CDZ Childhood vaccination

[Asclepias]

Let me pose this question. If you get your kids vaccinated what is the problem if someone chooses not to vaccinate their children? Your kids should not be in danger after they are vaccinated correct?

If I have a child under the age of 1 years old- your unvaccinated kids can infect my child and kill him.
If I have a child who has a compromised immune system- like this child- your unvaccinated kids can infect my kid and kill him
A Boy Who Had Cancer Faces Measles Risk From The Unvaccinated Shots - Health News NPR

The ongoing measles outbreak in California now stands at 92 cases.

The spread of the highly infectious disease has sparked a debate about people who voluntarily opt out of vaccines or decline to have their children vaccinated.

Many people have no choice. They can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. They rely on the people around them to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

The Krawitt family in Marin County, Calif., is taking action to try to increase rates of vaccination in their community because 6-year-old Rhett can't be vaccinated.

"I got leukemia when I was 2," Rhett says. "It's a cancer of the blood, and you can die from it."


SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
To Protect His Son, A Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children
After three years of chemotherapy, Rhett is in remission. Now there's a new threat: measles. In California, people can legally refuse vaccines for themselves and their children. Marin County has a high rate of these so-called personal belief exemptions. And that worries Rhett's father Carl.

As we first reported on Jan. 26, Carl is pleading with other parents: Please vaccinate your children, because people with compromised immune systems, including his son, can't be vaccinated.

In the past week, Carl Krawitt's efforts have gained national attention, part of a growing debate on the ethics and health consequences of parents refusing to vaccinate.

Couldnt that said to be just the course of nature?

 

[WinterBorn]

Let me pose this question. If you get your kids vaccinated what is the problem if someone chooses not to vaccinate their children? Your kids should not be in danger after they are vaccinated correct?

If I have a child under the age of 1 years old- your unvaccinated kids can infect my child and kill him.
If I have a child who has a compromised immune system- like this child- your unvaccinated kids can infect my kid and kill him
A Boy Who Had Cancer Faces Measles Risk From The Unvaccinated Shots - Health News NPR

The ongoing measles outbreak in California now stands at 92 cases.

The spread of the highly infectious disease has sparked a debate about people who voluntarily opt out of vaccines or decline to have their children vaccinated.

Many people have no choice. They can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. They rely on the people around them to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

The Krawitt family in Marin County, Calif., is taking action to try to increase rates of vaccination in their community because 6-year-old Rhett can't be vaccinated.

"I got leukemia when I was 2," Rhett says. "It's a cancer of the blood, and you can die from it."


SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
To Protect His Son, A Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children
After three years of chemotherapy, Rhett is in remission. Now there's a new threat: measles. In California, people can legally refuse vaccines for themselves and their children. Marin County has a high rate of these so-called personal belief exemptions. And that worries Rhett's father Carl.

As we first reported on Jan. 26, Carl is pleading with other parents: Please vaccinate your children, because people with compromised immune systems, including his son, can't be vaccinated.

In the past week, Carl Krawitt's efforts have gained national attention, part of a growing debate on the ethics and health consequences of parents refusing to vaccinate.

Couldnt that said to be just the course of nature?

I guess it is all just "the course of nature" until it is your child.

The course of nature has us starving and feasting in cycles. Should we go back to that?

 

[WinterBorn]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

 

[Asclepias]

Let me pose this question. If you get your kids vaccinated what is the problem if someone chooses not to vaccinate their children? Your kids should not be in danger after they are vaccinated correct?

If I have a child under the age of 1 years old- your unvaccinated kids can infect my child and kill him.
If I have a child who has a compromised immune system- like this child- your unvaccinated kids can infect my kid and kill him
A Boy Who Had Cancer Faces Measles Risk From The Unvaccinated Shots - Health News NPR

The ongoing measles outbreak in California now stands at 92 cases.

The spread of the highly infectious disease has sparked a debate about people who voluntarily opt out of vaccines or decline to have their children vaccinated.

Many people have no choice. They can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. They rely on the people around them to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

The Krawitt family in Marin County, Calif., is taking action to try to increase rates of vaccination in their community because 6-year-old Rhett can't be vaccinated.

"I got leukemia when I was 2," Rhett says. "It's a cancer of the blood, and you can die from it."


SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
To Protect His Son, A Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children
After three years of chemotherapy, Rhett is in remission. Now there's a new threat: measles. In California, people can legally refuse vaccines for themselves and their children. Marin County has a high rate of these so-called personal belief exemptions. And that worries Rhett's father Carl.

As we first reported on Jan. 26, Carl is pleading with other parents: Please vaccinate your children, because people with compromised immune systems, including his son, can't be vaccinated.

In the past week, Carl Krawitt's efforts have gained national attention, part of a growing debate on the ethics and health consequences of parents refusing to vaccinate.

Couldnt that said to be just the course of nature?

I guess it is all just "the course of nature" until it is your child.

The course of nature has us starving and feasting in cycles. Should we go back to that?

Maybe. It would sure get rid of some other diseases like diabetes.

 

[Syriusly]

There are people who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical conditions. This is not a problem if everyone gets vaccines. But it becomes a problem when more and more people ignore the scientific evidence and decide to not vaccinate their children.

Premature babies, even after they leave the hospital, cannot get the vaccines until they develop more. People undergoing certain types of chemo cannot get vaccines, so children with cancer and taking chemo can get measles or diphtheria.

So can it be said that this is more about overcoming the effects of nature and ensuring the survival of as many people as possible for a small window of time?

No. It can be said that we, as a society, have discovered how to prevent contagious diseases. The prevention is safe and fairly inexpensive. And we, as a society, have decided that if you want to be a part of our society you have to have these vaccines if you are medically able.

But we havent discovered how to prevent contagious diseases. Diseases are continually mutating. Some are coming out of left field as new diseases. Could we be on course to creating a super disease that there is no cure for simply because we are not developing with the diseases?

Yes we ARE preventing contagious diseases. Measles, diphtheria and other diseases once killed hundreds of thousands of people. Now they are relatively rare in places where vaccines are widely available.

Polio was the fear of every parent for decades. It killed thousands and left even more disabled for life. Widespread use of vaccines has almost eradicated it now.

If you want to discuss the effects of nature, the world is a harsh place with far fewer survivors. I do not see the value in that.

I think the effect of nature is the whole point and not a valueless side topic. We arent preventing contagious diseases. We are only temporarily protecting people from known strains of some diseases. All the diseases you listed have the real potential of mutating and becoming an issue again possibly without us being able to create another temporary protection. Vaccinations are at best a temporary reprieve and could be a catalyst in the rise of super diseases. Just throwing that out there for thought.

I am sorry- I am finding it difficult to respond to your post civilly. Because your post basically is saying its okay for kids to die.

I grew up knowing people who caught polio as kids and were paralyzed to various degrees. What was a common- and horrifying nightmare for parents in the 1940's is virtually unknown in the United States today- all because of vaccines.

By 1950 the peak age incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States had shifted from infants to children aged five to nine years, when the risk of paralysis is greater; about one-third of the cases were reported in persons over 15 years of age.[113] Accordingly, the rate of paralysis and death due to polio infection also increased during this time.[112] In the United States, the 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis.

We do not have have 3,000 dead children and 21,000 paralyzed children this year because of polio vaccinations.

How about whooping cough?
Pertussis Whooping Cough Fast Facts CDC

Approximately 1/2 of all infants who get whooping cough are hospitalized- infants can't be vaccinated, so the only way to protect them from whooping cough is to immunize everyone around them.

How about smallpox? Oh what- you havent' heard of any cases of smallpox?

That is because worldwide immunizations have eliminated smallpox as a communicable disease- it does not exist except in laboratories.

Smallpox was localized in small blood vessels of the skin and in the mouth and throat. In the skin it resulted in a characteristicmaculopapular rash and, later, raised fluid-filled blisters. V. major produced a more serious disease and had an overall mortality rate of 30–35 percent. V. minor caused a milder form of disease (also known as alastrim, cottonpox, milkpox, whitepox, and Cuban itch) which killed about 1 percent of its victims.[6][7] Long-term complications of V. major infection included characteristic scars, commonly on the face, which occur in 65–85 percent of survivors.[8]Blindness resulting from corneal ulceration and scarring, and limb deformities due to arthritis and osteomyelitis were less common complications, seen in about 2–5 percent of case

The children not dying from smallpox every year are very real- and yes- we are preventing contagious diseases- we have effectively eliminated smallpox and rinderpest- we have almost eliminated polio- and are preventing children from catching contagious diseases that used to kill and cripple them.

Saying that vaccines are only a 'temporary' solution is like saying modern sanitation and clean water are only 'temporary' solutions- vaccines and modern sanitation are the greatest human advances for human health in our entire history.

 

[Asclepias]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

 

[Asclepias]

So can it be said that this is more about overcoming the effects of nature and ensuring the survival of as many people as possible for a small window of time?

No. It can be said that we, as a society, have discovered how to prevent contagious diseases. The prevention is safe and fairly inexpensive. And we, as a society, have decided that if you want to be a part of our society you have to have these vaccines if you are medically able.

But we havent discovered how to prevent contagious diseases. Diseases are continually mutating. Some are coming out of left field as new diseases. Could we be on course to creating a super disease that there is no cure for simply because we are not developing with the diseases?

Yes we ARE preventing contagious diseases. Measles, diphtheria and other diseases once killed hundreds of thousands of people. Now they are relatively rare in places where vaccines are widely available.

Polio was the fear of every parent for decades. It killed thousands and left even more disabled for life. Widespread use of vaccines has almost eradicated it now.

If you want to discuss the effects of nature, the world is a harsh place with far fewer survivors. I do not see the value in that.

I think the effect of nature is the whole point and not a valueless side topic. We arent preventing contagious diseases. We are only temporarily protecting people from known strains of some diseases. All the diseases you listed have the real potential of mutating and becoming an issue again possibly without us being able to create another temporary protection. Vaccinations are at best a temporary reprieve and could be a catalyst in the rise of super diseases. Just throwing that out there for thought.

I am sorry- I am finding it difficult to respond to your post civilly. Because your post basically is saying its okay for kids to die.

I grew up knowing people who caught polio as kids and were paralyzed to various degrees. What was a common- and horrifying nightmare for parents in the 1940's is virtually unknown in the United States today- all because of vaccines.

By 1950 the peak age incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States had shifted from infants to children aged five to nine years, when the risk of paralysis is greater; about one-third of the cases were reported in persons over 15 years of age.[113] Accordingly, the rate of paralysis and death due to polio infection also increased during this time.[112] In the United States, the 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis.

We do not have have 3,000 dead children and 21,000 paralyzed children this year because of polio vaccinations.

How about whooping cough?
Pertussis Whooping Cough Fast Facts CDC

Approximately 1/2 of all infants who get whooping cough are hospitalized- infants can't be vaccinated, so the only way to protect them from whooping cough is to immunize everyone around them.

How about smallpox? Oh what- you havent' heard of any cases of smallpox?

That is because worldwide immunizations have eliminated smallpox as a communicable disease- it does not exist except in laboratories.

Smallpox was localized in small blood vessels of the skin and in the mouth and throat. In the skin it resulted in a characteristicmaculopapular rash and, later, raised fluid-filled blisters. V. major produced a more serious disease and had an overall mortality rate of 30–35 percent. V. minor caused a milder form of disease (also known as alastrim, cottonpox, milkpox, whitepox, and Cuban itch) which killed about 1 percent of its victims.[6][7] Long-term complications of V. major infection included characteristic scars, commonly on the face, which occur in 65–85 percent of survivors.[8]Blindness resulting from corneal ulceration and scarring, and limb deformities due to arthritis and osteomyelitis were less common complications, seen in about 2–5 percent of case

The children not dying from smallpox every year are very real- and yes- we are preventing contagious diseases- we have effectively eliminated smallpox and rinderpest- we have almost eliminated polio- and are preventing children from catching contagious diseases that used to kill and cripple them.

Saying that vaccines are only a 'temporary' solution is like saying modern sanitation and clean water are only 'temporary' solutions- vaccines and modern sanitation are the greatest human advances for human health in our entire history.

Well dont get upset. Thats what leads to rash decisions and as you pointed out lack of civility. Yes its ok for kids to die. That has been the natural course of things since we appeared on the planet and eventually everyone dies anyway. While its true we dont have as many deaths we also have a growing population issue and shrinking resources.

 

[Syriusly]

No. It can be said that we, as a society, have discovered how to prevent contagious diseases. The prevention is safe and fairly inexpensive. And we, as a society, have decided that if you want to be a part of our society you have to have these vaccines if you are medically able.

But we havent discovered how to prevent contagious diseases. Diseases are continually mutating. Some are coming out of left field as new diseases. Could we be on course to creating a super disease that there is no cure for simply because we are not developing with the diseases?

Yes we ARE preventing contagious diseases. Measles, diphtheria and other diseases once killed hundreds of thousands of people. Now they are relatively rare in places where vaccines are widely available.

Polio was the fear of every parent for decades. It killed thousands and left even more disabled for life. Widespread use of vaccines has almost eradicated it now.

If you want to discuss the effects of nature, the world is a harsh place with far fewer survivors. I do not see the value in that.

I think the effect of nature is the whole point and not a valueless side topic. We arent preventing contagious diseases. We are only temporarily protecting people from known strains of some diseases. All the diseases you listed have the real potential of mutating and becoming an issue again possibly without us being able to create another temporary protection. Vaccinations are at best a temporary reprieve and could be a catalyst in the rise of super diseases. Just throwing that out there for thought.

I am sorry- I am finding it difficult to respond to your post civilly. Because your post basically is saying its okay for kids to die.

I grew up knowing people who caught polio as kids and were paralyzed to various degrees. What was a common- and horrifying nightmare for parents in the 1940's is virtually unknown in the United States today- all because of vaccines.

By 1950 the peak age incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States had shifted from infants to children aged five to nine years, when the risk of paralysis is greater; about one-third of the cases were reported in persons over 15 years of age.[113] Accordingly, the rate of paralysis and death due to polio infection also increased during this time.[112] In the United States, the 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis.

We do not have have 3,000 dead children and 21,000 paralyzed children this year because of polio vaccinations.

How about whooping cough?
Pertussis Whooping Cough Fast Facts CDC

Approximately 1/2 of all infants who get whooping cough are hospitalized- infants can't be vaccinated, so the only way to protect them from whooping cough is to immunize everyone around them.

How about smallpox? Oh what- you havent' heard of any cases of smallpox?

That is because worldwide immunizations have eliminated smallpox as a communicable disease- it does not exist except in laboratories.

Smallpox was localized in small blood vessels of the skin and in the mouth and throat. In the skin it resulted in a characteristicmaculopapular rash and, later, raised fluid-filled blisters. V. major produced a more serious disease and had an overall mortality rate of 30–35 percent. V. minor caused a milder form of disease (also known as alastrim, cottonpox, milkpox, whitepox, and Cuban itch) which killed about 1 percent of its victims.[6][7] Long-term complications of V. major infection included characteristic scars, commonly on the face, which occur in 65–85 percent of survivors.[8]Blindness resulting from corneal ulceration and scarring, and limb deformities due to arthritis and osteomyelitis were less common complications, seen in about 2–5 percent of case

The children not dying from smallpox every year are very real- and yes- we are preventing contagious diseases- we have effectively eliminated smallpox and rinderpest- we have almost eliminated polio- and are preventing children from catching contagious diseases that used to kill and cripple them.

Saying that vaccines are only a 'temporary' solution is like saying modern sanitation and clean water are only 'temporary' solutions- vaccines and modern sanitation are the greatest human advances for human health in our entire history.

Well dont get upset. Thats what leads to rash decisions and as you pointed out lack of civility. Yes its ok for kids to die. That has been the natural course of things since we appeared on the planet and eventually everyone dies anyway. While its true we dont have as many deaths we also have a growing population issue and shrinking resources.

As a parent- no I don't think it's okay for kids to die- not when its preventable.

On that we have a fundamental disagreement.

The 'natural course' of things on the planet is that we live rather painful and uncomfortable lives, watching most of our children die before the age of 10- from diseases, from illness from unclean water, from being killed by wild animals.

I for one am glad we don't think all of that is okay.

 

[Syriusly]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

So we should never have eliminated smallpox?

We should never have attempted to eliminate polio?

You know the biggest obstacle to eliminating polio from the world, like we have smallpox? A few pockets of resistance- in Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan- where people are scared of getting the vaccines.

Now a few cases have spread to war torn Syria.....

So very close to eliminating the threat of polio to our children in the world- all that is preventing it are a relatively small number of people who are scared of science and medicine.

Polio in Pakistan Rotary International s Vaccination Push

One of only three countries in the world where polio remains endemic (the other two are Nigeria and Afghanistan), Pakistan had been close to joining the world’s polio-free nations, with only 58 infections in 2012. But thanks to bans on vaccinating—and deadly attacks on polio fieldworkers—by the Pakistani Taliban, the caseload rose to 93 in 2013. In 2014, the total reached 99 by July 18—a figure all the more alarming compared to this point last year, when there had been just 21 cases.

“It’s a scary number,” says Aziz Memon, Pakistani chairman of Rotary International’s polio eradication campaign. “Children in North Waziristan have been trapped for three and a half years without a drop of polio vaccine, and that’s what’s causing this.”

The folks at Rotary know what they’re talking about. Since launching their polio eradication effort in 1985, they have been responsible for the vaccination of 2 billion children in 122 countries. Along with the World Health Organization, UNICEF, The Gates Foundation and others, they have helped slash the global infection rate from 350,000 cases per year in 1988 to 416 in 2013.

 

[Asclepias]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

So we should never have eliminated smallpox?

We should never have attempted to eliminate polio?

You know the biggest obstacle to eliminating polio from the world, like we have smallpox? A few pockets of resistance- in Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan- where people are scared of getting the vaccines.

Now a few cases have spread to war torn Syria.....

So very close to eliminating the threat of polio to our children in the world- all that is preventing it are a relatively small number of people who are scared of science and medicine.

Polio in Pakistan Rotary International s Vaccination Push

One of only three countries in the world where polio remains endemic (the other two are Nigeria and Afghanistan), Pakistan had been close to joining the world’s polio-free nations, with only 58 infections in 2012. But thanks to bans on vaccinating—and deadly attacks on polio fieldworkers—by the Pakistani Taliban, the caseload rose to 93 in 2013. In 2014, the total reached 99 by July 18—a figure all the more alarming compared to this point last year, when there had been just 21 cases.

“It’s a scary number,” says Aziz Memon, Pakistani chairman of Rotary International’s polio eradication campaign. “Children in North Waziristan have been trapped for three and a half years without a drop of polio vaccine, and that’s what’s causing this.”

The folks at Rotary know what they’re talking about. Since launching their polio eradication effort in 1985, they have been responsible for the vaccination of 2 billion children in 122 countries. Along with the World Health Organization, UNICEF, The Gates Foundation and others, they have helped slash the global infection rate from 350,000 cases per year in 1988 to 416 in 2013.

Hard to answer that. As a parent I am glad for vaccines. However, I see vaccines alot like credit. I think we are digging ourselves a biological debt our future generations are going to have to pay with interest.

 

[WinterBorn]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

 

[Asclepias]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

 

[Syriusly]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

Live virus's kill people.

Why are you willing to accept dead people now, to prevent the possible- though completely unproven- and not even considered an actual theory- future deaths?

I just do not get what you seem to be advocating here.

 

[Asclepias]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

Live virus's kill people.

Why are you willing to accept dead people now, to prevent the possible- though completely unproven- and not even considered an actual theory- future deaths?

I just do not get what you seem to be advocating here.

I'm advocating looking at it from a point of view that is conducive to nature in its solution. People/kids die all the time. All it takes is one population killing disease/virus that mutates outside of the boundaries of what we think we know today to prove once again we dont know everything and may be actually aiding the problem for short term gain.

 

[Ravi]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

If everyone was vaccinated against the measles, the measles would eventually die and there would be no possibility of mutation. As long as measles are spread, there is a chance of mutation.

So yes, vaccinating everyone would be the correct thing to do.

 

[Asclepias]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

If everyone was vaccinated against the measles, the measles would eventually die and there would be no possibility of mutation. As long as measles are spread, there is a chance of mutation.

So yes, vaccinating everyone would be the correct thing to do.

Why do you think measles for instance would eventually die?

 

[Ravi]

No host.

 

[Asclepias]

No host.

Are we going to vaccinate all the wild animals? This is from a paper saying we can eradicate measles. This doesnt make me too sure they know what they are talking about.

Biological Feasibility of Measles Eradication

"Measles virus infection is presumed to be sustained through an unbroken chain of human-to-human transmission, and no animal or environmental reservoir is known to exist. However, nonhuman primates can be infected with measles virus and can develop an illness similar to measles in humans with rash, coryza, and conjunctivitis"

 

[Ravi]

Not all human diseases are present in animals. Measles, for example.

 

[Asclepias]

Not all human diseases are present in animals. Measles, for example.

I just updated my post. Not trying to be a smart ass.