I completely agree with your point that sending sick, non-vaccinated children out into the world is RUDE, but I do not think strictly keeping them home from daycare/school when they are ill is enough to keep the immunocompromised safe.

For example, the prodromal (initial) phase of a Bordetella pertussis infection lasts about 2 weeks and is only characterized by mild symptoms such as a slight cough and a runny nose. These symptoms alone are probably not enough to worry a parent and they may still send their child off to daycare or take them out to run errands. However, this is when Bordetella is MOST CONTAGIOUS. When the whoops begin developing the number of infectious particles actually decreases. This allows a full 1-2 weeks for the pathogen to spread to MANY children. NOT okay. Also, newborns under 6 months of age are the most susceptible population. In the case of Bordetella pertussis, CELLULAR immunity is protective, antibodies are not, and passive immunity from the mother does not occur. So these infants are vulnerable whether their parents have plans to immunize or not (DTaP series is not started until 2 months of age and not complete until age 4-6). So those parents against vaccination are NOT correct when they think their decisions only affect their own family. Again, this just goes back to the whole ‘herd immunity’ concept.

Let’s see, what else can I think of? The prodrome for measles (fever, malaise, cough, etc.) begins about 2-3 days before the more characteristic rash shows up. Again, this initial phase is when the person is MOST INFECTIOUS. And with mumps, contagion precedes symptoms by 7 days. Also keep in mind both these diseases have a contagion rate of about 85% to 90% and 95% and 70% of those infected with measles and mumps, respectively, will become symptomatically ill. Anyway, good luck to those poor unvaccinated children who hang out with other unvaccinated children (seriously, good luck, because I really do feel sorry for those with irresponsible or ill-informed parents).

Now, one last thought and I’ll get off my soapbox. I have seen several people mention that they believe there is less concern to immunize because so few of us are familiar with the devastating diseases our vaccines protect us against. Just a random example, I didn’t realize until medical school that dysentery wasn’t just something you died from on The Oregon Trail…. Anyway, I think it is POSSIBLE many people have stopped thinking of these severe diseases as anything more than a rash or a bad cough. I’m sure many manipulated parents do not know about so many of the severe primary and secondary complications of these preventable diseases. Just for fun, I’ll name a few.

Haemophilus influenzae type B: epiglottitis (THROAT CLOSURE), pericarditis, meningitis (with a 90% mortality rate if untreated and complications such as mental retardation and blindness IF the child survives).

Bordetella pertussis: pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy (these complications can develop DURING RECOVERY).

Measles: pneumonia (causes over half of measles deaths), encephalitis, subacute sclerosing pan encephalitis (SSPE) — this usually begins 3-10 years post measles infection in TEENAGERS and leads to eventual death.

Mumps: meningoencephalitis and other CNS infections, epididymo-orchitis if the infection occurs in post-pubertal males — CAN LEAD TO STERILITY.

Influenza (the REAL flu): pregnant women can die in their 3rd trimester or lose the baby, one can develop viral or bacterial pneumonia, and people with HEART PROBLEMS are more susceptible to severe disease (but no one in America has heart problems, right?).

Rubella: maybe not so bad? A bit of a rash, fever, the usual. Then possibly some arthritis and encephalitis. BUT, congenital rubella infections occur when a mother becomes infected during pregnancy. This results in heart defects (Tetralogy of Fallot), deafness, microcephaly and several other awful conditions. If parents choose not to immunize their child now, she could possibly get infected years down the road while pregnant and completely destroy the life of their grandchild (if it even lives long enough to have a life).

I don’t know why I took the time to type all this; we all know hard-headed people will never change their opinions. Maybe ONE person will be persuaded to vaccinate their child (just one? maybe?) plus this was less exhausting than trying to explain how autism does NOT occur from vaccination.

(Also, please do not ask me to cite references for my statistics…I obtained them from my old medical school lectures and am going to assume they are close enough to the real deal).

While I’ll readily agree that all of the antivax crap is just that (i.e., a smelly and unpleasant amorphous mess that is a major vector for spreading disease), it seems highly likely that the contractor and their brainless hosts and producers (who are so competent that they’re involved in in-flight entertainment instead of, say, working for a real broadcast news agency like CNN or MSNBC or USA Today), and that no one at the airline reviewed the content before its insertion into AA’s entertainment rotation, especially since the name of Ms. Dorey’s group is deliberately chosen to sound like a professional and competent organization, with the title of “president” implying particular expertise in the field, since “Chief Lunatic of the Ignorant Conspiracy Theorists’ Anti-Logic Society,” while accurate, would probably result in a little less attention being paid to this moron.

I point this out not in defense of the show, but because one should make sure one is in the right about underlying facts before throwing rocks.

Anyone born in the US before 1950 grew up with friends, relatives, and classmates afflicted with this horrible disease.

I recall several classmates who used crutches or wheelchairs to get around. My best friend in college had one leg shorter than the other by about six inches. He insisted in limping everywhere in order to keep his body from deteriorating. He could not run and sometimes had to use a crutch because of pains in his good leg. The fatality rate from polio is about 10-15% within a few days of the onset of the disease. Perhaps worst of all, a neighbor girl (my age) was confined 24-7 to an iron-lung, her only view of the outside world through a small window seen upside down in the mirror above her head. She died when she was 18 years old, having spent most of her life since the age of four on her back with a machine to do her breathing for her.

I also recall my parents not allowing me to go anyplace during the summertimes for play or sport where there might be large groups of kids, like swimming pools or public parks, because of the high chance of contracting polio. Newspapers frequently ran headlines of polio epidemics with warnings to “Keep Your Children At Home.”

When the Salk, and later the Sabin vaccines became available, my parents insisted I get both of them, and I finally felt safe from the ravages of polio…but it came too late for many others I knew, many of whom still live today, crippled for life.

I grew up in a time when the only antibiotic available was sulfa, and the only vaccines, smallpox and tetanus. People used to die painfully from small wounds and infectious communicable diseases. I’ve had tetanus and some of the diseases mentioned above. They’re not pleasant and a real threat to life.

Anyone opposed to vaccines simply has no idea of the reality of a world without them!

There are a number of vaccines that DO cause autism, that’s why when they are administered the doctors have a series of tests and questionnaires for parent to see if the child has developed symptoms.

Ooh, you tease.

How about you clearly state which vaccines you are talking about? Who makes them, and how is the autism link established?

Are you absolutely sure you are talking about autism, and not some form of encephalopathy?

Vaccines do not prevent disease,

Yes they do. The data all support this claim, whereas I have never seen any data to support your contention.

Here’s another thing I’ve never seen – someone with polio. This is directly attributable to widespread vaccination.

if they did then why do we still see these diseases in our country?

Ever heard of a little idea called evolution?

No?

Maybe you should look into it.

But, to supply a more direct answer to your question :
1. Vaccines are not 100% effective.
2. Pathogens evolve ; frequently their mutations allow them to evade our immunity. For some organisms, this occurs rapidly while for others it occurs more slowly (which is why we have a different flu vaccine every year, whereas tetanus immunity typically lasts a decade).
3. Some people cannot receive certain types of vaccine for other medical reasons (for example, people with egge allergy cannot receive the flu vaccine).
4. The immune-compromised (such as transplant patients) can contract and spread diseases irrespective of how many vaccinations they may have had.

If they truly stopped disease then you should have no concern about being on a flight with someone who might possibly have one of those diseases you think you have immunity to.

See above. Immunity is not perfect, even if you acquire it through infection rather than vaccination.

The truth is that so many of these vaccines only have a very short shelf life and are only able to make claims of helping to lessen the effects of the disease they are meant for.

There are two kinds of vaccine. Prophylactics, which account for the vast majority of vaccines used; and treatments, where the vaccine activates the patient’s immune system to fight off a disease. Most of the latter are experimental or apply to a small proportion of clinical indications. Cancer vaccines, for example, are all in the latter category, and tend to be highly specific.

Many vaccines have a pretty long shelf life when you consider the biochemistry of what’s in them. True, it might be short compared to small-molecule drugs, but that’s not really relevant, is it?

But the reality is that vaccines provide immunity against diseases. Immunity, here, is used in its technical, immunological, sense. Neither vaccine nor having a disease can absolutely prevent you from getting the same disease ever again. But both will confer at least some measure of protection, and will often provide a very high level of protection, to the extent that a subsequent infection with a mutated form of the pathogen could be next to symptomless.

Note especially that vaccination offers the only opportunity we have for eradicating diseases. Smallpox has been eradicated, through a coordinated, targeted programme of vaccination. Polio came close about a decade ago, and would have been eradicated then had it not been for the activities of antivaccination campaigners. It looks now like we might eradicate polio this year or nest year, through another coordinated vaccination campaign.

When you get a standard flu shot if given the nasal version you have a live virus in your systems and can get other people sick by spreading your germs.

You have an attenuated virus in your system. Sure, you can infect other people with it, but their symptoms are likely to be mild, and it will most probably confer immunity on those people to the strain against which you were vaccinated.

What of it?

Go read the vaccines book by DR sears.

Or, you could read some of the primary literature concerning vaccines.

Educate yourself about the truth of vaccines before you make such a public display of error.

Actually, the current state of knowledge favours Phil’s points, not yours.

As far as we can tell :
1. Vaccines pose a very small risk in and of themselves;
2. Vaccination prevents the spread of many diseases;
3. The immunity conferred by vaccination occurs through a mechanism that is largely understood;
4. The arguments of antivaccine campaigners do not hold water.

Do any of you vaccine promoters out there ever recall reading a third party, non biased report on the effectiveness and side effects of vaccines? Oh you do? Funny .. cause there HAS NEVER BEEN ONE.

Eh?

What, you mean apart from the hundreds that are carried out each year?

I’ve worked with a guy who supervises clinical trials. I’ve been involved in process development for a cancer vaccine, and met a guy who supervised a very early small-scale clinical trial of it in patients with terminal oesophagal cancer.

AFAICT, these guys are all on the level, sharing the sincere belief that what they do improves people’s lives. They were also good scientists, not shirking from whatever conclusion the data forced them into.

So for you to claim that impartial clinical trials of vaccines have never been done is pretty extraordinary. Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that the sponsors of clinical trials routinely pressure the researchers to return a specific result?

If this occurs – as you imply – as a matter of routine, how come so many drugs and vaccines fail at Phase III? How come any drugs fail at all in the later phases of clinical trials?

Most vaccines have been around long enough to know short-mid term afermath – but there are new vaccines (like the flu shot, chicken pox, etc) that have NOT been tested (because hey, to test it, we’d have to do human testing – which is “not” the same thing as mass administering it and checking for side effects later)

Erm, yeah, they have to be tested, unless they’re identical (or so closely similar as to make no odds) to an existing product.

, and have NOT been studied.

Y’know what? To me this sounds like a lie.

Put up or shut up.

I’m not against all vaccines. Most are not dangerous and do save lives.

So which ones, in your view, are “dangerous”?

What makes them dangerous?

Have you questioned the FDA – or at least researched the cirumstances – regarding their approval?

You have to be blind and stupid not to realize that it’s definetly possible for the pharmeceutical industry to get vaccines approved by the FDA that haven’t been tested – with a little thing called money.

Ooooh. So that explains how come we had a parking lot of brand-new Lamborghinis out front when the FDA inspectors came to inspect the site at which I work, a couple of years ago. Oh, wait. No, we didn’t. We passed that inspection through hard work, diligence and rigorous attention to detail, not through bribery. Maybe you should contact my bosses and tell them that it’d be far easier to use bribery. Please be sure to pass on the names of which FDA inspectors are open to offers, as it’d be so embarrassing to try and bribe the one or two who are scrupulous. [/snark]

Good. AA has the courage to stand up to the Big Pharma sanctioned brow beating people get when they question the safty and true purpose of vaccines. It’s no secret that most of them are full of all kinds of toxic substances….but because “someone”…says it’s safe…we are all just supposed to fall in line and get injected. Nope.

So, if most vaccines are “full of all kinds of toxins”, I have a few questions for you to answer:

1. What are these toxins?

1a. How toxic are they in the kind of doses that are applied in vaccines?

1b. What are the doses of these “toxins” in vaccines?

2. How does a pharma company (Big or otherwise) get a vaccine to market when it’s “full of all kinds of toxins”?

2a. Be very specific in any answer you attempt to provide. For instance, if you talk about a vaccine, what is the vaccine for? Who makes it? When did it come onto the market? What regulatory agency was involved (e.g. was it the FDA, the EMEA, the MHRA, or whichever)? When were the clinical trials for that vaccine carried out? Who oversaw them, and where were they performed? What data from those trials was published, where and when? And so on.

3. If vaccine formulations are, as you imply, toxic, what’s in it for the pharma company? Surely if the vaccine formulation is toxic, it’ll kill off the company’s customers, right? In what way does a pharma company benefit from dead customers?

4. Do you acknowledge that vaccines actually work to prevent disease?

4a. Because if they don’t work, then the pharma company will surely make more money by selling injections of harmless sterile saline that won’t kill any customers, right?

5. How do you suggest it came about that regulatory agencies all over the world (not the FDA alone) have been coerced into allowing vaccines containing “all kinds of toxins” to be marketed?

5a. IOW, the regulators, according to you, are doing the exact opposite of what they were set up to do. How come no secretary, no filing clerk, no disgruntled ex-employee, has blown the whistle on this?

5b. Do you know of anyone who works or worked for a regulatory agency who has been coerced into allowing toxic vaccine formulations to be marketed?

You know what I’m talking about

Indeed I do.

It reminds me of the contrast between one of the most reactive elements and a polymer containing this element that is one of the most inert (and slippery) substances we know.

There is a much, much higher incidence of cancer and autism clusters surrounding Superfund Sites than the relatively small correlation found between autism and thimeserol/mercury used in some vaccines.

I don’t know anything about these “Superfund Sites” of which you speak, but no rigorous study has ever found any link between autism and thimerosal. If anything, the reverse is true : as thimerosal use declines, autism rates are still rising.