OT: *Bang* you are dead

This was the original story:

There was an update to it this year that backed it up, but I wasn't able to find it yet.

One of my sisters son's friends got the whooping cough vaccine, and a bit later he also got whooping cough, and later spent time around my sisters son who had not been vaccinated for whooping cough but still didn't get whooping cough luckily as he is healthy and eats properly so has a strong immune system already (doesn't need vaccines).

cheers, Jamie

Hi,

From this page:

"People who recover from swine flu may be left with an extraordinary natural ability to fight off flu viruses, findings suggests."

So if you got the swine flu vaccine, then you wouldn't have this super immunity, so the vaccines damage the immune system of people who would normally have been infected and fought it off.

cheers, Jamie

You can find someone, somewhere, on the Internet to say anything.

Irrelevant. You stated that vaccines do not boost the body's natural immunity, which only a total moron, like Slowman, could believe.

Completely irrelevant. Your "super immunity" doesn't do the ones who don't survive a damned bit of good. The idea of a vaccine isn't to create a superman, rather to prevent pandemics and keep thousands alive.

OK, does not seem convincing from that, although not totally impossible I suppose. Unpublished, non-peer reviewed, non-validated.

"According to the WHO?s head of vaccine research, Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, ?None have been able to find anything like that. The plausibility seems sort of in question. It may be study bias; it may be something real.?"

He "doesn't need vaccines" because a sufficient number of the rest of the population have had them. There is still a "herd immunity" which prevents epidemics of these sometimes devastating diseases.

There is a very, very small but non-zero chance of side effects from a vaccine, *vastly* outweighed by the benefits of disease reduction.

Your sister is selfishly free-riding on the backs of others who have accepted that small risk. Happily taking all the benefits of a society now largely free of serious childhood communicable disease, while ducking even the microscopic amount of risk accepted by those who make it possible.

KRW > The idea of a vaccine isn't to create a KRW > superman, rather to prevent pandemics KRW > and keep thousands alive. True. However: Your statement implies that nature's imperative is to create supermen, as far as immunities. Passing up that "superman" immunity, as a race, might be even MORE unethical in the long run. Vaccines could ultimately make us like "hot house flowers" instead of the "supermen" you mentioned, and unable to survive a coming challenge. Vaccines do tamper with natures harsh calculus for some short term "gain", but does the same field of epidemiology which gives you the strong statistical "big picture" arguments for vaccination ever consider the "big picture" advantages of that "superman" immunity you mentioned? Should ethical considerations ONLY be about short term immediacy of "keeping thousands alive" but ignore the value of disease "culls" for the "big picture" survival of mankind itself? If you want to claim "big picture" reasons for vaccination aren't you also stuck with even longer range "big picture" considerations? If we intend to stop natural selection, to stop nature's disease "culls" which improve the immune system of our species, to throw away the possibility of that "superman" immunity that evolution offers us, that seems less "ethical" in the long run. If we stop every "cull" with vaccines we tamper with evolution to be weaker as a species. It can backfire worse than the abuse of antibiotics have (MERSA, etc.) I'm gonna get my flu shot this fall though. (Self interest reasons!)

You could say the same for every other medical intervention. E.g should we leave women to die in childbirth rather than give Caesarians, to avoid evolving a dangerously narrow birth canal?

Perhaps, but let us stop abusing antibiotics first shall we? E.g. stop feeding them to animals to bulk them up or whatever.

Yeah, me too. I've already passed on my collection of genes, such as they are. So no point in nobly sacrificing myself *now* to the cause of racial purity! :)

I imply nothing of the kind. JamieM implied that that was the purpose of a vaccine, though. Because that might (or not) happen with an individual's immunity, once one has been exposed to and survived a disease, has nothing to do with the purpose of a vaccine.

Exactly how is this being passed up? By having thousands or millions die needlessly? I'd say that was rather unethical. Perhaps we should have government select the fittest?

We are hot house flowers. Deal with it.

That boat left when we started walking upright. Perhaps we should go back to the water?

Yes, when we have no other information. Absolutely.

No big picture at all. It's about individuals CURRENTLY living.

Oh, please. Now define "natural selection". Is it natural when man interferes? With man?

MERSA, et al, are not caused by the existence of antibiotics.

Done.

Women who undergo ceasarians can usually deliver normally for subsequent children. Is it truly unethical to consider the long game instead of just the short game?

p labour.

But they rarely get to collate the statistics.

It depends.If the nurses' objections are sufficiently irrational only a dim

-witted few will take them seriously.

Sadly for your argument, vaccines only work by boosting the natural immune system. There isn't any unnatural one for them to boost.

Where's the evidence for you claim that people who were vaccinated against swine flu were more susceptible to the seasonal flu?

People who actually got the swine flu and survived it would probably have b etter immunity to swine flu than those who had merely been vaccinated again st it. It seems improbable that they'd have better immunity against non-swi ne flu, unless of course the swine flu killed off a significant number of i t's victims, in which case the survivors would be a tougher bunch, less sus ceptible to everything than a less select population.

If you get the swine flu vaccine - and if you recover (flu does kill people), you may be left with a broad-spectrum immunity to a range of flu viruses.

Flu researchers have long been looking for an antibody to some feature of the flu virus surface structure that doesn't mutate rapidly. Not unnaturally, they are excited to finally seen evidence that such an antibody may exist.

Going on to advice people to get swine flu in the - uncertain - hope of acquiring such an immunity, might be seen as irresponsible.

When you consider the irrational rubbish that does got published in medical journals, you've got to wonder about an unpublished study.

Probably because it doesn't exist.

He didn't this time. He might not be so lucky next time, and with him all the kids with whom he hangs around.

Try reading up on herd immunity sometime.

Your nephew was exposed a less intense whooping cough infection than he would have run into if his little friend had not been immunised. Think about it.

The United States rate is 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. Most advanced industrial countries sit at 1.

You've got to go to Armenia, Morocco and Croatia to get up to 1.4

Seems to.

Huh? You're going to have to explain how that's relevant.

The need of the existing takes priority over the needs of the may be. It's part of the DNA (how much more "natural" do you want than that?).

What do you expect from a religious zealot.

No, wait you are a religious zealot !!

Bigotry from the "liberal" noted.

Once again, you show just how close your DNA is to Slowman's. ...not only are you a dumb leftist, but a damned stupid one, to boot. I guess it's just part of the leftist disease.

Democrat, leftist, liberal and progressive are just words we use in polite company to enumerate ignorance >:-} ...Jim Thompson

KRW > The idea of a vaccine isn't to create a KRW > superman, rather to prevent pandemics KRW > and keep thousands alive. G > True. G > G > However: G > Your statement implies that nature's imperative is G > to create supermen, as far as immunities. G > G > Passing up that "superman" immunity, as a race, G > might be even MORE unethical in the long run. G > G > Vaccines could ultimately make us like G > "hot house flowers" instead of the "supermen" G > you mentioned, and unable to survive a coming challenge. G > G > Vaccines do tamper with natures harsh calculus G > for some short term "gain", but does the same G > field of epidemiology which gives you the strong G > statistical "big picture" arguments for vaccination G > ever consider the "big picture" advantages of that G > "superman" immunity you mentioned? G > G > Should ethical considerations ONLY be about G > short term immediacy of "keeping thousands alive" G > but ignore the value of disease "culls" for G > the "big picture" survival of mankind itself? G > G > If you want to claim "big picture" reasons G > for vaccination aren't you also stuck with G > even longer range "big picture" considerations? G > G > If we intend to stop natural selection, to G > stop nature's disease "culls" which improve G > the immune system of our species, to throw G > away the possibility of that "superman" G > immunity that evolution offers us, that G > seems less "ethical" in the long run. G > G > If we stop every "cull" with vaccines we tamper G > with evolution to be weaker as a species.

John Devereux wrote: JD > You could say the same for every other JD > medical intervention. E.g should we JD > leave women to die in childbirth JD > rather than give Caesarians, to avoid JD > evolving a dangerously narrow birth canal? G > Women who undergo ceasarians G > can usually deliver normally for G > subsequent children. hamilton > Huh? You're going to have hamilton > to explain how that's relevant. hamilton > What do you expect from a religious zealot. hamilton > No, wait you are a religious zealot !! I am agnostic but respectful of religion. I would have been an atheist except the founder of Atheism in the USA, MM Ohair and most internet atheists are way too busy antagonistically HATING religion for my tastes. I don't think religion is all bad but one of the worst aspects of most religions is how willing they are to cultivate a passive hate of some other denominations. Most atheists (starting with M.M. Ohair) take that one step further by ACTIVELY and antagonistically hating ALL religions, with their own form of "religious fervor". If there was such a thing as atheists who respect other people's religions I would be one. Amusingly, I've had atheists angry that I'm not one of them, saying that I'm one of them but just too gutless, presumeable because I won't actively be antagonistic and hateful of religion. hamilton wrongly presumed that because I am a political conservative that I am religious and a zealot. VERY VERY wrong! I realize that what I said about vaccinations weakening our immunity in the long run and as a species is not a happy friendly truth, but it is scientifically sound. When I see people using the stats and the "big picture" in support of vaccinations, I find it amusing that if you REALLY look at the "big picture" from an evolutionary perspective the arguments for vaccines fail miserably. The "hot house flowers" analogy got me lots of vitriol, but not many logical arguments.

Hi,

You are missing the fact that the kid who got the vaccine still got whooping cough afterwards, showing that the vaccine was ineffective.

Also there are over 60 recommended vaccinations now for children to take in some countries, and this doesn't allow the immune system to develop normally. Its not selfish to be healthy without vaccines, if vaccines work then they will not have to worry about getting sick from people that aren't vaccinated.

cheers, Jamie

I assume you are jesting.

When one gets vaccinated, the vaccine causes the immune system to develop antibodies that make the person more resistant to whatever disease the vaccine is for. If there is no developed immune system then the vaccine is not effective.

Dan