I'm 39 the only vaccine I ever got was polio as a child as my grandfather died of polio when my mom was 18.

My mom refused the rest , when I was 4 I went to a measles and chicken pox party and gained immunity that way. Parties like that was huge in late 70s.

But I'm 39, never had mumps, chicken pox, etc anything other than bad back and heart disease which runs in the male side of family, had heat attack at 30, I've made it 9 years so far with stints in chest. But all the men die in late 50s to mid 60s on the paternal side to heart disease.

No vaccine for that


Only vaccine my son has had was polio. He's in a private school

Yes, millions of unvaccinated peopled did survive, and still do. Congratulations to you and your son for being among those.

But millions have also died. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, about 2.6 million people died of measles. [1] In 2013, about 145,000 people still died from measles globally, most under the age of 5.

I know people who smoked but did not get lung cancer. I know people who do not wear a seat belt but have not died in a car accident. These anecdotes do not bring back the millions of people whose early death could have been prevented. Easily prevented.

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Debunking the notion of "herd immunity," this doctor provides evidence for how the vaccines themselves can cause the person to develop measles and, itself, become the source of an outbreak.
Yet another problem coming as the result of patent laws and FDA-bred cronyism in the vaccine business..

In terms of "Big Brother," the United States government has paid more than $3 billion to victims of vaccines since 1989, according to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP).

I have rewritten this post about 20 times.

My first instinct was to tell you that your mom was a moron and you don't even have the excuse of not having the information that mom didn't have.

Oh hey, turns out I'm really not that conflicted on it.

Your attitude is unbelievably selfish. There are kids out there that genuinely cannot be vaccinated, because of (incredibly rare) allergies to the vaccines. You are putting those kids at risk.

@Trancecoach, of course, continues his tradition of not having a fucking clue about anything by spouting complete and utter bollocks espoused by someone who has embraced believing in water memory.

Here's some of your libertarian pals on the reality of vaccination.

It is unfathomable how people in the 21st century can be so mind-numbingly ignorant.

How fucking retarded do you have to be when even FOX MOTHERFUCKING NEWS is smarter than you.

Even if it's true that the vaccine sometimes causes the disease, that doesn't at all debunk herd immunity. I don't even see how it's an argument against vaccines unless the number of people getting the disease from the vaccine is very large.

I find it baffling that this is a thing that people are against. Vaccines are one of the greatest advances in history and have, without a doubt, saved many lives.

Vaccination isn’t a private choice but a civic obligation.

You seem to have missed the point that the doctor is making in the video. She's saying that vaccinations are actually less effective at creating immunity to diseases in the population than actually getting and treating the disease. So, as she says in the video, the child of a mother who had measles is actually better immunized against getting the measles than the child of a mother who was merely vaccinated. The susceptibility that is caused by mass vaccination is actually far worse for the "herd" than it would be, just decades ago, when the mainstream perception about something like the measles was much different than it is today.

You seem to have missed the point that both the infected mother and child have a significant chance of severe complications including death from having measles and a near certitude that they will spread it to others while infectious and be scarred by the experience, while the vaccinated mother and child have an infinitesimal chance of a bad reaction or not getting full immunity, which can happen if you get the live disease too, BTW...I had chicken pox twice.
True, the immunity gained by surviving a serious, near deadly case of measles is likely stronger that that gained by vaccines, but the trade off is severe scaring, and 1/3 of those 5-15 get complications like bronchitis, encephalitis (brain swelling causing severe brain damage), ear infection (otitis media), pneumonia, and rarely (1/500) subacute sclerosing panencephalitis and/or death, and those numbers are worse among those under 5 and over 20. Not a good trade off by any stretch.

Please look at this plot and then tell me that mass vaccination made the population more susceptible to the disease.

These things are easy to look up for yourself. You can do better than this.

Why is China Having Measles Outbreaks When 99% Are Vaccinated?

How Vaccines Harm Child Development

Measles vaccines kill more people than measles, CDC data proves

You can do better.

<redacted> dont know what i was thinking. My bad.

Do better, eh? No problemo.

China: Try reading the actual study (from your first link).

Conclusion:
A timely two-dose MMR vaccination schedule is recommended, with the first dose at 8 months and the second dose at 18–24 months. An MR vaccination speed-up campaign may be necessary for elder adolescents and young adults, particularly young females.

The first link is about China. Do they use the same vaccination schedule as we do? Do they use the same vaccine? How good is their record-keeping? Were there 1000 randomly sampled people from all over China, or from one specific place in the province?

They furthermore only mention that that one province has the mandatory vaccinations. Do the others? Are there a lot of unvaccinated people coming through the area that could disrupt the herd immunity effect? Like, say, a few tens of unvaccinated people at Disney?

The second link is someone trying to sell a DVD. There is absolutely no information there, just claims that have been refuted to the end of the universe and back. And some fearmongery correlation/causation conflation. Did you know that the Internet was getting built up at the same time as the skyrocketing Autism rate? I bet the Internet causes autism.

Third link: It is entirely believable that RIGHT NOW the measles vaccine causes more complications than the measles does. Because there are only a couple hundred cases of the measles in the US per year. It is all but eradicated, because of the vaccine, which means that it kills very few people.

If you go back before the vaccine, though, around 500,000 people had the measles a year (and this is probably a low guess, per the link). Around 20% of those had to be hospitalized. About four times more people died from it than now have fatal complications due to the vaccine.

No vaccine: (Possibly much) more than 500,000 people sick. 100,000 people hospitalized. 1,000-10,000 brain damaged. A few hundred dead (not a super fatal disease). Thousands more get liver damage, hearing damage, eye damage, other complications.

Vaccine: Assuming we're at a 90% vaccination rate, around 3,500,000 kids vaccinated a year. ~100 dead, per your link. 1000 with dangerously high fever. Deafness/seizure/brain-damage: So rare that a link to the vaccine can not be established. Autism: Completely fabricated and discredited.

This has a good chart comparing the relative danger, for equal numbers infected/vaccinated. If we stopped vaccinating, it would not take long to get back to where dealing with the measles was a dangerous rite of passage for almost every kid.

*promote even fox news getting it right for once.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, February 7th, 2015 12:46pm PST - promote requested by ChaosEngine.

I like how she says "science wasn't even as certain as it is today. It is very certain today" and ignores the fact that science is very certain also of all the things they refused to accept like evolution, big bang, climate change...

Meanwhile yes, get vaccinated. Even if the studies against it were true, it in the end would mean less overall complications and deaths by more and more people not being vaccinated because religious nut jobs say not to and spread false information. Even at Copland's mega church, one of the biggest anti-vax churches in the country is now encouraging vaccination after an outbreak there, though they blame it on somebody visiting the church who had it... which is of course the f'n point, to be immune when, if somebody who has it, comes by.

Even nearly 11 years ago when my eldest son was born, we had a moment of skepticism over it, but in the end decided to risk it. He did end up with Aspergers, but we don't blame the vaccinations. And his own personal hard work (and those around him), he no longer needs an IEP or regular counseling. Even if it was remotely possible that the Aspergers came from it, still better the risk of that than the risk of what would happen if nobody was vaccinated and he got measles. The right loves showing pictures of the twin towers as justification for torture, how about seeing pictures of children with measles before the vaccine came out?

I think this article gives an angle that we tend to forget in all of this:

https://medium.com/the-archipelago/im-autistic-and-believe-me-its-a-lot-better-than-measles-78cb039f4bea

The smartest thing you could have done there.

Actually, the online CDC numbers were worse than yours. They said 30% have serious complications (requiring hospitalization) and 1-2% die, which is about 5-10000 per year before vaccines, way more than 4 times the number that die from the vaccine, more like 50 to 100 times that number.

Thanks, I couldn't find the CDC's numbers. The fatality rate I was seeing elsewhere was a few hundred dead for the ~3-5M likely infections (compared to the ~500k reported ones).

Not that long ago both Hillary and Obama were against vaccinations because they thought it contributed to autism.

Unfortunately there is no vaccination for what ails them.

Prove it.

Irrelevant. Hilary and Obama were wrong. I'm not sure if they've changed their minds since then. Hopefully, they have. Changing your mind in the face of new information is not "flip-flopping" or a sign of weakness.

Only idiots and religions refuse to change their minds in the face of new information.

Meanwhile, what Hillary, Obama or any of the potential GOP candidates think about vaccines doesn't change the science one iota.

Oops, I re-read and I was wrong, 1-2% get (and die from) the Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, ONLY about 1/500 (.2% +-) die as a DIRECT result of measles, but far more die from pneumonia or other complications, complications which >1/3 of those infected have. That's WAY more than die from complications from vaccinations, and almost no one dies as a direct result of vaccines.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

EDIT: it's odd to me that no one points out that, even if the autism link was true (it's not) the worst case scenarios ever put forth would put far fewer children somewhere on the autism spectrum due to vaccine complications compared to measles caused severe brain damage from encephalitis, making it a no brainer even if there was a link.

A nice graphic that shows off the big drop off...
https://twitter.com/SueDHellmann/status/564844218989158402/photo/1

Penn & Teller pointed it out

Also, @blahpooks comment has a great article that points out the central flaw in all the arguments, that autism is assumed to be worse than measles.

This will undoubtedly stir up a flame war, because it touches upon one of the forbidden topics, but what the hell:

Although there is, indeed, not a vaccination for heart diseases, a plant-based diet, across the board, in studies since, like, the 70s have shown that it basically heart-disease proofs you, not to mention diabetes.

Here's a long 53 minute video that goes over the basics, but the entire webpage has a little under 2,000 videos with a bunch of stats, papers, meta-studies, etc.

In a lot of ways, heart disease is very preventable, and even reversible in some cases, if you stop eating so much damn meat.

But, as stated above, "not eating meat" or "don't tell me what I can and cannot eat!" is up there with religion as far as topics that people get super-defensive about.

It's up you, truly, to determine what's more important: health or food deliciousness. And some people, knowingly, choose food deliciousness. And bless them. You make your own choices.

But also bless them for our ridiculous health care costs.

The jury is still out on vegetarian diets, and they are certainly nowhere near anything like a vaccination for heart disease. You can just as easily be an unhealthy vegetarian as an unhealthy carnivore.

Certainly, most people in the west do eat too much meat, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that meat absolutely has a place in our diet. The problem with most of these studies is that they don't compare like with like. Vegetarians tend to have made conscious decisions about food and health and are more likely to exercise and eat less processed foods. If you compare a vegetarian with a carnivore that eats well and exercises, the difference is much less pronounced.

If you want to be a vegetarian on ethical grounds, that's up to you, and there's certainly an argument to be made that a vegetarian lifestyle is more sustainable (using less land and water, etc)

However, this isn't really relevant to this discussion. If I choose to eat tasty steaks, there's no risk to those around me of catching heart disease.

The internet requires Big Brother. Obama said so. He gots a plan.

The internet is outta control!

Obama gone fix it.

The one thing I'll never agree with is forced immunization, where parents would have zero choice at the birth of their child or during "pandemics" like H1N1, where vaccines did cause issues and weren't as thoroughly tested or had unexpected side-effects (1). With that said, I have no problem with schools requiring an up-to-date immunization schedule or hospitals requiring doctors and nurses to be immunized, etc.

Vaccines are important and effective but there can be risks.

I'd like to see a study performed across a broad spectrum of children, following them from infancy to pre-teen years, to assess any potential non-obvious or long-term effects that vaccinations may have. Do more aggressive schedules and combinations of vaccinations have any impact on development over the long-term (e.g. impacts on the immune system, brain development, etc?) The current evidence suggests that it is unlikely, but I'm not sure there has ever been a comprehensive study performed specifically looking for potential issues over the long-term. With each new vaccine added to the schedule, I think this becomes even more important. For example, during the H1N1 outbreak, scientists discovered that people who were vaccinated with the seasonal flu shot were more likely to become infected by H1N1, with worse symptoms; follow up studies confirmed this. There is also evidence to suggest getting the yearly flu shot can make you more susceptible to getting the flu in following years. (2)

So while vaccines are very important and effective, it's still important to ask questions and be informed (through valid research); anyone that thinks otherwise is likely an idiot.

--------------------

(1) http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/h1n1_narcolepsy_pandemrix.html

(2) http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/03/study-getting-flu-shot-2-years-row-may-lower-protection

I knew this would happen. Talking to you, too, @oritteropo:

I'm leaving it with just this, because people are attached to their bacon and steaks as tightly as they are tied to religion. Perhaps it's again apples to oranges, but I'm guessing a lot of you are the same folks who rant against religion and wonder why people are so stupid and don't look at logic and science, blah blah blah. This is the perfect time to look in the mirror and see a touch of what you're up against. When you've been indoctrinated with something since you were literally born, you fight against being wrong so hard. So, so hard. Seriously. Take a moment, take a deep breath, and take a little search inside looking at how much of you knows for a fact that eating meat is just fine, and how much of it is cognitive dissonance. How much of it is emotional and how much of it is logical. Look at a video of people going on and on about how Jesus Christ is Lord and another video of people going on and on about how much they love bacon. It's kind of disturbing how zealous bacon-lovers get. Try it. It's fun. It's why I became vegetarian only about 4 or 5 years ago. And I gotta say, getting rid of that cognitive dissonance is very, very relieving and satisfying.

Yes, yes, yes. Loads and loads of vegetarians and vegans are unhealthy. Actually, I would argue that most vegetarians and vegans are wholly less healthy than omnivores since most of them have a high-and-mighty "I'm vegetarians/vegan so I'm automatically healthy" and eat some of the most disgusting, heart-disease-inducing, oily, fatty, un-nutririous, processed shit that's ever been made. Look at some of the fake meat stuff to just have a peek.

No. If you actually watched any of the videos you will see that it's not just being vegan that is important. It's to be a healthy vegan. You know, all that shit you can't ever, ever argue is bad for you. Fruits. Leafy greens. Beans. Lentils. Whole grains, occasionally. But mostly leafy greens and fruit.

And there are loads of studies that control exercise and all sorts of other arguments for "NO NO NO! IT'S NOT MY MEAT! STAY AWAY FROM IT IT'S ANYTHING BUT MY MEAT!". I can think of a specific one that I read/watched about controlling for exercise, and I can find it for you if you'd like, but I'm guessing you aren't really interested. They discovered that very aerobic, exercising, running omnivores were as healthy as lightly walking vegans. He even had a cute graphic for it.

And it's not just this guy, either. Head over to Dr. Fuhrman's website for more of the same. Except Dr. Fuhrman is toting stuff to sell, so that unnerves some people. They claim he's just trying to make a buck. But all the money he makes goes to nutritional research.

The last thing I'll say is this:

I honestly don't give a flying shit about what you eat. I don't really care about the environment at all. I'm not planning on having kids, and I'm sure I'll kick the ol' bucket before antibiotics stop working, water is scarce, the waters rise above NYC, and all the other possible doomsday things that'll probably happen within the next 100 or so years. It's true that I also enjoy not feeling guilty for eating animals who live. It'd make me happy if you stopped eating them because the main thing I believe I'm around for is to minimize suffering in the world. So, that'd be nice if more people didn't eat them.

But if you want to live a nice, long, healthy life where you don't die of a stroke, heart attack, or diabetes by the time you're 65, eat better.

There's a reason why the milk, sugar, meat and pharmaceutical companies pump out study after study about how it's totally fine to eat their shit. They spend so much money on it, it's ridiculous.

Cheers to your health, either way.

Er, whatever dude.

Unsurprisingly, I don't have time to watch a 53 minute video from some guy pushing a vegan agenda.

I fully agree that we should eat less processed foods (I even said as much). I just happen to think that meat has a place in a balanced diet.

And yeah, it tastes fucking delicious. I shouldn't drink either, but I love beer, wine and whiskey.

So, quite frankly, if I have to trade the last shitty 10 years of my life for the previous 60 or 70 enjoying myself... easy trade.

And once again, completely not relevant to the topic at hand.