Here is a good reason to get a flu vaccination.

[cosmik debris]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=54926288

Morning Edition, February 27, 2008 · Public health officials are meeting this week to decide whether to recommend that most children get a flu shot each year. Proponents say that it's the best way to reduce the spread of flu each year. Opponents say there's not enough capacity to produce that much vaccine.

[truedelphi]

1. I watch one of my closest friends get her flu shot each year

Within twenty four hours she has a nasty cold that lingers for three weeks.
Often she goes to bed for two to three days from this cold.

i end up wondering why the hell doesn't she just leave herself open to the possibility of getting the flu (or not)

I am not able to have a flu shot due to bad reactions to the swine flu shot. I have only gotten the flu once in the past four years. By not having the shot, I know that my body is being spared contaminated materials, and pieces of whatever animal or other substance the flu shot material is developed in.

Plus it is almost impossible, with the way a flu virus mutates, to even produce a vaccine that will be very effective against any one season's particuluar flu and its offshoots.

[cosmik debris]

4. Well, there is nothing like a few anecdotes

to replace 10 years of research. Offering vaccine to school children reduced the number of Dr. visits by people who have flu symptoms. But hell, your anecdotes are a lot more convincing than 10 years of research.

(did you bother to listen to the story from NPR?)

[truedelphi]

6. I quit listening to NPR during the Kerry-Bush election

Cycle.

They are one of the most bought out organizations of news opportunists that money can assemble.

By the way, before industry perverted science, observations were considered to be part of evidentiary gathering. A single individual noticing another individual's condition after a noted event is a scientific observation.

The really really funny thing about your comment is that Edward Jennings, the "father" of vaccination, made his succinct observations based on fewer than forty cow maids. From those mere forty observations, the smallpox vaccine came about.

Yet the vaccination industry tell thousands of parents who observed their children succumb to autism immediately after the MMR injections that those thousands of observations were mere "anecdote."

Talk about wanting to have it both ways!

Luckily this did not dissuade Sen Burton from holding hearings and providing for Wakefield to come to the USA and describe his findings.

And Wakefield doesn't even say not to have your children immunized. He just says 1) never let anyone immunize your child when they are sick 2) make sure your child receives only one innoculation at a time. Nonetheless, for this common sense, the forces of Big Pharma are out to destroy him.

[cosmik debris]

7. The Baylor School of Medicine conducted the research not NPR

But you obviously would rather have your anecdotes that research.

When a Med School finds a way to reduce Dr. visits you blame it on big pharma. (?????)

Talk about having it both ways.

sheesh!

I'm just glad that the progress of our species is not dependent on people like you.

[truedelphi]

9. Could it be that the Baylor College of Medicine develops vaccines

No reason why we shouldn't trust their insights.

A short while on the google, and I noticed over a dozen different vaccine protocols that BCM was developing or had developed.

No profit motive there.<sarcasm>

[dropkickpa]

10. Yeah, I'll the researchers at my work to stop

working on cancer vaccines. They are obviously biased because this type of research is going on here, so they can't possibly know what they are talking about. Also the AIDS vaccine researchers, they must be biased, too, because they're researching that here. The TB researchers, totally biased.

Vaccine research is NOT very profitable for academic institutions, if at all, beyond the prestige and added research dollars successes can bring in. Which is why pharmaceutical companies don't do it for the most part. They buy the rights to the technology and procedures once they've been proven in an academic setting and then go on to manufacture them.

[cosmik debris]

11. Well, it is just fucking stupid to distrust anyone with a profit motive

Do you distrust school teachers? They teach for profit.

Do you distrust Police Officers who keep the peace for profit?

Who do you trust?

If you only trust those who serve their community free of charge, you must lead an incredibly paranoid existence.

You have my sympathy.

For 2008, U.S.News & World Report ranked BCM 10th overall among the nation's top medical schools for research and 11th for primary care. BCM also is listed 13th among all U.S. medical schools for National Institutes of Health funding, and No. 2 in the nation in federal funding for research and development in the biological sciences at universities and colleges by the National Science Foundation.

But it doesn't matter because you only trust people who provide services for free, right?

[truedelphi]

14. Yep they really really care about us

And when these "non-profitable" vaccines face an expiration date then they simply ship them out of our country and let people in another country die

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

[cosmik debris]

15. Sorry, I don't watch youtube videos

They are motived by profits. You just can't trust people who are motivated by profits, can you?

:rofl:

On the other hand, you must have a really strange life hiding from all the evil monsters behind every door. It is really sad to see people like you trying to live a normal life when you are frightened by every shadow. I shouldn't laugh at people who are so pathetic. :(

[truedelphi]

21. Talk to Michael Belkin - as I have

Michael is one the top Wall Street statiticians.

As part of his newborn's Well Baby Clinic, he brought her in for her series of Hep B vaccinations.

She died within hours of her second Hap B booster.

So Michael began running the stats. He discovered that more infants and toddlers die from the damn shots than the total number of infants and toddlers who actually contract Hep B.

But wait, those stats are simply the independent rantings of an afflicted parent. They can't possibly be meaningful, can they? As they are the result of one's person despair over the viciousness of the vaccination squad.

[cosmik debris]

23. Appeals to emotion and anecdotal evidence

carries no weight in a reasoned logical argument.

Tears don't make truth.

Are you really so blind that you can't see that the reason infants don't contract Hep B is because they get vaccinations if that is necessary? That has to be the most irrational argument I have ever seen by the anti-vax crowd.

I don't suppose you have a link to those statistics do you? I can't help but think you are making shit up.

[truedelphi]

25. Let us parse your rant for a moment

You might label Belkin's experience of his daughter dying in his arms, before she was even six months old, as "anecdotal" a word that no scientist even used forty years ago.

But he didn't jsut rely on his one experience. he created a massive data base of tens of thousands of infant and children and ran the numbers.

Like I said, he ended up with the FACT that more children die of the shot than of the disease.

The reason little children do not die from the disease is because Hep B's transmission requires that you have unsafe sex or share unclean needles. I don't know about you, but in mybneighborhood, new borns are not participating in the unsafe sex, dirty needle thing too often.

Also it might interest you to know that the nation of France has many concerns about the Hep B vaccine.
(European scientists are not as bought out as American scientists - due in large part to all the demonstrations at the WTO meetings in Seattle years back.)

Mr. Belkin has testified before Congress.

Here are some googled links:
BELKIN VACCINE TESTIMONY-The Compleat Mother Magazine

www.whale.to/m/belkin1.html

At the time we spoke, he often referred to this article, Shot in the Dark:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_3_31/ai_55015498

Hope that helps.

[cosmik debris]

27. WOW! What astounding ignorance!

...Hep B's transmission requires that you have unsafe sex or share unclean needles.

You really need to read more than your own propaganda.

[mzmolly]

36. No, you need to make your case.

According to the CDC:

HBV is spread through having sex with an infected person without using a condom (the efficacy of latex condoms in preventing infection with HBV is unknown, but their proper use might reduce transmission), by sharing drugs, needles, or "works" when injecting drugs, through needlesticks or sharps exposures on the job, or from an infected mother to her baby during birth.

You need to leave this discussion to those here who have a clue about various vaccines.

[cosmik debris]

41. You made my case for me

You said:

or from an infected mother to her baby during birth

In contrast to the assertion of truedelphi:

...Hep B's transmission requires that you have unsafe sex or share unclean needles.

You proved truedelphi is full of shit. I could have done that, but it was much more satisfying to see you do it!

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

45. You are really stretching the BS now Cosmik.

Once "birth" happens a vaccine after that event is meaningless.

You've demonstrated your ignorance beyond a doubt. No amount of these guys :rofl: can help you.

[cosmik debris]

49. You really like to change the subject when you screw up.

truedelphi made a statement about the way Hep B is transmitted. I claimed that the statement was astoundingly ignorant. You proved that the statement was bullshit. Thank you.

[mzmolly]

52. You are unbelievable.

Here is the ignorant quote/reply by you that merited the reasoned response by truedelphi:

"Are you really so blind that you can't see that the reason infants don't contract Hep B is because they get vaccinations if that is necessary?"

No, the reason infants who are not born with Hep B don't get Hep B is because they are not having sex or sharing needles as truedelphi indicated.

Now go ahead and pretend you know what your talking about, toss out a personal insult and throw in one of these :rofl: for good measure.

[cosmik debris]

54. Obviously you have a reading problem.

"...if that is necessary?"

It is so easy for you to ignore anything that disagrees with your superstition.

[mzmolly]

55. No you have an ignorance problem.

As is demonstrated in several of your posts.

[cosmik debris]

57. Knee jerk reaction

Meaningless.

[chicagomd]

71. The reality is

infants do contract Hep B, despite their inability to have (consensual) sex or share needles. They get bitten by infected children, they are born to mothers who are unaware of their hepatitis B status. Some are victims of abuse, and others are infected by health care workers who don't know they have contracted the disease.

Fortunately, the number is small because most infants are vaccinated.

Unfortunately, the numbers will start to grow because of misinformation spread by people like you. And the real travesty is hepatitis B, like small pox and rubella, could be eradicated from the planet.

[mzmolly]

73. I see you've located the official sales pitch.

Bravo!

According to CDC Prevention Guidelines: A Guide to Action (1997), a book written by federal public health officials at the U.S. government Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "the sources of infection for most cases include intravenous drug use (28%), heterosexual contact with infected persons or multiple partners (22%) and homosexual activity (9%)." According to Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (1994), mother to child transmission of hepatitis B "is uncommon in North America and western Europe."

It's a wonder they didn't mention bites from rabid babies or neglectful health care workers back then ey?

[chicagomd]

76. Such "biting" wit, mzmolly.

Brava!

Children bite, people get infected without knowing in some cases. It has nothing to do with negligence.

As I posted in another thread:

0.00002% risk of serious adverse reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine.
25% risk of mortality and 90% risk of chronic carrier state in infected infants.

[mzmolly]

77. If you have some numbers on the bitten children infected with Hep B

I'd be interested. I'm guessing if it had happened, such an event would be so rare that it would have been written up in a medical journal? However, in order for your (incorrect) statistics to have meaning, one would have to have the same numbers of children effected by Hep B and the vaccine. Not all children contracted Hep B, all children are expected to be vaccinated, and about 90% are.

Also the information I have located contradicts yours.

The U.S. and western Europe have always had among the lowest rates of hepatitis B disease in the world (0.1% to 0.5% of the general population) compared to countries in the Far East and Africa, where the disease affects 5-20% or more of the population. According to Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, in the U.S. "the greatest reported incidence occurs in adults aged 20-39" and "the number of cases peaked in 1985 and has shown a continuous gradual decline since that time."

90-95% of all hepatitis B cases recover completely after 3 to 4 weeks of nausea, fatigue, headache, arthritis, jaundice and tender liver. ~

Up to 17 percent of all hepatitis B vaccinations are followed by reports of fatigue and weakness, headache, arthritis and fever of more than 100 F.. The vaccine can cause death, according to a 1994 Institute of Medicine report.

According to Merck and Company: "The duration of the protective effect of in healthy vacinees is unknown at present and the need for booster doses is not yet defined."

In 1991, there were 18,003 cases of hepatitis B reported in the U.S. out of a total U.S. population of 248 million. According to the October 31, 1997 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the CDC, in 1996 there were 10,637 cases of hepatitis B reported in the U.S. with 279 cases reported in children under the age of 14 and the CDC stated that "Hepatitis B continues to decline in most states, primarily because of a decrease in the number of cases among injecting drug users and, to a lesser extent, among both homosexuals and heterosexuals of both sexes."

Of those children under 14, how many do you suppose were babies who ran around biting people, breaking the skin? Talk about fear mongering.

Further,

According to Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine - in cases of acute hepatitis B "most patients do not require hospital care" and "95 percent of patients have a favorable course and recover completely" with the case-fatality ratio being "very low (approximately 0.1 percent)."

Those who recover completely from hepatitis B infection acquire life-long immunity. Of those who do not recover completely, fewer than 5 percent become chronic carriers of the virus with just one quarter of these in danger of developing life threatening liver disease later in life, according to Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease (1994), a medical college textbook.

[chicagomd]

80. Typical.

Is there a reason you are quoting adult statistics when we are discussing infant infection? Your information is not contradictory, it does not even address the issue.

Here you go:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5416a1.htm

"...Although the consequences of acute hepatitis B can be severe, the majority of serious sequelae associated with HBV disease occur in persons who are chronically infected. Persons with chronic infection also serve as the major reservoir for continued HBV transmission. Chronic infection occurs in approximately 90% of infected infants."

"...On the basis of data from follow-up studies of persons infected with HBV as infants or young children, approximately 25% of those with chronic infection die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer."


Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is a...wait for it...internal medicine text. Try a pediatric one and get back to us. I am sure you can find a definition of the difference on google.

[mzmolly]

81. Still waiting for the number of children who contracted Hep B from a bite.

I'm sorry that google did not serve you well in this regard. I'm guessing that's because it's a largely unfounded scare tactic used to sell vaccines to people who don't need them?

Also, I noted pediatric statistics in my reply to you. Read it again if you must.

[chicagomd]

82. Under 14

is not an infant specific age group. Nice dodge.

So I guess you changed your mind about my statistics being correct since you ignored that part of my post.

The point of the numbers to asses a risk/benefit. Obviously you don't think the risks out-weigh the benefits. Fortunately for the rest of us you are not setting public health policy.

And yes, I am still avoiding the bite scenario.

As always, good luck on your crusade.

[mzmolly]

83. 279 under 14, and it's the CDC's "dodge" so you can thank them.

We are subjecting every infant in the US to the side effects of the Hep B vaccine because about 279 (and declining) children under 14 were contracting Hep B on an annual basis.

My crusade is for safer/common sense vaccine policy and an open government. Thanks for your well wishes. I'd wish you well on your efforts to stifle the vaccine safety movement, but I don't think it will do any good.

[chicagomd]

84. "Vaccine Safety Movement"

Has a nice ring to it. Although I personally feel based off your posts it is more of a "Eliminate Vaccines Movement." I am not trying to stifle anything, although I know it is easier to draw support if you make it sound like you are being persecuted.

Tell us, Vaccine Safety Officer Mzmolly, what shall we do right now? Not in ten years, but right now, with the current state of vaccines?

I have been curious about this for a while: If you could set public health policy at your keyboard today, with the knowledge base you currently have, what would you do? How much risk would you expose the entire population to in the effort to make vaccines "safer"?

What vaccines would you eliminate? Which would you put on "hold" until more research could be done? What percentage of the population would you accept to be un vaccinated before you started to worry about public health in general? What vaccine schedule would you use? How would you allocate resources for the new cases of vaccine preventable illness that would occur in the following 5-10 years? If all you are interested in is vaccine "safety", then tell us what we should do until you, and the rest of the "safety movement" deem them safe.

These debates have very little to do with open government and EVERYTHING to do with public health. Think about the implications for what you are advocating.

[mzmolly]

86. Well, anyone who has any concern about vaccination is placed into that category by the pro-pharma

cult here.

"Eliminate Vaccines Movement." Nope, vaccine safety movement is accurate.

Tell us, Vaccine Safety Officer Mzmolly, what shall we do right now? Not in ten years, but right now, with the current state of vaccines?

I have been curious about this for a while: If you could set public health policy at your keyboard today, with the knowledge base you currently have, what would you do? How much risk would you expose the entire population to in the effort to make vaccines "safer"?

Frankly, my approach would go beyond making vaccines safer. First, we'd have universal health care. Next, we would address the problems with the drug/vaccine approval process, which Democrats are working on. Google http://www.hms.harvard.edu/dsm/WorkFiles/html/people/faculty/MarciaAngel.html">Dr. Marcia Angell and FDA for more info on said problems.

Regarding vaccines, one way to make them safer is to stop pretending that there is never a health consequence for anyone because of a vaccine injection. Also, vaccines should be covered by insurance companies yet should be optional vs. mandatory. That alone would pretty much shut me up. ;)

Vaccines should encouraged/developed based upon need vs. some arbitrary criteria mixed in with a fear based marketing campaign. Vaccines should be manufactured with the safest vs. most cost effective measures. Vaccine studies should be conducted/funded by Government/impartial bodies vs. big pharma so that study results would be open and objective vs. proprietary and biased. CEO's who profit from a vaccines manufacture should not sit on the very committees that decide which vaccines our children are mandated to have. etc. Vaccine and drug company profiteers should not be continually granted conflict of interest waivers etc.

Further, parents should have access to accurate information vs. ridiculous fear campaigns by the CDC that insinuate their infants are at risk for Hep B, for example. It seems once we have a vaccine for something, we are to suddenly fear that something, regardless of the odds of a serious health consequence? True, there is inaccurate and inflammatory info on both sides of this debate, but one side is government funded and promoted to every parent by most pediatricians.

I would also suggest that our government re-educate people on what spreads illness i.e. support a "stay home while ill" campaign. Perhaps for certain illness such as the flu, we could reimburse employers for any excess sick time and/or promoting a stay home while ill work environment? Schools should also encourage children to stay home while sick, vs encourage them to show up because we're all supposedly "protected by vaccination." Parents who stay home with sick children should be SUPPORTED by our society vs. shamed by employers. etc. I see so many sick people while shopping at the grocery store who cough all over the produce etc. Where did common sense go? I saw an obviously ill child hacking at the library when we were there recently. Why did his mother feel compelled to bring him out in that condition?

Imagine if we could stop the spread of illness simply by having a society that supports resting and staying HOME when you're sick? Imagine how much less illness may be spread without the false hope that vaccination provides protection while we muster on?

These debates have very little to do with open government and EVERYTHING to do with public health. Think about the implications for what you are advocating.

The government (with it's incestuous relationship with drug companies) is overseeing public health and As for me, I'm advocating a choice, common sense and an open drug approval process. I'm fully comfortable with that, thanks.

I would ask you the same. If you could reinvent the wheel, what would you do? Or do you think the current system is without need for improvement?

In closing, vaccination is but one health intervention that has had an impact on public health. There are many illness that are deadly, and we don't have a vaccine for most. Further, there are many illness we vaccinate against today that are not and never have been a major health concern. Not until we had a vaccine, that is. For example, did you worry about your infant patients contracting HepB before a vaccine became available?

I am recovering from a nasty virus and my brain isn't working that well as of late but I hope you understand where I'm coming from?

Thanks for asking.

[chicagomd]

88. Thanks for the response,

and I see you managed to overtly insult me only once in that post, so I will return the favor and just point out that calling anyone on a DEMOCRATIC message board a member of the "pro-pharma cult" is not a way to engage a civil discussion. It is even more obnoxious to those of us who are trying to change the system from the inside and hope there is a special place in Hell for the members of the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations in this country. Sometimes I forget this is a place of politics and framing seems to matter more than in other discussion groups.

At any rate, this quote cuts right to the issue:

"Regarding vaccines, one way to make them safer is to stop pretending that there is never a health consequence for anyone because of a vaccine injection."

To start, "to stop pretending" obviously does nothing to make the actual vaccines safer, and anyone who does not think there are risks to vaccination is misleading themselves and their audience. This really seems to be a fundamental disconnect when we "discuss" this issue on this forum. Of course there are health consequences, just like there are consequences to not vaccinating. The difference is really looking at the issue from the perspective of the individual versus the perspective of public health. I suppose I just have more of a socialist view of the matter than you. As an example, I am willing to expose myself, my patients, and my own children to a 2:100,000 risk of a severe adverse reaction (those are CDC statistics, I understand you may disagree with them) in the interest of potentially eradicating hepatitis B from this country. I am not willing to do the same, with say, the BCG vaccine for TB or the small pox vaccine, because the adverse reaction risk is not worth the potential benefit.

"Imagine if we could stop the spread of illness simply by having a society that supports resting and staying HOME when you're sick? Imagine how much less illness may be spread without the false hope that vaccination provides protection while we muster on?"

The issue here is, of course, that staying at home will not help you against polio, hepatitis B, or epiglottis. Staying at home with any of those illness might kill you. Of course, if you were vaccinated against them...

"Further, there are many illness we vaccinate against today that are not and never have been a major health concern. Not until we had a vaccine, that is. For example, did you worry about your infant patients contracting HepB before a vaccine became available?"

I disagree. The risk of death with chicken pox is small, but the risk of vaccination is smaller. And yes, I did worry about my pre-vaccinated infants about Hep B, because I watched 3 die of liver failure in my training.

"I would ask you the same. If you could reinvent the wheel, what would you do? Or do you think the current system is without need for improvement?"

What system? Our health care delivery system sucks. I personally would set up universal health care with all the current vaccines and then phase them out as eradication proceeded. And with much, much more transparency, as you suggested. We don't have to vaccinate against TB or small pox anymore. I hope I live to see a time when the same is true for measles, Hep B, etc.

[mzmolly]

90. "Vaccine Safety Officer" must be less insulting? "Fear monger" "Tinfoil hatter"

"Anti-vaccination crusader" to name a few. I'm simply returning the favor.

To start, "to stop pretending" obviously does nothing to make the actual vaccines safer, and anyone who does not think there are risks to vaccination is misleading themselves and their audience. This really seems to be a fundamental disconnect when we "discuss" this issue on this forum. Of course there are health consequences, just like there are consequences to not vaccinating.

I do feel that there an orchestrated/well funded/government sponsored "denial" campaign and I think this is a huge part of the problem with both consumer confidence and safety. Also, the choice doesn't have to be vaccinate with every available vaccine or not. Vaccines once thought to offer permanent immunity are now known not to. There is a consequence for that, as well.

The difference is really looking at the issue from the perspective of the individual versus the perspective of public health. I suppose I just have more of a socialist view of the matter than you. As an example, I am willing to expose myself, my patients, and my own children to a 2:100,000 risk of a severe adverse reaction (those are CDC statistics, I understand you may disagree with them) in the interest of potentially eradicating hepatitis B from this country. I am not willing to do the same, with say, the BCG vaccine for TB or the small pox vaccine, because the adverse reaction risk is not worth the potential benefit.

We needn't choose between the health of individuals and the health of the public. Individuals make up the public. Having safer vaccines, is good for individuals and "the public" at large. Also, we have experienced outbreaks of disease in highly vaccinated populations. The matter is not as black/white as some suggest.

Additionally, I have exposed myself to the risk of every vaccine available as a child. I've had tetanus boosters as an adult as well. And, I was instructed to have an MMR shot while pregnant (the vaccine I had as a child apparently wore off) I complied with this suggestion - which was not a good idea in hind sight. However, I will not expose my child to the risks (and yes, I do disagree with the official CDC figures) as our family history is loaded with the issues that I believe (after research) make her more vulnerable than say, your children to a serious reaction. I reserve the right to change my mind in the event of a pandemic of some kind, however. And, I will say that I have considered the Flu-mist vaccine recently, but the vax is not recommended for children with her neurological issues.

The issue here is, of course, that staying at home will not help you against polio, hepatitis B, or epiglottis. Staying at home with any of those illness might kill you. Of course, if you were vaccinated against them...

I've not heard of the epiglottis vaccine? :P I'm not saying don't make a trip to the hospital when you are ill. I'm saying stay out of Target, the library, the grocery store. Hep B isn't a danger in this case, however given it's spread via intimate contact. And, given recent history, we really don't know how long the HepB vaccine will offer protection, do we?

I disagree. The risk of death with chicken pox is small, but the risk of vaccination is smaller.

Assuming that claim is correct, it is highly debatable when one considers the vaccine is waining in effectiveness and the disease is being spread to an older, more vulnerable population.

And yes, I did worry about my pre-vaccinated infants about Hep B, because I watched 3 die of liver failure in my training.

I'm guessing they were born with HepB? The vaccine likely would not have helped those children in such case.

What system? Our health care delivery system sucks. I personally would set up universal health care with all the current vaccines and then phase them out as eradication proceeded. And with much, much more transparency, as you suggested. We don't have to vaccinate against TB or small pox anymore. I hope I live to see a time when the same is true for measles, Hep B, etc.

On this we pretty much agree. I would have much more confidence in the system if your recommendations were in place. Thanks for your reply "Chicago" I like you as a person even though we don't agree on everything. And, I apologize if I was insulting. I was dishing "it" back to a group via a person who doesn't deserve it, frankly.

Peace

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. You are using adult stats.

Adults commonly clear the infection on their own. Infants don't, they develop chronic hepatitis which usually dramatically shorten their life spans.


David

[Celebration]

87. Why not check the moms for hepatits B?

That would be simple. As for bites, well, it might be theoretically possible, but I have to doubt that it happens in practice. How many kids get AIDs from bites? It kind of sounds like something people made up to make money off the vaccines. JMHO.

Having said that, I am sure it is an important vaccine in some parts of the world.

[chicagomd]

118. That website

is rather anti-Semitic, and many on both sides of this debate have asked that people refrain from linking to it.

Not to mention that the "evidence" you present is an interview and not published data. Oh, and that interview with Belkin also has the following gems:

"Partly, he is being bribed. But you know who's behind that? Hillary Clinton."

"A: I'm afraid so. You know, the Nazis were big on forced vaccinations too.

There is really a "Mark of the Beast" angle to this whole thing. Revelation talks about how you can't do anything without the mark. I'm not saying the vaccine is the whole story, but it is one area where there is this sinister force injecting noxious poisons into your veins -- into your children's veins."

Do you seriously consider this to be a credible source? I know those are out of context, but Hillary bashing, Nazi references, AND the Mark of the Beast all in the same interview?

I am all for debate about the HepB vaccine and do not mind engaging in such, but this is a bit much.

[mzmolly]

32. You mean like "vaccinate or die and take the rest of us with you"!

that kind of argument?

Your ignorance about HEP B is telling by the way.

[cosmik debris]

35. You're just making stuff up now.

Your anti-vax hysteria has been throughly discredited and you are desperate for some vindication.

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

37. It's clear that you're in over your head cosmik

but I don't expect you know that?

[cosmik debris]

42. Gee, you said you had me on ignore

I guess you just can't get enough. Or are you an habitual liar?

[mzmolly]

46. I took you off when a friend pointed me to this thread.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

31. Actually the entire premise of this flu vaccine push was based upon "anecdotes".

A reduction in doctor visits it not necessarilly a reduction in symptoms. I hate to use your own words against you but "correlation does not equal causation". ;)

[cosmik debris]

34. 10 years of research is not anecdotal evidence.

You are just bitter because you have been proven wrong.

[mzmolly]

38. What does the research you speak of "prove" and where can it be found?

Thanks.

[Book Lover]

13. "A single individual noticing another individual's condition...

after a noted event is a scientific observation."

No: in fact, you have just defined anecdotal evidence.

[truedelphi]

22. Book lover - ya wanna know what is really anecdotal

Edward Jennings - the father of the vaccination methods, observed ONLY about 40 young milk maids before he came up with the notion of the smallpox vaccin.

For some reason, his theory holds water. (As perhaps it should.) But when tens of thousands of parents world wide say their child was normal until afflcited with autism after the MMR shot, there many observations are labelled "anecdotal"

This labelling (of events being "anecdotal") did not even come about until the mid eighties, as scientists independent of the Big Pharma-Big Pesticde franchise began to say that, wait, no, luekemia is not something that comes about from a virus - it comes about because of man made toxic chems being in our water and our air.

With the growing movement of activists who tried their best to make the public realize that our health is being co-opted by so many forces beyond their control, then the Big Industry people became increasingly nervous. They especially became nervous when the state of California passed the Prop 65 legislation - this made it impossible for many products to be sold in California once the
ingredients were found out.

[Book Lover]

28. Way to segue and not address my point

Bye now. Maybe I'll meet you in one of my parents' groups. Your family life has also been affected by autism, right?

[motocicleta]

17. Why bother speaking logic to these people?

They twist your words, put words in your mouth, ignore your logic and insert their own premises, and generally behave badly. Why do you bother trying to make sense to a population inherently incapable of sense?

I write this after reading through the thread and being overwhelmingly struck with the games being played at your expense. I had to read twice because the responses to you were so off what you wrote. So much for the big tent being the home of the enlightened.

[cosmik debris]

18. There was nothing logical about her post.

Appeals to fear and sympathy are not logic. They are just scare tactics.

[motocicleta]

78. I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to her.

I am not that impressed with her post, but since she at least gave some evidence, anecdotal though it may be, and you give nothing but peer pressure, you can kiss her ass.

Night night, little man.

[fed-up]

2. what if sick people/kids stayed home and didn't spread germs??? nt

[Warpy]

3. Yeah, and get fired?

Corporations don't care if you've got a temperature of 104, they want your ass in that chair making them more money. They don't care if you infect everybody else and they infect their families and somebody's grandmother dies from it. Taking those sick days means somebody else will get promoted to the job you wanted, that you might come back to find your job offshored, that you'll be first on the layoff list.

You go to work sick as a dog and pack your sick kid off to daycare and hope they're so busy they don't notice your kid is quieter than usual and ready for naptime ahead of schedule.

You're just a cog in the machine and cogs aren't allowed to get sick or need anything at all.

(In 25 years in nursing, I never caught a single thing from a patient. I caught all kinds of crap from coworkers who showed up coughing and wheezing)

[cosmik debris]

5. What if???

Educators and employers do not arrange their lesson plans and customer demand to accommodate flu season.

[Heddi]

12. The time you are most contagious is BEFORE you know you are sick

you're a walking incubator and you have no signs or symptoms of having the flu. THAT is when those you are in contact with on a regular basis are most likely to catch the flu from you.

So it's not just not going to school or not going to work. It's not going to the bank, or the grocery store, or the Dr's office, or the myriad of other places that people go on a daily basis. And it's not just BEING around people. It's about touching things (ATM pad, telephone, keyboard, doorknob) that other people will touch. It's about handling things that other people handle. And this is all NOT being done BEFORE YOU KNOW YOU ARE SICK.

Kind of hard to do unless you relegate yourself to being a hermit for the rest of your life.

I do agree, though, that people who ARE sick should not go to work or school, and I loathe those companies who do not have adequate sick leave policies, or who bully their employees into coming into work ill or else be threatened with being fired or otherwise reprimanded.

Even working at a hospital as a nurse, we are only allowed 5 sick days a calendar year (even though we generally accumulate enough sick time to take off 24 days a year). After 5 times, you're given an administrative warning about your "excessive" absenses, and told to improve your behaviour. Our union has a HUGE problem with this. If a nurse is sick, s/he should NOT come into work. Simple as that. If it's 5 days a year, or 20. They should NOT be in contact with patients and family members and other employees. Simple as that.

According to our company "infectious disease" policy, having diarrhea for more than 24 hours means you cannot come to work and have direct contact with patients until diarrhea has subsided for 48 hours. So let's see--one bout of gasteroenteritis (stomach bug) means you're out for the 24 hours (1 day) of the original bout of diarrhea. Then you're out for the days it continues and an additional 48 hours (2 days) after it has resolved. That in itself is 3 days not including the days that you're still having intermittent diarrhea. One bout of a stomach flu and you're used up all 5 of your sick days.

It's bullshit policy and one that our union has tried to get changed, unsuccessfully, for the last several years.

[Tumbulu]

16. believe it or not at our local public school parents get reported to Child Protective Services

if the child misses more than 10 days of school in the entire year.

So parents send the children to school sick all the time. It was totally disgusting. Talk about a terrible policy for public health!

[mzmolly]

39. That's a novel idea,

unfortunately. ;)

[Heddi]

8. I get a flu shot yearly not for me, but for my patients

as an RN, my hospital offers free flu shots yearly for all medical and non-medical hospital staff.

The first year my husband and I got the flu shot--2001--neither of us were in healthcare and we got it because the company we worked for was giving them to employees for $5. I thought "what the heck"

we both got sicker than dogs and were both out of work for 2 weeks with the nastiest nasty either of us have ever had.

After that, I swore off flu shots---they GIVE you the flu, right? Because *WE* got the flu....

Well actually, we already HAD the flu and the flu-shot just sped up the process of our getting sick. We had already been exposed (unbeknownst to us).

Since then, and since becoming a nurse, I've had about 5 or more flu shots. And aside from that first time, I've never gotten sick. Not a sniffle. Not a sneeze.

However, seeing how easy it was for me to be infected with the flu and not know it until the symptoms arose, and knowing that the time that you DON'T have symptoms is the time that you're most likely to spread infection to others, I get the flu shot. Not for me, but for my patients.

They have immune compromise either due to disease or medications that cause decrease in immune function. They're just sick old people that could be easily killed by a virus that would leave someone younger and healthier out of work for a week or two.

I understand that generally, vaccinations aren't just for the person getting the vaccination. They're for the benefit of the population that DON'T get the vaccination, or aren't immune to whatever virus or bacteria we're being immunized for. I understand that not everyone can take a vaccine because of the ingredients or growing medium. For that, I'm willing to get a vaccine so that they don't get measels, mumps, or rubella from ME. That they don't get Chicken Pox from ME (granted, I did not get the varicella vaccine as I had chickenpox as a child).

The only real vaccine I got for my own benefit was the Hepatitis B series, which is for my own protection in a healthcare setting.

[cosmik debris]

19. Follow up

(02-27) 16:49 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal health panel on Wednesday voted unanimously to recommend flu shots for all school-age children, a move that will compel private insurers to cover the cost of such vaccinations and require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make the vaccine available for those who can't afford it.

The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices adopted the recommendation at the urging of the federal agency's own staff, which contends that flu shots will both protect the health of schoolchildren and reduce the risk for parents and grandparents who often contract influenza from them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/MN8RV9QB8.DTL&type=health

Of course the UNANIMOUS decision of the CDC will never influence those people who believe that big pharma rules the world with an iron fist.

[SidDithers]

20. Big Pharma runs the CDC...

doncha know :sarcasm:

Sid

[mzmolly]

24. You have heard that special interests have too much power in Washington, no?

Why do you feel the CDC is different? The vaccine approval process is LOADED with conflicts of interest. No sarcasm needed when the truth is fully absurd.

[cosmik debris]

26. Do you have any evidence

that this decision was influenced improperly or are you just expressing your outrageous paranoia?

[truedelphi]

29. Are you paying attention to evidence??

If you were concerned about evidence, wouldn't you be off reading Michale Belkin's testimony before Congress about the fact that more newborns die from the Hep B vaccine than from the actual disease.

I gave you the citations in one of my postings above.

[cosmik debris]

33. You shot your credibility to hell with post #25.

You drank the kool-aide. Until you get over your own ignorance, you can't expect others to believe anything you post.

[mzmolly]

40. No, that was you in post number 27.

:hi:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

47. Nice try.

:)

[cosmik debris]

50. You double crossed your fellow anti-vaxer

That's always worth a good laugh! :)

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

56. Your statements contradict each other.

One of you must be in error.

[mzmolly]

58. I smell

desperation. Yep, that's it, desperation.

Cheers. I'm out. :hi:

[cosmik debris]

60. I'm just havin' fun.

When you start on one of your narrow minded superstitious anti-science rants, it is truly amusing. I like to provoke the kind of irrational responses where you deny what you have already avowed. It is a real hoot watching you argue with yourself.

[mzmolly]

62. It is not "narrow-minded" or "superstitious" to question corporate drug makers

and undo corporate influence in government. Nor is it superstitious to question "science" that is slanted, bought and paid for. In fact, if you had put on your critical thinking cap you might not have erred in the following manner > "the reason infants don't contract Hep B is because they get vaccinations." ~ YOU

[cosmik debris]

64. I just love your posts!

Especially the ones where you claim a huge conspiracy of people who disagree with you. Oooo, the government and the big corporations are out to get you, but you are not paranoid. LOL!

And of course, you were nice enough to remove my quotation from it's context when I pointed out that in the context it was correct.

You are a laugh riot.

I hope others find your superstition and intellectual dishonesty as amusing as I do.

Smile, You are the entertainment for this evening. We want a good show.

[mzmolly]

66. It's not paranoid to acknowledge that corporations have a goal to make money for their share holders

It is not paranoid to acknowledge that corporate influence has poisoned the integrity of our health care system and beyond. Both of our candidates have acknowledged this fact. It is however, NAIVE to think that corporations who make vaccines have a sudden burst of integrity when promoting this particular product. In fact, France is investigating GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur for manslaughter for failing to fully disclose side effects from a HEP B vaccination used in the 1990's. Silly, paranoid country.

As to your quote, it's incorrect no matter the context.

[cosmik debris]

67. Yep, everybody is out to get poor mzmolly

Should we take up a collection for you, maybe hold a benefit concert?

But of course the funny part is that flu vaccinations reduced the number of doctor visits which probably reduced the number of prescriptions filled. Even when big pharma hurts itself, you still think they are out to get you.



Keep up the good work. This place gets dull without your amusing posts.

[mzmolly]

68. The assertion that less doctor visits is meaningful or "scientifically proven"

is again indicative of your double standard. Also, one rarely gets a prescription for the flu.

Cheers, I'm off to tangle with more intelligent people.

[cosmik debris]

69. That shouldn't be difficult

There are certainly plenty of people more intelligent than you.

And by the way, that should be fewer doctor visits, not less doctor visits.

But you will learn about that when you finish your remedial reading lessons.

:)

[mzmolly]

72. More intelligent than yourself. Regarding "less" vs. "fewer", I guess when you fail to have a

command of the issues, you can rely on your superior grammar skills? Oh wait ... I spoke too soon.

"Less" according to dictionary.com

1. to a smaller extent, amount, or degree: less exact.
2. most certainly not
3. in any way different; other: He is nothing less than a thief.
–adjective, a compar. of little with least as superl.
4. smaller in size, amount, degree, etc.; not so large, great, or much: less money; less speed.
5. lower in consideration, rank, or importance: no less a person than the manager.
6. fewer: less than a dozen.
–noun 7. a smaller amount or quantity: Hundreds of soldiers arrived, but less of them remained.
8. something inferior or not as important: He was tortured for less.
–preposition 9. minus; without: a year less two days; six dollars less tax.
—Idiom10. less than, by far short of being; not in the least; hardly at all: The job is less than perfect.

Keep trying though, given you have nothing of value to say regarding vaccinations.

[trotsky]

65. I can certainly see you're having fun

since it's the only side of the dialog I'm seeing! What a riot! Remember - don't break the chew toys.

[lizerdbits]

74. You too huh

Too bad we can't have a party honoring him.

[chicagomd]

70. I just read the interview you linked above,

and Belkin, very conveniently, misses the point of Hep B vaccination in infants. He states:

"If you get an acute case of hepatitis B, you may end up in the hospital, but you will survive. In 90-95 percent of the cases, you get permanent immunity just like you would with the flu or anything else. In 5 percent of the cases, you will wind up with liver problems, probably decades later."

Unfortunately, the statistics for infants are much different for adults, which is why they are vaccinated. If contracted in infancy there is a 90% conversion to the chronic carrier state, and a 25% mortality rate. The incidence of severe vaccination reaction with the hepatitis B vaccine is about 2:100,000. That data is according to both the CDC and the WHO and available at their websites.

Is that getting through? 25% mortality if infected as an infant, as opposed to a 0.00002% risk of the travesity that occured to Belkin's daughter.

If everyone was vaccinated Hep B would go the way of small pox. It is an eradicable disease.

[truedelphi]

79. You are comparing elderly apples to infant oranges

Infants and toddlers do NOT get hepatitis B.

This disease is contracted by unsafe sex practices, and/or sharing dirty needles.

Infants and toddlers do not engage in this activity.

Some mothers of newborns do engage in these unsafe behaviors - which is why a wise approach would be to screen the moms and those moms who test positive for Hep B should have their babies immunized.

What is happening now is that babies from middle income and above families are the victim of vaccine fatalities - and if you read the newspapers, these infants' deaths are declared "SIDS."

Belkin had to fight the system for years to have his daughter's death labelled "vaccine related."

And he has yet to obtain the medical reports from the doctor visit that killed her.

His daughter (like most people's kids) had an absolute 0% possibility of being Hep B positive

[chicagomd]

85. Wrong.

Infants and toddlers most certainly do get Hep B, as you state in your post.

I was not arguing anything about Belkin's rights as a parent, which imo were clearly violated by the physician practice if they refused to release the records, just pointing out the statistics he was quoting did not apply to the discussion at hand.

And nice comment here: "What is happening now is that babies from middle income and above families..." Is that because in your view poor people are the only ones who should have kids die from SIDS, or they are the only ones who engage in unsafe sex practices and do drugs?

Please clarify.

[truedelphi]

89. Statistically yes

The ghetto has been decimated by the years of drug abuse prevalent there. THe babies that we need to be concerned about are not in the mid to upper level of hosuehold income

How drugs get into the ghetto is a good question. I was a reader of the Mercury News back in the day when Gary Webb's stories about CIA influence came out.

The fact is that your average suburbanite is not heavily into unsafe needles (The suburbanites might do drugs - but they can afford to pay for syringes) They are better educated and have more to live for - so probably a lot less unsafe sex (they can afford condoms as well.

Statistically everything is always rather nasty on the poor people's side. As a single mom who never made more than $ 33,000 during the years that I was raising my son (And often far far less)
I didn't feel personally attacked by reading that statistically my son was likely to end up in gangs, or a drug addict or any of a numnber of other nasty places that statitics suggested for his future. (He got through colelge, has a career and a family of his own now. Still refuses to take even aspirin, and his only gang affiliation is the group of kids in their teens that occasionally paint ball him when he is commuting to work.)

With regards to vaccination - we are simply transferring a portion of the infant mortality from the side of the column where it was expected to the side of the column where it wasn't. Assuming that the poor baby in the ghetto is born in a clinic or a hospital, and receives the mandated one day old "Healthy Baby" shot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. SIDS=Vaccine Fatalities, Any evidence???

Need some proof on that one. Studies and autopsies a link will be fine, as long as it's not one to a bunch of anonymous people giving anecdotal evidence. SIDS in often listed as the cause of death when the mother has smothered the child accidently while sleeping with the child in bed with her. I have seen it and know for a fact that medical examiners list SIDS to attempt to take away the mothers guilt. I have never once in my years of training and teaching as an Pediatric Advanced Life Support Instructor, ever heard vaccines related to SIDS. I always want to learn more though so I look forward to the links.

David

[mzmolly]

44. Why not examine that for yourself Cosmik?

If the process is broken, it can't be trusted. When those who sit on the board of directors at the drug company profiting from a vaccine mandate have a say in that mandate, I consider that a problem. You apparently consider that "paranoia"?

Are you not paranoid about people not getting vaccinated?

Here's one example of how the process is tainted: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401

[cosmik debris]

48. So, I guess you don't have any evidence

that this decision was improperly influenced.

Just saying that some people somewhere are corrupt is not evidence that this decision was improperly influenced.

It must be awfully lonely in your tiny world of fear. You seem desperate to get others to join you there. No thanks. That's your cross to bear.

[mzmolly]

51. What decision do you speak of specifically?

I've noted that there is a conflict of interest in the drug/vaccine approval process. Google the congressional report if you're interested.

Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making
Majority Staff Report
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
June 15, 2000

Thankfully, Democrats are attempting to correct the "problem" you say doesn't exist.

[cosmik debris]

59. The decision made Wednesday

A report from June 2000 can not preemptively be applied to a decision of Feb 2008.

Your superstition is getting the better of you. You need to get back on your meds.

[mzmolly]

61. The decision to have a meeting?

Public health officials are meeting this week to decide whether to recommend that most children get a flu shot each year.

[cosmik debris]

63. Remedial reading is in your future.

see post #19

[mzmolly]

75. Do you think we should sue or get a refund if they get the strain wrong again?

I found this Wa-Po article on the flu interesting:

Flu Death Risk Often Exaggerated; So Is Benefit of Vaccine ~ WAPO

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102200042.html
Might make for a nice discussion?



Also -

Studies have also measured another outcome: how vaccination affects days lost from work. On average, there are about 0.16 fewer days lost from work per person vaccinated. Another way of saying this is that about 5 percent of those vaccinated avoid missing about three days of work because of the flu. (That is, 0.16 days divided by the 5 percent who benefited from vaccination equals 3.2 days.) The other 95 percent vaccinated got no benefit.

[mzmolly]

30. Actually, this is a push for CHILDREN to get a flu vaccine.

However, as happens fairly often -

This Season's Flu Strains Are Not a Good Match for Vaccine ~ WAPO

Seasonal influenza is spreading widely throughout the United States, with nearly half the cases caused by strains of the virus that are not directly covered by this year's flu vaccine.
This Story

Whether the winter will end up being worse than usual remains to be seen. Flu mortality in adults has been higher than in the past two years, but deaths in children -- an important marker of severity -- have been rare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/10/ST2008021000311.html">LINK

I listened to the NPR program and there is much speculation involved in this recommendation. I'm not going to blather on about all the ins and outs, however it's worth noting that the "side effects" from the Flumist vaccine are akin to flu symptoms.

From the CDC:

What side effects are associated with the nasal-spray flu vaccine LAIV (FluMist®)?

In children, side effects can include runny nose, headache, wheezing, vomiting, muscle aches, and fever. In adults, side effects can include runny nose, headache, sore throat, and cough.

My friend, an RN always says "isn't this what the vaccine is supposed to prevent?"

According to a conversation I had with the manufacturer, the vaccine side effects can lead to the same kind of complications that the vaccine is supposed to prevent. Pneumonia etc...

Children who received FluMist experienced more wheezing than those who were given an inactive vaccine, but "the difference between treatment groups is quite small," one reviewer said.

Other side effects included pneumonia, among other problems. Previously known side effects with FluMist include nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat and cough, according to the FDA. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSWBT00696320070514">REUTERS

Part of the reason the Flu is deadly is because it can lead secondary infections such as pneumonia.

Sorry, but color me skeptical, once again.

[mhatrw]

93. "When you get your science from news shows, you end up with

astounding ignorance."

Who once said this?

[cosmik debris]

94. Do you even know what a news paper is?

I guess not.

[mhatrw]

96. Busted! n/t

[cosmik debris]

103. Tantrum! n/t

[cosmik debris]

95. And Thanks for kicking my thread! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

100. Is it considered stalking when someone does a search on you and then resurrects old threads

just to piss on them?

[mhatrw]

101. You are the expert on stalking. n/t

[cosmik debris]

102. She has had enough stalkers like you to know the ropes. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

105. You still haven't proved your claim that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent.

It's been several days, what's the hold up?

Do you need us to send you more envelopes?

[mhatrw]

108. I never made such a claim. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

111. Actually, you did, more than once: "Gardasil will almost certainly do more harm than good."

Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #136

137. Let's try this, do rich white women have any risk at all of contracting cervical cancer?


mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #137

139. Let's try this. They have more risk of dying from an injection of Gardasil. n/t

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:28 AM
Response to Original message

79. Merck raking in $1.4 billion a year on a vaccine that does more harm than good.

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #15

16. The reason to opt out is that Gardasil will almost certainly do more harm than good.

[cosmik debris]

112. Are you going to go pout now? n/t

[TZ]

97. How about getting science from teh internets?

Cause I'm thoroughly convinced you have NEVER EVER cracked a science text book or stepped foot into a scientific learning environment.
You make me believe this...the internet is the DISINFORMATION superhighway...

[mhatrw]

104. Then how about stepping into the "Newest NEJM study" thread and regaling us all with your expertise?

If you really think I'm so stupid, then why not take a crack at educating me? At minimum, you should be able to show me up with your vastly superior scientific background.

[beam me up scottie]

106. Prove that vaccines are more dangerous than diseases, professor.

Give us an example of that back of the envelope voodoo.

[mhatrw]

109. I never made such a claim. I never would make such a claim. n/t

[cosmik debris]

113. Yeah, I believe you did. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

115. Yep, you did, several times:

Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #136

137. Let's try this, do rich white women have any risk at all of contracting cervical cancer?


mhatrw (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #137

139. Let's try this. They have more risk of dying from an injection of Gardasil. n/t

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:28 AM
Response to Original message

79. Merck raking in $1.4 billion a year on a vaccine that does more harm than good.

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-25-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #15

16. The reason to opt out is that Gardasil will almost certainly do more harm than good.

[cosmik debris]

107. It is more fun just to watch you squirm

When it is pointed out that TWICE you used made up facts to scare people.

And since you refuse to prove your other bogus claim, I guess we can count that as THREE TIMES you used made up facts to scare people.

[beam me up scottie]

98. How's that back of the envelope research coming along? Vaccines do more harm than good, remember?

Every time you've been asked for proof of your claim you've scuttled away to another thread.

[mhatrw]

110. Does this count as stalking, stalking expert? n/t

[cosmik debris]

114. Does this count as pouting, pouting expert?

[beam me up scottie]

116. Keep blowing smoke, it won't help.

Prove your claims.

[xchrom]

99. kick -- an event that most assuredly would help kids and reduce

the amount of those sick with the flu each year.

[xchrom]

117. kick

[xchrom]

119. kick

[Hannah Bell]

120. a news report. meaningless, according to you. why did you post it?

[cosmik debris]

121. Thanks for kicking my thread. n/t

[xchrom]

122. kick