals:

[pnwmom]

100. Me, too, mzmolly.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

103. Thanks pnwmom.

We're getting good at multitasking with our many personalities, eh? ;)

[mhatrw]

104. Yeah, it's amazing how good we are at being three different people.

:D

[mzmolly]

106. Indeed!

:popcorn:

[HuckleB]

110. It's probably also the repetive anti-vax routines that the purveyor of the OP has been offering...

... few several days, and for several years. Also, this is the fourth or fifth anti-vax OP she has pushed without any real reason to start yet another OP in a couple of days. At this point it's pure spam.

[mzmolly]

112. .

[mhatrw]

116. To you, spam = whatever you don't want to see or hear.

Here's a novel idea.

If I post something you disagree with, use your critical reasoning faculties to rationally take issue with it.

Once you do this once, it's not so hard.

[HuckleB]

118. You have to post something rational in the first place.

I'm still waiting to see that.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

4. When you present some scientifically-based information,

based on actual research, that demonstrates the problem, I'll listen. Until then, you're just rambling.

Show us some actual information on specific vaccines, and we can discuss it.

[mhatrw]

7. OK. Bombs away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=96613&mesg_id=96613

Why do I have the feeling that this will not end well?

[pnwmom]

12. Thanks for the link. Yes, this is typical. n/t

[HuckleB]

27. Could it be because your BS has been proven baseless already?

[mhatrw]

39. I guess. But as anyone with the patience to shift through that entire thread can attest,

it most certainly has not.

[HuckleB]

80. Anyone with that kind of patience, is not going to be your pal.

Newsflash!!!!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

13. Exhibit A

What about my OP elicited this personal attack? What about anything I have ever said on this forum led HuckleB to label me personally as the villainous anti-vax "they"?

I have spoken out against exactly one vaccine (Gardasil) and two vaccine ingredients (thimerosal and alum). How in the hell does that make me part of any villainous anti-vax monolith that must be defeated at any rhetorical cost?

[pnwmom]

15. He did the same thing to me.

It seems to be a hobby.

[HuckleB]

17. ROTFLMAO!

Protecting oneself from, well, reality!

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

28. If he were the only one, I'd just write it off.

But there appear to me quite a few "protectors of the flame" on this forum and at least a few others.

I realize that I am probably biased, but it seems nearly impossible to draw such folks into an actual discussion in the which the normal conversational protocols of rational give and take ensue. Never is any point that you make admitted. Always is any misstep you make or any "in" you leave open for an rhetorical volley exploited. Never are your original concerns allayed other than by appeals to authority. Personally, I would love it if someone could convince me that mercury and aluminum in vaccines and mercury in teeth fillings are not worrisome by providing actual scientific research articles on the toxicity studies that (I assume) had to have been performed at one point for these things to still be approved.

"They must find it difficult, those that take authority as truth, instead of truth as the authority."

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

34. There you go again.

[mzmolly]

99. One wonders how many blatant, disrespectful, infractions are necessary before one is banned?

:shrug:

Edited for spelling and grammar. Apologies to all my other personalities, here. ;)

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

33. mhatrw, my husband is a PhD scientist,

and he's just as careful about these things as I am. Just because some scientist or engineer invented it, doesn't mean it's perfectly safe.

[mhatrw]

37. Does he have any insight into why vaccines are considered so sancrosanct?

Just wondering.

I am actually having a strangely good time having the exact point of my OP proven right before my eyes in real time.

Thank you for participating.

[pnwmom]

40. Not a clue. Nor do our doctors, who took my concerns

about the old DTP vaccine very seriously. (They also supported me when I wanted to get the killed polio vaccine for my children instead of the live virus. A few years later, of course, the government suddenly mandated that everyone should use the killed virus vaccine -- so I was just ahead of the pack on that one.)

[mhatrw]

49. Well, my brother just had a daughter last February.

I told him to be careful and read the full inserts about each every recommended vaccine (as well as other available vaccine alternatives) in order to make the most informed decisions for his daughter. His pediatrician, who had recently moved from Michigan to Oregon, helped him out with this, and then told him, "I wasn't sure what was with you people at first, but I'm getting used to this."

[pnwmom]

59. Good for that doctor. Another thing I would say to your brother

is to consider spreading out the vaccines. There is no medical reason for them all to be given on the same day -- it is purely a matter of convenience for the parent that the doctors think will increase parental compliance with the regimen.

[mhatrw]

63. Great advice!

I'm not sure what he has done about that, but I will ask him next time we talk.

[HuckleB]

81. Sure he is, and, btw, you're not careful about any of this.

Your posts prove that.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

101. Because you frighten some.

You dare to think. You dare to question. Neither is allowed when it comes to vaccination. You'll be shamed if you don't inject your infant(s) with every vaccine that comes down the pike, no questions asked. No family medical history is relevant. No vaccine ingredient merits discussion. No manufacturing method is to be considered.

[pnwmom]

11. That would require referring to other threads, which I don't think

we're supposed to do.

I agree with the OP, though. Anytime I've ever had a concern about a particular vaccine, a particular vaccine ingredient, or the vaccine schedule, I've been attacked as being anti-vaccine and anti-science. Even though I'm fully vaccinated, my children have had all the vaccinations except for one that our doctors decided was contraindicated, and we all have flu shots every year.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

23. Show me a thread where I've ever been against vaccines in general.

You won't find one.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

30. I have no "moniker" on this site except for this one.

Paranoid minds might think otherwise.

[HuckleB]

32. .

:rofl:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

38. I haven't posted a single thread about vaccines in months.

But you've convinced yourself I've got multiple identities because apparently there can't be more than one person on DU who could have a concern about a vaccine.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

87. I have no other identity or moniker on this board, as you know.

Which is why your posts keep getting deleted.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

117. In other words, you deny reality.

Shocking.

[MineralMan]

50. I have seen no evidence that demonstrates the dangers in any

way that represents real research. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking for some sort of demonstrable evidence. What I've seen is sheer speculation and misrepresentation by those who are attacking the use of vaccination.

The evidence is that such vaccinations have produced remarkable results, eliminating at least one disease from the planet (smallpox) and nearly completely eradicating another (polio). I grew up in the 1940s and 1950s and had almost every childhood illness, except smallpox and diphtheria. I have a neat scar on my left arm as proof of my vaccination.

I lost a childhood friend to polio. I lost another friend to encephalitis caused by the chickenpox in 6th grade. I missed those diseases, and got the first round of the Salk vaccine.

Have there been incidents? Yes, there have. I know about every one of them. The bottom line remains that those illnesses are no longer a threat to our children, and even adults benefit from the flu vaccine. This year, at age 65, I got the pneumonia vaccination, for which I'm very glad.

Are there some risks? Yes, there are. Life is full of them. Immunization is a success, and a wonderful one. Those of you who are too young to remember the ravages of the "childhood" diseases simply have no idea what a boon universal immunization has been. No idea at all.

[mhatrw]

53. Well. my concern is not about vaccinations overall, but some vaccines and some ingredients.

Here is a published, peer reviewed scientific article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810

that makes me concerned about the effects of aluminum adjuvants that are in many, if not the majority, of vaccines.

[pnwmom]

61. You've never seen any evidence of any dangers in any vaccine?

That's hard to believe.

You weren't aware that because of the dangers of the old DTP vaccine (the one that killed my sister), the manufacturers finally developed a newer, safer vaccine?
You weren't aware that the government finally decided that the risks of the live polio vaccine were too great, and they switched back to the original killed vaccine?

Why isn't it possible to have a thoughtful discussion about possible risks to a particular vaccine or vaccine ingredient without being accused of being a person who is "attacking the use of vaccination."

I'm pro-vaccine. I'm also pro as-safe-as-possible-vaccines. That's not inconsistent.

[pnwmom]

6. I have often wondered the same thing.

For example, when Governor Perry (Republican, TX) was trying to mandate the brand new vaccine, Gardisal, for all girls in Texas -- everyone here who questioned the need for the immediate mandate was attacked by the same crowd of pro-vax people who try to slap down anyone who ever has questions about the need for or safety of particular vaccines or vaccine ingredients. For some reason, to question ANY vaccine or ingredient seems to them to be a threat to ALL vaccines. And you're right, this never happens in discussions about the safety of drugs -- only of vaccines.

[mhatrw]

10. I think it may have something to do with the perceived anti-vax website enemy?

The vast majority of anti-vax websites play even more hard and fast with the science than do Big Pharma marketing departments. So I can understand the prejudicial antagonism.

But it seems to go way beyond this to me. It's more like when, as a young child, I asked a priest what God was doing in the infinite time before He made the universe and he told me I would go to hell if I didn't stop thinking about it.

[pnwmom]

14. LOL!!! n/t

[HuckleB]

20. I love to see anti-vaxxers talk to themselves!!!!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

47. MzMolly must have. You know her -- our other personality?

:sarcasm:

[mhatrw]

54. Poor HuckleB

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

105. Hey, I missed it. What'd we do now?

:shrug: ;)

[uppityperson]

57. "medication could possibly be in order"? Well, isn't that civil and helpful in promoting rational

discussion?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

78. It appears that this individual has gone a bit too far, as usual.

[pnwmom]

88. Don't you think such a response is justified when the person

is making repeated, completely unfounded, accusations that the OP has been posting under at least three different names in the forum?

[HuckleB]

93. The accusations are founded. If they weren't you wouldn't have bothered trying to cover it up.

BTW, it was your own use of such baseless accusations that gave you away some time ago.

Oddly, you didn't aim mental illness stigma-promoting personal attacks at yourself. Hmmmmmmmm.

[mhatrw]

94. You keep proving the OP's point with every post! Thanks....nt

[HuckleB]

109. Technically that's another red herring, but it's not even worth referring to it as such.

(Also, it appears that you forgot who you "were" when you made that post.)

[mzmolly]

113. OP = original post.

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

115. Yes, it does.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

119. Keep up the good work!

You just keep proving the point of my original post with every single response you make!

[HuckleB]

121. That's quite a fantasy.

This fantasy might be even better than the one you keep repeating about the Hutterite study.

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

44. Knock yourself out. n/t

[HuckleB]

83. I'll just sit back and watch, thank you very much.

:rofl:

As noted, the obviousness of the multiple DU heads is all too clear.

Thanks for making it even more obvious by hitting the alert button.

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

102. Exactly. Imagine if Texas had mandated the Gardasil vaccine for grown

men? You can bet there would have been mass outcry.

[mhatrw]

107. Yep. They would never even try that one.

I would love to see the reaction to Merck's attempts to market that plan.

[mzmolly]

108. "Free Viagra trial with Gardasil jab!"

:P

[mhatrw]

90. I LOVE THIS ENTIRE THREAD!

This entire thread clearly PROVES the exact point of the original post.

Anyone with the stomach to simply peruse even the subject titles of this entire thread can quickly discern that this thread contains a surfeit of personal attacks, tit for tat antagonistic nonsense, bizarre personal accusations and historical recriminations, nit picking, seemingly purposeful misunderstanding, and completely empty bickering.

I started this thread with the best of intentions. Sure, it was a little adversarial (bygones being bygones), but I was actually hoping to gain some insight into the motivations of my occasional adversaries and hopefully come to some understanding with them. But, with a few commendable exceptions, note the complete lack of any debate that led anyone to a greater understanding of any issue or even managed to engender a modicum of adversarial respect.

It is as if any discussion of even the potential of any imperfect vaccine causes some sort of rhetorical black hole from which no civil, rational or informative debate can ever emerge.

Why? Why can't vaccines be discussed like other medicines and therapies?

[mzmolly]

114. "This entire thread clearly PROVES the exact point of the original post."

Yes it does, unfortunately.

[ZombieHorde]

120. Some people have bad reactions to vaccines...

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/21/2734.abstract

We also have been learning more about vaccines and how to make them safer...

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/3/557

There have been vaccine recalls...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9795393

Overall, the vast majority of vaccines are safe for the vast majority of humans.

[astral]

122. Do we already know the answers to the first 5 questions is YES?

I have a relative whose life was ruined by a flu vaccine. I was against vaccines before this, and wish I could have prevented this from occurring, and I do not believe the Bulls*** story of only "one in a million" people having an adverse reaction to this vaccine.

The doctors refused to look at it. This information did not make it into "The Statistics."

Who DOES follow up to see how many people who get vaccines get sick right afterwards, I mean permanently sick not just getting the flu from the vaccine?

THE FOLLOWUP IS NOT DONE.

I had to see it for myself.

I also do not believe a healthy person, such as myself, can walk around making other people sick just by my presence because I do not get the flu vaccine (or, as you might surmise, any other vaccine.) I am not a sick flu carrier just because my blood has not been contaminated with the flu strain. And, I don't get the flu.

The medical INDUSTRY is not as safe nor scientific as many people believe, at this point in our history. It is not a very comfortable thought, I know.

My family was just the one-in-a-million unlucky one.

Nah, I DON'T THINK SO.

[SheilaT]

123. The swine flu vaccine.

1977.

Can't believe this thread got more than 120 posts without someone mentioning that.

I'm old enough to remember the entire swine flu fiasco, and it was a total cluster-fuck from the very beginning. Not all vaccines are wonderful and perfect.

[LeftishBrit]

124. Yes. But they aren't the cause of autism.