Mandatory Vaccinations

Here is the truth wrote:

here's the problem wrote:

The problem is that when your unvaccinated kid catches a disease that has otherwise been nearly eradicated in the developed world, they create the potential for the virus to mutate into a form that the current vaccination does not protect against. I'm sorry you missed the day of high school biology class where this was discussed.

Unvaccinated kids will fight off any disease with strong immune systems and good sanitation.

Vaccinated kids have had their immune systems destroyed by the toxic injections, and are highly susceptible to attack by even simple viruses. The so called aids epidemic is only one terrible example of this, where the victim's immune systems have been completely destroyed by injections.

Yeah, that explains how AIDS managed to make it out of Africa. All those unvaccinated natives destroying it with their potent immune systems.

Vaccinations shouldn't be mandatory. People should be given an option of carrying a sign "Warning: I'm not vaccinated".

No. Any time an organism is replicating, random mutations are occurring. The more random mutations occur, the greater chance that one of the mutations will offer some resistance to immunizations or treatments. When an unvaccinated patient catches a virus, they provide the opportunity for rapid replication, and thus the potential for development of a resistant strain.

Commerce clause might prevent the Federal government from implementing a national vaccine requirement. But I support state efforts to require vaccines. There is no treatment known for viruses like measles. And measles are highly contagious, especially in babies and toddlers. The risk of major complications with babies and toddlers is very high, pneumonia being the most dangerous and prevalent. Babies cannot get the MMR vaccine until they are at least 12 months. You may be willing to roll the dice with your own kids to see if they can survive a bout of measles, but it is unacceptable to subject someone else's baby to hospitalization and possibly death just because you read some blog about MMR and Austism.

Not an anti-vaxer per se, but no way was I going for Hep B (sorry--my wife's not a drug user), TB or chixy pox... Waited till the lil'uns had some meat on their bones (and their brains were fully connected) before subjecting their systems piecemeal to the various vaccines (they had a very understanding pediatrician--even "unbundled" MMR for us).

Funny thing is, now that they are adolescents/teens, they are in a WICKED minority at summer camp--the kids w/o meds...

Yup: no allergies, no ADHD, no obesity, no nuthin'. Weird. 2/3 of the kids in each's cabin have to line up every day to get their dose of meds...

Not connecting the two, could just be "privilege" (we're crunchy-granola, all-natural kinda post-hipsters) or sanitation (or lack thereof -- we contracted 'em out to horse farms at an early age). I dunno. But they are nevah EVAH sick...

And cool yer jets: they're all vaxxed up now... (started around age 9; finished around age 12).

Can't wait for Dr. Josef Grünhauser to prepare my "mandatory injections" for my kids! The government always knows what's best and always acts morally in the public interest so why should I worry!

not-auntie-vaxer wrote:

Not an anti-vaxer per se, but no way was I going for Hep B (sorry--my wife's not a drug user), TB or chixy pox... Waited till the lil'uns had some meat on their bones (and their brains were fully connected) before subjecting their systems piecemeal to the various vaccines (they had a very understanding pediatrician--even "unbundled" MMR for us).

That's like being proud that you let you children got some meat on their bones before you started abusing and doing permanent damage to their DNA, IQ, and health.

here's the problem wrote:

No. Any time an organism is replicating, random mutations are occurring. The more random mutations occur, the greater chance that one of the mutations will offer some resistance to immunizations or treatments. When an unvaccinated patient catches a virus, they provide the opportunity for rapid replication, and thus the potential for development of a resistant strain.

If this were the case, a vaccine would have been impossible in the first place. After thousands of years of replication, there would be too many resistant strains to come up with a single vaccine against. Can you really not see this? By your logic, vaccines would be impossible against any disease that had been around for more than a few years.

Just Say No To Poision wrote:

That's like being proud that you let you children got some meat on their bones before you started abusing and doing permanent damage to their DNA, IQ, and health.

Thanks!

Precious Roy wrote:

I support state efforts to require vaccines. There is no treatment known for viruses like measles. And measles are highly contagious, especially in babies and toddlers. The risk of major complications with babies and toddlers is very high, pneumonia being the most dangerous and prevalent. Babies cannot get the MMR vaccine until they are at least 12 months. You may be willing to roll the dice with your own kids to see if they can survive a bout of measles, but it is unacceptable to subject someone else's baby to hospitalization

Vaccinations aren't immunizations, every child "vaccinated" is a danger everyone around them (vaccinated or not).

Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterwards and infect the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

References:

1. Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011

2. Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients

3. Comparison of the Safety, Vaccine Virus Shedding and Immunogenicity of Influenza Virus Vaccine, Trivalent, Types A and B, Live Cold-Adapted, Administered to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Infected and Non-HIV Infected Adults

4. Sibling Transmission of Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus (RotaTeq) Associated with Rotavirus Gastroenteritis

5. Polio vaccination may continue after wild virus fades

6. Engineering attenuated virus vaccines by controlling replication fidelity

7. CASE OF VACCINE-ASSOCIATED MEASLES FIVE WEEKS POST-IMMUNISATION, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, OCTOBER 2013

8. The Safety Profile of Varicella Vaccine: A 10-Year Review

9. Comparison of Shedding Characteristics of Seasonal Influenza Virus (Sub)Types and Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09; Germany, 2007–2011

10. Epigenetics of Host–Pathogen Interactions: The Road Ahead and the Road Behind

Furthermore, vaccine recipients can carry diseases in the back of their throat and infect others while displaying no symptoms of a disease.

+1

So you are saying that all visitors to the United States should be forced to vaccinate or show proof of vaccinations. How come California is not closing its borders to all non vaccinated international travelers? In fact, why not have armed checkpoints at the Oregon, Nevada, Arizona borders to make sure all visitors from other states are vaccinated. Maybe shut down Disneyland until it has a proper screening process installed for every single visitor.

People don't understand the exact same logic they use to justify this law would cripple society if applied equally to all areas where it is applicable.

I'm also wondering how this is going to affect immigrants in California. One interesting side note to this whole thing is a school in California cannot check immigration status. A lot of illegals cannot prove vaccinations and cannot afford to vaccinate on the spot so there is now a new way to shut them out.

Out of control wrote:

here's the problem wrote:

No. Any time an organism is replicating, random mutations are occurring. The more random mutations occur, the greater chance that one of the mutations will offer some resistance to immunizations or treatments. When an unvaccinated patient catches a virus, they provide the opportunity for rapid replication, and thus the potential for development of a resistant strain.

If this were the case, a vaccine would have been impossible in the first place. After thousands of years of replication, there would be too many resistant strains to come up with a single vaccine against. Can you really not see this? By your logic, vaccines would be impossible against any disease that had been around for more than a few years.

No, you are overstating the rate at which resistant strains would be produced. Not every mutation produces a resistant strain.

But the preexistence of multiple strains is the reason that there is a different flu vaccination each season. There are many versions of the flu virus, and a single vaccine cannot work for all of them, so a vaccine for the likely strands is put together each year.

not-auntie-vaxer wrote:

Just Say No To Poision wrote:

That's like being proud that you let you children got some meat on their bones before you started abusing and doing permanent damage to their DNA, IQ, and health.

Thanks!

You're welcome. Now you can advise your children, when they grow up, to do better by your grandchildren than you did by them.

Here is the truth wrote:

here's the problem wrote:

The problem is that when your unvaccinated kid catches a disease that has otherwise been nearly eradicated in the developed world, they create the potential for the virus to mutate into a form that the current vaccination does not protect against. I'm sorry you missed the day of high school biology class where this was discussed.

Unvaccinated kids will fight off any disease with strong immune systems and good sanitation.

Vaccinated kids have had their immune systems destroyed by the toxic injections, and are highly susceptible to attack by even simple viruses. The so called aids epidemic is only one terrible example of this, where the victim's immune systems have been completely destroyed by injections.

Infectious disease was the number one cause of death prior to the advent of modern medicine. If vaccinations and antibiotics are destroying people's immune systems, shouldn't such diseases be killing more people today than they were in the past?

No, YOU are overstating the rate at which resistant strains would be produced. You are somehow assuming that after thousands (maybe more) of years, there are no resistant strains and yet after a few years there will be a strain ubiquitous enough to cause an epidemic. You have to choose a side. Either those strains already exist since these diseases are ancient, or they are not likely to proliferate in the minuscule amount of time, comparatively, that has passed since we formed vaccines.We are not talking about flu. We are taking about diseases like measles. Is there a new vaccine strain every year for that?

here's the problem wrote:

Out of control wrote:

If this were the case, a vaccine would have been impossible in the first place. After thousands of years of replication, there would be too many resistant strains to come up with a single vaccine against. Can you really not see this? By your logic, vaccines would be impossible against any disease that had been around for more than a few years.

No, you are overstating the rate at which resistant strains would be produced. Not every mutation produces a resistant strain.

But the preexistence of multiple strains is the reason that there is a different flu vaccination each season. There are many versions of the flu virus, and a single vaccine cannot work for all of them, so a vaccine for the likely strands is put together each year.

I think there is more going on in your observation about the kids at summer camp. I am medical director of a summer running camp and I have discussed with colleagues who work at traditional summer camps, how few campers we have taking medications of any kind. For example one colleague covers a residential camp with 800 campers and fully 600 of the children are on 2 -3 different medications. This camp is a high end 2000.00+ per week camp and not a camp for medically fragile teens. By way of comparison, at our running camp last year we had 425 campers and 16 were taking prescription medications.

Perhaps the rigors of physical activity and training to be a competitive athlete in some way is a factor in these differences.

I had my kids vaccinated, though I spaced out the MMRI qua five vaccines at once for the second child because the first child got a bad rash all over her, a rash she never had before or since, from the MMRI (one doctor said, no rash, but I looked it up and saw that can be a side effect and another doctor confirmed that). I spaced out that within a couple weeks. The trouble with spacing them out is that most kids who have that done never catch up and are not immunized for many preventable diseases. Now, as for the other claim, you know that immunizing is not 100% and if a certain percentage of the kids are not immunized, diseases will spread and your child might catch them as well, and even more importantly, because it applies to every child without natural immunity, babies prior to the age of normal vaccinations are immensely vulnerable to infection and serious illnesses, which they can catch from your unimmunized children. Many adults did not catch some of these diseases as children and there weren't vaccinations for them, and if they catch them as adults, particularly as old people, they can be at risk of serious illness. Think about the grandparents or your brother's or sister's new babies, for instance, in close contact with your unimmunized kids.

If vaccinations were so dangerous, then why have high vaccination rates correlated extremely closely with very low disease rates? In places like sub Saharan Africa, the rate of child deaths under the age of 5 is 90/1000, about thirteen times higher than in developed countries. Vaccination for Malaria would lower the rate quite a bit. Children die at high rates from Malaria, while those who survive are resistant to it but get very ill and miss a lot of school and work later on.