(Very OT) Baby Vaccinations

HuskerO

Recruiting Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
6,185
1,814
113
eickmeiergh: I'd like your take on this article. Is it totally bogus? If so, why?

I know it's hard to express my true meaning behind a keyboard, but I just want to let you know that I'm not trying to call you out or be malicious. I respect your opinion so that is why I'm asking you.

TIA!

MMR Vaccine Spread Infection
 

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,562
11,055
113


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
 

HuskerO

Recruiting Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
6,185
1,814
113
Originally posted by timnsun:


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
This picture means nothing without know the exact years they used. Are they using specific years for the Pre-Vaccine Era and are those years all the same? For example, Polio. Are they using the year 1951 when Polio was at it's peak or 1955 when Polio decreased dramatically still prior to the polio vaccine?

Could be a good picture, but which data they're using isn't very clear.
 

shine003

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 25, 2005
8,112
2,347
113
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
This picture means nothing without know the exact years they used. Are they using specific years for the Pre-Vaccine Era and are those years all the same? For example, Polio. Are they using the year 1951 when Polio was at it's peak or 1955 when Polio decreased dramatically still prior to the polio vaccine?

Could be a good picture, but which data they're using isn't very clear.
The left is an annual average over the 20th century. The numbers on the right post-vaccine is 2010.

Regardless, when those are all illnesses we are using vaccines against, that's not a coincidence. That's not a statistical phenomena. Across the board 75-100% reductions is impossible to argue with.
 

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,562
11,055
113
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
This picture means nothing without know the exact years they used. Are they using specific years for the Pre-Vaccine Era and are those years all the same? For example, Polio. Are they using the year 1951 when Polio was at it's peak or 1955 when Polio decreased dramatically still prior to the polio vaccine?

Could be a good picture, but which data they're using isn't very clear.
I guess I tend to disagree... I am not looking at the years, I'm looking at the numbers. Whether it was 1951 or 1955, the 0 on the side of post vaccination era carries a ton of weight... This in all categories, I might add. I don't care when the vaccinations started, just that once they did, look at the huge difference in mortality rates from before and after.
 

vs540husker

Defensive Coordinator
Oct 3, 2004
7,691
1,742
113
The anti-vaccination movement reminds of the contrail conspiracy. Some moron said something stupid and it spread like wild fire on the internet and now for whatever reason, a whole lot of dumb people believe it.
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,224
7,380
113
Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by Cdn Blackshirt:
I did my own research and became in the anti-vaccine camp.

I'll try to post some things this weekend - my week is hell.

If doing your own digging look up aluminum content in vaccines.


M.
Please, spare yourself the effort. I took the time to read ONE thing and this is already the dumbest scary story about vaccines I've ever heard...and I've heard most of them.

But I'll tell you what, since you're not giving babies vaccines due to aluminum, please be sure to also not feed them. No formula and DEFINITELY no breast milk. Here's why (link below):


The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams*[/B] of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the same period.
*[/B]Note: One milligram is one-thousandth of a gram. One gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water.
It's also naturally occurring in the blood of both mother and baby during and after pregnancy. If you think aluminum is scary, then the only hope for you is basically to starve to death, because it's found in just about everything you would ever eat or drink.

Here's my statement for everyone who is against vaccines:

If you can't understand why it's stupid and wrong to be anti-vaccine, don't try. I won't try to convert you, I'll just tell you to shut up. Why, you ask?

Well, turns out we have research on that, too. It's been shown that most of the time, you cannot convert an anti-vaxxer. The more facts you put in their face, the more they retreat in to circular reasoning, fear, paranoia and defiance. So I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong, and you are. But don't try to make other people be stupid and wrong with you, because when you do that, it literally kills babies.

So go be quiet. You're not exposing an evil plot, the rest of us are not sheep, you're just wrong. The way in which you are choosing to be wrong causes suffering and death.

I'm a bit surprised it took this long to turn up a few people who have no idea how science works. Just stop. Your opinion is not valid and you're not entitled to it.

This post was edited on 3/18 1:23 PM by TheBeav815

http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum.html
 

huskerfan1000

Walk On
Mar 28, 2010
325
91
28
I'm a bit surprised it took this long to turn up a few
people who have no idea how science works. Just stop. Your opinion is
not valid and you're not entitled to it.


Whats that comment mean Beav????
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,224
7,380
113
Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
This picture means nothing without know the exact years they used. Are they using specific years for the Pre-Vaccine Era and are those years all the same? For example, Polio. Are they using the year 1951 when Polio was at it's peak or 1955 when Polio decreased dramatically still prior to the polio vaccine?

Could be a good picture, but which data they're using isn't very clear.
Are you even trying to make a point with this statement? If so, why do I suspect it's a really stupid, incorrect point?

Here, learn something:

Communicable diseases have stretches where they're awful, and others where they're less so. Epidemics don't just start out at "Really bad" and stay that way forever. Some years are worse than others.

Smallpox, Yellow Fever, they didn't just kill the same number of people every year. There were outbreaks and bad years where the bodies were stacked in basements, waiting for the spring thaw so they could dig the graves.

Why doesn't anyone make stupid assumptions about the "natural decline of Polio" in the early 1940s? It was declining from the late 30s and was relatively quiet. Then starting in the mid-40s the incidence more than quadrupled.

So guess what? In Japan they had the same "natural decline" in the early 50s that anti-vax morons love to stroke off about. It ended in the mid 50s, it got horrible.

Then, golly, they started vaccinating everyone and now they don't have it any more.



http://idsc.nih.go.jp/iasr/18/203/graph/f203-1.gif
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,224
7,380
113
Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by huskerfan1000:
I'm a bit surprised it took this long to turn up a few
people who have no idea how science works. Just stop. Your opinion is
not valid and you're not entitled to it.


Whats that comment mean Beav????
 

huskerfan1000

Walk On
Mar 28, 2010
325
91
28
BEAV you dont think people have a right to an opinion or can to do there own research??? Thats a very short sighted point, thats what I was getting at. People can make own choices, I have been to the Dr once in 25 years for a cyst and he was incorrect in how to treat and he didnt win my confidence at all so I did my own research and healed the cyst for basically free. That doesnt mean Im against Drs I just have been able to heal myself very effectively on my own, but people have right to make own choices and do own research if they choose. If your research makes you pro vax or wants you to rely on the word of your Dr thats fine also.

The other health problem I had was very serious and was because of mercury fillings, again the so called experts say they are ok, but mercury is a slow deadly poison that can take decades to debilitate someone and it finally did me in until I did an exhaustive research and had them removed.

Just cause someone has a degree or is a so called expert doesnt make them right. We have all dealt with many so called experts in many fields, years ago I was a CPA and dealt with many fortune 500 companies and dealt with many experts in many fields and I guarentee u many rise to their position based on other things than pure compency.
 

HuskerO

Recruiting Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
6,185
1,814
113
Originally posted by shine003:

Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
This picture means nothing without know the exact years they used. Are they using specific years for the Pre-Vaccine Era and are those years all the same? For example, Polio. Are they using the year 1951 when Polio was at it's peak or 1955 when Polio decreased dramatically still prior to the polio vaccine?

Could be a good picture, but which data they're using isn't very clear.
The left is an annual average over the 20th century. The numbers on the right post-vaccine is 2010.

Regardless, when those are all illnesses we are using vaccines against, that's not a coincidence. That's not a statistical phenomena. Across the board 75-100% reductions is impossible to argue with.
Thank you for clarifying shine. You answered my question.

The reason why I questioned (not doubting) the picture is because I didn't know what data or dates they were going off of. They easily could have used the worst period in time for certain-disease to fit their own agenda.
 

HuskerO

Recruiting Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
6,185
1,814
113
Originally posted by TheBeav815:
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
This picture means nothing without know the exact years they used. Are they using specific years for the Pre-Vaccine Era and are those years all the same? For example, Polio. Are they using the year 1951 when Polio was at it's peak or 1955 when Polio decreased dramatically still prior to the polio vaccine?

Could be a good picture, but which data they're using isn't very clear.
Are you even trying to make a point with this statement? If so, why do I suspect it's a really stupid, incorrect point?

Here, learn something:

Communicable diseases have stretches where they're awful, and others where they're less so. Epidemics don't just start out at "Really bad" and stay that way forever. Some years are worse than others.

Smallpox, Yellow Fever, they didn't just kill the same number of people every year. There were outbreaks and bad years where the bodies were stacked in basements, waiting for the spring thaw so they could dig the graves.

Why doesn't anyone make stupid assumptions about the "natural decline of Polio" in the early 1940s? It was declining from the late 30s and was relatively quiet. Then starting in the mid-40s the incidence more than quadrupled.

So guess what? In Japan they had the same "natural decline" in the early 50s that anti-vax morons love to stroke off about. It ended in the mid 50s, it got horrible.

Then, golly, they started vaccinating everyone and now they don't have it any more.
Not sure why your panties are all up in a wad? shine003 understood my question/point and respectfully answered it without throwing a little temper-tantrum or having condescending remarks.
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,224
7,380
113
Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by huskerfan1000:
BEAV you dont think people have a right to an opinion or can to do there own research??? Thats a very short sighted point, thats what I was getting at. People can make own choices, I have been to the Dr once in 25 years for a cyst and he was incorrect in how to treat and he didnt win my confidence at all so I did my own research and healed the cyst for basically free. That doesnt mean Im against Drs I just have been able to heal myself very effectively on my own, but people have right to make own choices and do own research if they choose. If your research makes you pro vax or wants you to rely on the word of your Dr thats fine also.

The other health problem I had was very serious and was because of mercury fillings, again the so called experts say they are ok, but mercury is a slow deadly poison that can take decades to debilitate someone and it finally did me in until I did an exhaustive research and had them removed.

Just cause someone has a degree or is a so called expert doesnt make them right. We have all dealt with many so called experts in many fields, years ago I was a CPA and dealt with many fortune 500 companies and dealt with many experts in many fields and I guarentee u many rise to their position based on other things than pure compency.


If you were a CPA then you should know perfectly well that having a couple unsatisfactory experiences with doctors does not make it good practice to question doctors. Does making a few sales keep an insolvent business afloat?

Nobody is saying doctors can't be questioned, but the people who should question doctors are OTHER DOCTORS. Did they send truck drivers to do audits during your work as a CPA, or were other accountants responsible for that?

People are not "entitled to their opinion" on this because there IS NO OPINION. These are facts. You can state the facts or you can be wrong. I don't get to run around in July and tell people it's really winter, then demand that they "respect my opinion" when they say it's summer.

I might believe right down to my core that I am an excellent drunk driver. Let's say that's my opinion and by God I'm passionate about it. We as a society have decided, though, that's a stupid opinion and it doesn't allow me to go get sloshed and then hop behind the wheel. Why? Because we have research that proves alcohol impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle. That's a fact, if you put a contrary opinion into practice, you can and will be arrested.

You don't get to go to court and be like, "Yeah but your honor, this one time, I had like five shots and ten beers and drove home, and everything was FINE."
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,224
7,380
113
Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by shine003:

Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


This picture says it all. Found it in a Forbes article from 2013, who developed it from a JAMA article printed in 2007.
This picture means nothing without know the exact years they used. Are they using specific years for the Pre-Vaccine Era and are those years all the same? For example, Polio. Are they using the year 1951 when Polio was at it's peak or 1955 when Polio decreased dramatically still prior to the polio vaccine?

Could be a good picture, but which data they're using isn't very clear.
The left is an annual average over the 20th century. The numbers on the right post-vaccine is 2010.

Regardless, when those are all illnesses we are using vaccines against, that's not a coincidence. That's not a statistical phenomena. Across the board 75-100% reductions is impossible to argue with.
Thank you for clarifying shine. You answered my question.

The reason why I questioned (not doubting) the picture is because I didn't know what data or dates they were going off of. They easily could have used the worst period in time for certain-disease to fit their own agenda.
That's a question worth asking. In the case of vaccine-preventable diseases for which you can achieve multi-year immunity, it would be almost impossible to fudge the data assuming that most of the population gets vaccinated. Pick any starting point you want, when you drop the incidence to damn near zero, the resulting percentage will still be dramatic.
 

siegsker

Senior
Aug 13, 2010
2,768
106
63
One of the greatest shams is the success certain groups have at making science a matter of debate or opinion.
 

siegsker

Senior
Aug 13, 2010
2,768
106
63
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Right because science has never changed. :)Well, there's plenty that can be up for debate - among scientists.

On this, and many other topics, there is no real debate. It is fact.
 

GretnaShawn

Graduate Assistant
Sep 28, 2010
5,595
5,096
113
Originally posted by TarheelHuskerFan:
Thank you guys so much for all the input. In surprised how much I got lol
Tarheel, I have a 6 month old (our first). After they get their shots they sleep a lot better that night. A night of sleep might be worth the vaccination alone.

But it in all seriousness, I really wouldn't want my kid around people that haven't gotten their vaccinations because our son hasn't received all of his yet. The idea that some jack wagon could get my kid sick with a completely preventable disease because they are mid-informed is horrific.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

First Team All-Big Ten
Sep 30, 2009
3,634
55
48
Hey Beav,

I usually try to be polite in all dealings but you talking down to everyone b/c you THINK you're right is F'n obnoxious.

Until just recently doctors have been relentlessly advocating diets low in cholesterol.

Why? Not because they did their own research, but because they fell into the group-think of their profession.

Well too bad the science behind 40+ years of orthodoxy ended up not being supportable by science.

Bottom line is your whole arrogant rant is total crap. Doctors are not infallible. So unless you God himself, I think it's you who needs to STFU. Posting what you believe to be true and backing it up is one thing. Insulting everyone else the way you have just demonstrates your arrogance, not your knowledge.


Matthew.
 

ssmith84

Athletic Director
Aug 8, 2011
13,059
40
48
It was sarcasm. I assume the "dr" from the front of your name indicates that you are a medical doctor and probably know more about this than simply Google searching stuff. Not intended to be snarky towards you, just the general google expert
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,562
11,055
113
Cdn blackshirt, beav never said doctors were infallible. What has been stated by numerous people in this thread is that the facts support vaccination. Not group think, but facts.

If you're upset with beav over his tone, fine... But don't put words in his mouth.

How do you explain the graphic I posted that is factual evidence of the benefits of vaccination? Doctors make mistakes. They're not perfect. But on the issue of vaccination there is a ton of evidence to support it and very little to deny it. This is what beav and others have been posting. And once again, I believe the chart is quite convincing for people like me, who appreciate the visual aid.
 

shine003

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 25, 2005
8,112
2,347
113
Originally posted by Cdn Blackshirt:
Hey Beav,

I usually try to be polite in all dealings but you talking down to everyone b/c you THINK you're right is F'n obnoxious.

Until just recently doctors have been relentlessly advocating diets low in cholesterol.

Why? Not because they did their own research, but because they fell into the group-think of their profession.

Well too bad the science behind 40+ years of orthodoxy ended up not being supportable by science.

Bottom line is your whole arrogant rant is total crap. Doctors are not infallible. So unless you God himself, I think it's you who needs to STFU. Posting what you believe to be true and backing it up is one thing. Insulting everyone else the way you have just demonstrates your arrogance, not your knowledge.


Matthew.
No doctor would ever say you shouldn't follow a low cholesterol diet. It's still a good thing and can help lower LDL. The medical community has just realized there are other factors that influence cholesterol. Saturated fat, exercise, consumption of fruit/veggies, genetics, and other things also impact your cholesterol. Saying that low cholesterol diets help to lower LDL is group think and unsupported by science is an incorrect statement, the fact is that the benefit isn't as high as previously thought.

Anyways, this thread has gone off the deep end. Nothing constructive is going on here. No one is going to change someone else's mind. Everyone take a deep breath and get ready for the NCAA tournament. Best four days in sports start today!
 

HuskerO

Recruiting Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
6,185
1,814
113
Originally posted by timnsun:


If you're upset with beav over his tone, fine... But don't put words in his mouth.
I just love it that when you question vaccines then you're lumped in with the Jenny McCarthy's of the world. Or if you're a believer in something like cleanses or essential oils then you think those products are a cure all and that vaccines aren't needed.

So in other words those who are pro-vaccine talking down on those who don't jump all over vaccines should take your last sentence to mind as well.
 

SeaOfRed75

Junior
Dec 5, 2010
1,516
1,329
113
Originally posted by SeaOfRed75:
Surprisingly low but still some.

Makes one wish Rivals had little icons by people's user names to indicate things.

--believes vaccines are bad for you
--believes in bigfoot
--believes Bo Pelini is nice guy and should still be head coach
--likes Nickelback
Looking like a pretty good idea isnt it?
 

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,562
11,055
113
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


If you're upset with beav over his tone, fine... But don't put words in his mouth.
I just love it that when you question vaccines then you're lumped in with the Jenny McCarthy's of the world. Or if you're a believer in something like cleanses or essential oils then you think those products are a cure all and that vaccines aren't needed.

So in other words those who are pro-vaccine talking down on those who don't jump all over vaccines should take your last sentence to mind as well.
Help me understand... how did I put words in CDN blackshirt's mouth? I am pretty sure I did no such thing. CDN went after Beav, quite fired up, no doubt in response to how fired up Beav has been on this issue as well. Why don't you quote my entire post and see that I was taking issue with his statement that Beav thinks all doctors are infallible... which he clearly did not say at any time in this thread.

So again, help me understand how I put words into CDN's mouth.

EDIT: And I'm pretty sure I made no mention of Jenny McCarthy in my post...

This post was edited on 3/19 11:26 AM by timnsun
 

HuskerO

Recruiting Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
6,185
1,814
113
Originally posted by timnsun:
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


If you're upset with beav over his tone, fine... But don't put words in his mouth.
I just love it that when you question vaccines then you're lumped in with the Jenny McCarthy's of the world. Or if you're a believer in something like cleanses or essential oils then you think those products are a cure all and that vaccines aren't needed.

So in other words those who are pro-vaccine talking down on those who don't jump all over vaccines should take your last sentence to mind as well.
Help me understand... how did I put words in CDN blackshirt's mouth? I am pretty sure I did no such thing. CDN went after Beav, quite fired up, no doubt in response to how fired up Beav has been on this issue as well. Why don't you quote my entire post and see that I was taking issue with his statement that Beav thinks all doctors are infallible... which he clearly did not say at any time in this thread.

So again, help me understand how I put words into CDN's mouth.

EDIT: And I'm pretty sure I made no mention of Jenny McCarthy in my post...

This post was edited on 3/19 11:26 AM by timnsun
Sorry timnsun. I didn't mean you specifically.

I meant it as, "I love it when people question vaccines then those people are lumped in with...."

I agree with you your post that I was responding to.
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,224
7,380
113
Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by Cdn Blackshirt:
Hey Beav,

I usually try to be polite in all dealings but you talking down to everyone b/c you THINK you're right is F'n obnoxious.

Until just recently doctors have been relentlessly advocating diets low in cholesterol.

Why? Not because they did their own research, but because they fell into the group-think of their profession.

Well too bad the science behind 40+ years of orthodoxy ended up not being supportable by science.

Bottom line is your whole arrogant rant is total crap. Doctors are not infallible. So unless you God himself, I think it's you who needs to STFU. Posting what you believe to be true and backing it up is one thing. Insulting everyone else the way you have just demonstrates your arrogance, not your knowledge.


Matthew.
That's fine. I'm not here to play nice. Your opinion on me 0% changes the fact that vaccines are safe and effective.

Arrogance is when you're not sorry and you're wrong. Confidence is when you're not sorry and you're right.

I have a wealth of valid, peer-reviewed science and millions of data points to base my argument on.

So you get as mad as you want and do whatever you like. I can't force you. But I'm not going to give any patience to people who aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to even begin to make a valid point.

It would be like going to the mechanic because my headlight is out and insisting to him that he check the cooling system. Those are both things that exist on a car, but one has NOTHING to do with the other and if I keep badgering him about the coolant after he explains that's not how a headlight works, then he's not the idiot in that situation.

I could explain to you why a diet and its effects on heart disease is not a comparable situation to whether vaccines are safe and effective, but the fact that you made the comparison in the first place suggests that it would be a waste of time.

So guys like you can throw all the fits you want. Guys like me will be the reason your kids can't come to school until they get their shots. Have fun homeschooling them.
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,224
7,380
113
Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by HuskerO:
Originally posted by timnsun:


If you're upset with beav over his tone, fine... But don't put words in his mouth.
I just love it that when you question vaccines then you're lumped in with the Jenny McCarthy's of the world. Or if you're a believer in something like cleanses or essential oils then you think those products are a cure all and that vaccines aren't needed.

So in other words those who are pro-vaccine talking down on those who don't jump all over vaccines should take your last sentence to mind as well.
It's fine to use things like that, but you have to understand that usually what you're seeing is a placebo effect. I have yet to see a good study on cleanses or herbals that shows they produce any benefit beyond the expected placebo effect. If they don't hurt anything, then no big deal

And that's fine as long as you leave that thing in its own lane. If you drink a bunch of kale smoothies and it makes you feel better, that's great. I'm glad you feel better. But where it becomes a problem is when people try to then say that all western medicine is bunk. It's roundly not. Is it perfect? No. There are almost 7 billion people in the world, nothing is going to be right for all of them.

If you put some peppermint on your wrist and your headache goes away, awesome. But if you have a brain tumor and that's why your head hurts, you'd better go seek out something more.
This post was edited on 3/19 3:30 PM by TheBeav815
 

nufaninouland

Sophomore
Sep 18, 2002
1,349
27
48
Originally posted by HuskerO:
eickmeiergh: I'd like your take on this article. Is it totally bogus? If so, why?

I know it's hard to express my true meaning behind a keyboard, but I just want to let you know that I'm not trying to call you out or be malicious. I respect your opinion so that is why I'm asking you.

TIA!
Read the article-they are talking about detecting measles infection in the urine of kids receiving MMR which is "live-attenuated vaccine"

This vaccine strain given causes an infection. It may still replicate, but causes only nondetectable, mild or transient disease which is much less severe than if you get wild-type measles. The reason they give these strains/do this is because it gives a better immune response than heat or formalin(formaldehyde) killed vaccines for some types of virus. But it is not surprising they would cause detection of the attenuated virus in the urine for a short time.

And, I am not trying to make fun of those who don't believe in vaccination, but I do wonder if these folks are why God invented Darwinism. Seriously, if you don't want to vaccinate your kids, then you are ignoring probably the best scientifically supported intervention in medicine. Ever.
 

swansonpancho

Newbie
Mar 27, 2013
73
10
8
Originally posted by huskerfan1000:
BEAV you dont think people have a right to an opinion or can to do there own research??? Thats a very short sighted point, thats what I was getting at. People can make own choices, I have been to the Dr once in 25 years for a cyst and he was incorrect in how to treat and he didnt win my confidence at all so I did my own research and healed the cyst for basically free. That doesnt mean Im against Drs I just have been able to heal myself very effectively on my own, but people have right to make own choices and do own research if they choose. If your research makes you pro vax or wants you to rely on the word of your Dr thats fine also.

The other health problem I had was very serious and was because of mercury fillings, again the so called experts say they are ok, but mercury is a slow deadly poison that can take decades to debilitate someone and it finally did me in until I did an exhaustive research and had them removed.

Just cause someone has a degree or is a so called expert doesnt make them right. We have all dealt with many so called experts in many fields, years ago I was a CPA and dealt with many fortune 500 companies and dealt with many experts in many fields and I guarentee u many rise to their position based on other things than pure compency.
Oh people have a right to their own opinion, wrong as it may be. You can do what you call research, but that doesn't mean you understand what any of it means or what is viable or relevant. You can read all the nutjob websites and call it research. It will never change the facts.

I've thought for awhile that retirees and soccer moms are (not individually) collectively the dumbest demographics. They have time to read crazy garbage on the internet that their peers recommend and don't have the capacity or willpower to really dive into the subject.
 

gw2kpro

Blackshirt
Dec 2, 2007
3,365
2,136
113
If my opinion is that our sun does not really exist, but rather that there is a giant flashlight shining on the earth that needs a whole pile of D cell batteries replaced every now and then -- which is what is just occurred with the solar eclipse -- it valid?

Just curious.

How about if Jenny McCarthy feels strongly that it's the case? Valid now?
 

huskerfan1000

Walk On
Mar 28, 2010
325
91
28
Well swandspancho Im not a retiree and Im far from stupid,I was expert in my field in finance and accounting, now Im self employed have multiple companies not just here but also other countries and employ hundreds as well as provide financing for others ventures. When I was an expert working in that field it wasnt uncommon to be approached by a major corporations who wanted to buy my expert opinion, buying of expert opinions is common practice, they tell you how they want the numbers to look and your suppose to manipulate the numbers and variables to get them there even if they are in fact inaccurate. If I would turn someone down they would find another expert to provide the report and the report would surface with someone else signing off on it.

Whats your real world life experience and what do you base your wisdom and beliefs on???
 

jteten

Graduate Assistant
Aug 6, 2006
5,653
899
113
Sweet Baby Jesus......Please get your children vaccinated.

How is this conversation even happening?
 

siegsker

Senior
Aug 13, 2010
2,768
106
63
If you were an accounting and finance expert, I expect you could tell us a lot about accounting and finance.