Jump to content

Anti-Vaxxers


Recommended Posts

 

 

12 hours ago, JMPA said:

"It's not just about vaccines, either, in that many, perhaps most, patients are too mathematically illiterate or emotionally impaired to be capable of making an informed decision."

it is this ' god complex" attitude that is offensive and has no place in the practice of medicine. 

You are arguing against the fact that  Vaccination should be a personal INDIVIDUALIZED decision based on informed RISKS, benefits and alternatives with the patient choice respected. This has less to do about vaccination and more to do with you believing that you know best and you should be entitled to make decisions for the masses.

As for herd immunity, have fun: " Vaccination stimulates an artificial, temporary immunity that does not last as long as naturally acquired immunity. Sometimes vaccination does not prevent infection at all but allows infection with few or no symptoms in the vaccinated person, who is still able to transmit the infection to others, which is the case with B. pertussis (whooping cough). At best, it may stave off infections in some vaccinated people for a limited period of time."

Can you please provide a point of reference for your quote there? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrator
3 hours ago, JMPA said:

That is more than a quote, it is an indisputable fact. Fact, not theory. Basic entry level immunology 101 fact. My issue is not to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, it is the method of force and coercion that you promote to hold steady to your rhetoric.  If you choose to close the thread so be it. Threads like this open up professional discussion of issues that are frequently misunderstood or never questioned. Where is progress without questions?

Thinkertdm does appear to have thoroughly discredited what you've said.   If it really is Immunology 101-level truth, surely you can find an actual peer-reviewed scientific source that covers it? NVIC is an advocacy site; Mercola is, at best, a profiteer.

I'm sorry, but the the sort of discussion I'm interested in does not involve rehashing benefits that have been well demonstrated in the peer-reviewed medical literature on the basis of Internet conspiracy theories.  Mind you, peer-reviewed isn't perfect, but the solution to bad peer reviewed papers is GOOD peer reviewed papers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The god-complex personally makes me uncomfortable but that is our job. We should tell people what is good for them. We should be strong in our knowledge and convictions and we should be pushy.

 

if you let anti vaxxers soften you with some garbage from the internet you have done a terrible disservice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final comment from myself on this topic.  Whenever I discuss treatment options instead of making statements such as "I" or "We", I begin with "The evidence at present time suggests".  Perfect examples, childhood pertussis vaccination does not confer lifetime immunity though my parents in late 50's/early 60's were led to believe same.  I see people all the time getting a "booster dose of Hep B" when that is not what the current guidelines recommend.  Before we start making blind statements about anything we should always remember that guidelines tend to change, sometimes more often than we would like to think.  Me personally?  Risk of vaccine is outweighed by what I know could happen without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, thinkertdm said:

 

I just want clarify your statement of "entry level immunology 101".  I found this exact text: "Vaccination stimulates an artificial, temporary immunity that does not last as long as naturally acquired immunity." on this web site: https://www.nvic.org/faqs/vaccine-safety-immunity.aspx and while it says "National Vaccine Information Center, it has plenty of dubious and incorrect information on it, and the website title leads one to believe it is an official source, which it is clearly not.

Additionally, similar text appears on Mercolas website: "other words, vaccination triggers the creation of vaccine strain antibodies, but since vaccination skips the cell-mediated response, it only confers an artificial temporary immunity."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/06/05/amp/people-losing-trust-in-vaccine-industry.aspx

Personally, I consider Mercola a fellow who spews shit disguised as information, but if you consider this a baseline intro into immunology, then that's up to you.

I'm not saying anything about discharging patients who come in and refuse any of my advice.

Your "clarification" does not address my fact, it merely tries to derail the conversation to assumption of origin. As stated, this is immunology 101, and it should be well understood by all practicing clinicians. I see nothing in your drivel that disputes this fact. Please read up on immunology and vaccination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rev ronin said:

Thinkertdm does appear to have thoroughly discredited what you've said.   If it really is Immunology 101-level truth, surely you can find an actual peer-reviewed scientific source that covers it? NVIC is an advocacy site; Mercola is, at best, a profiteer.

I'm sorry, but the the sort of discussion I'm interested in does not involve rehashing benefits that have been well demonstrated in the peer-reviewed medical literature on the basis of Internet conspiracy theories.  Mind you, peer-reviewed isn't perfect, but the solution to bad peer reviewed papers is GOOD peer reviewed papers...

Thinkerdm did not  discredit anything, he tried to re direct the point. He stated nothing directly pertaining to herd immunity and immunization. You can find this information in any immunology text book, far superior to peer reviewed articles. This does not require peer review, it is a fact. Scientific textbooks on immunology cover this subject in detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
54 minutes ago, JMPA said:

Thinkerdm did not  discredit anything, he tried to re direct the point. He stated nothing directly pertaining to herd immunity and immunization. You can find this information in any immunology text book, far superior to peer reviewed articles. This does not require peer review, it is a fact. Scientific textbooks on immunology cover this subject in detail.

Super; now post quotes from appropriate textbooks, or withdraw the assertion. You've made sweeping statements and failed, repeatedly, to back them up with any cited source.  When you DID supply sources, they were unworthy. On the surface, you're right: Thinkertdm didn't discredit you, you discredited yourself when you posted statements from unreliable sources, he just pointed out where you got what you did post.

I'm losing patience.  I expect your post on the topic of vaccines, in this thread or any other, to contain appropriate references, cited sufficiently well that anyone can check on your quotes and facts, backing up your above statements.  You may, of course, choose not to post at all, and that would be fine with me too.  There's nothing really for you respond to here, since we're not arguing about anything at this point other than your lack of sourcing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, JMPA said:

Thinkerdm did not  discredit anything, he tried to re direct the point. He stated nothing directly pertaining to herd immunity and immunization. You can find this information in any immunology text book, far superior to peer reviewed articles. This does not require peer review, it is a fact. Scientific textbooks on immunology cover this subject in detail.

For crying out loud.  You have failed- FAILED- to cite any reputable source of your herd immunity and immunization argument.  I did not redirect any argument, I simply showed where the baloney "immunizations act differently than exposure to real diseases" comes from.  You can sit there and state that "this is common information" and make it seem like all of US are ignorant by apparently not knowing this.  

We are simply asking, especially since this is common information, to give us a source.  It doesn't even need to be formatted correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, JMPA said:

Thinkerdm did not  discredit anything, he tried to re direct the point. He stated nothing directly pertaining to herd immunity and immunization. You can find this information in any immunology text book, far superior to peer reviewed articles. This does not require peer review, it is a fact. Scientific textbooks on immunology cover this subject in detail.

You are the one who has questioned herd immunity, therefore the impetus is on you to provide PEER REVIEWED data that supports your statement.  You provided a source that supported your position and your source was found to be faulty at best.  You continue to declare it a "fact" that herd immunity "does not work."  Show the data.  Crying foul when someone points out that your source is not PEER REVIEWED is not derailing the conversation, it is clarifying the conversation to ensure that individuals know your source was faulty.  If the "fact" that herd immunity "does not work" is truly "immunology 101" then there should be abounding resources to provide that support your statement.  But, I must state that the immunology textbooks I have read and the PEER REVIEWED data I have reviewed seem to show that herd immunity is a real thing and does work.  Is it the only reason to get a vaccine...NO, but a darn good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

typical drivel, refocus and state why you disagree with my quote. the truth hurts. why don't you cite to me and all the people who read this forum, why herd immunity applies to vaccines?  why don't you show me peer reviewed articles that state that immunization is equivalent or superior to immunity from direct infection? you cannot argue with my statement because it is true scientific fact. 

1 hour ago, mgriffiths said:

You are the one who has questioned herd immunity, therefore the impetus is on you to provide PEER REVIEWED data that supports your statement.  You provided a source that supported your position and your source was found to be faulty at best.  You continue to declare it a "fact" that herd immunity "does not work."  Show the data.  Crying foul when someone points out that your source is not PEER REVIEWED is not derailing the conversation, it is clarifying the conversation to ensure that individuals know your source was faulty.  If the "fact" that herd immunity "does not work" is truly "immunology 101" then there should be abounding resources to provide that support your statement.  But, I must state that the immunology textbooks I have read and the PEER REVIEWED data I have reviewed seem to show that herd immunity is a real thing and does work.  Is it the only reason to get a vaccine...NO, but a darn good one.

read carefully, i said "vaccine herd immunity" yes vaccine herd immunity does not work. Please read carefully before joining a discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of interest, a few vaccines induce a better immune response than natural infection:

  • Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — The high purity of the specific protein in the vaccine leads to a better immune response than natural infection.
  • Tetanus vaccine — The toxin made by tetanus is so potent that the amount that causes disease is actually lower than the amount that induces a long-lasting immune response. This is why people with tetanus disease are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine — children less than 2 years old do not typically make a good response to the complex sugar coating (polysaccharide) on the surface of Hib that causes disease; however, the vaccine links this polysaccharide to a helper protein that creates a better immune response than would occur naturally. Therefore, children less than 2 years old who get Hib are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Pneumococcal vaccine — This vaccine works the same way as the Hib vaccine to create a better immune response than natural infection.

So, in summary, vaccines afford us protection with lesser quantities of virus or bacteria and the control of scheduling the exposure.

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

It seems you are advocating for infection of healthy individuals when the disease is far worse than the vaccine.  Risk vs Benefit of natural infection vs. Vaccine seems pretty clear cut.  Your original assertion was somewhat invalidated by the above.  As you said, immunology 101.  Please post your peer reviewed source as originally requested.  At this time the science is on the side of Vaccination and not natural infection due to risk vs benefit of Vaccine vs Natural Infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NeoTrion said:

Of interest, a few vaccines induce a better immune response than natural infection:

  • Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — The high purity of the specific protein in the vaccine leads to a better immune response than natural infection.
  • Tetanus vaccine — The toxin made by tetanus is so potent that the amount that causes disease is actually lower than the amount that induces a long-lasting immune response. This is why people with tetanus disease are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine — children less than 2 years old do not typically make a good response to the complex sugar coating (polysaccharide) on the surface of Hib that causes disease; however, the vaccine links this polysaccharide to a helper protein that creates a better immune response than would occur naturally. Therefore, children less than 2 years old who get Hib are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Pneumococcal vaccine — This vaccine works the same way as the Hib vaccine to create a better immune response than natural infection.

So, in summary, vaccines afford us protection with lesser quantities of virus or bacteria and the control of scheduling the exposure.

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

It seems you are advocating for infection of healthy individuals when the disease is far worse than the vaccine.  Risk vs Benefit of natural infection vs. Vaccine seems pretty clear cut.  Your original assertion was somewhat invalidated by the above.  As you said, immunology 101.  Please post your peer reviewed source as originally requested.  At this time the science is on the side of Vaccination and not natural infection due to risk vs benefit of Vaccine vs Natural Infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf

Using logic and reason and science as well as citing as source; that's just cah-razy.  

The rebuttal is going to be: "yeah?  Well, you are a poo poo head". 

Neotrion: 1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2018 at 9:06 PM, JMPA said:

You have a much greater chance of contracting MRSA from infected skin or PNA from an obese person and dying than contracting measles from a healthy non vaxxer. Where does this faulty reasoning arise from? is it do to inherent bias? god complex? belief in totalitarian society? Vaccination should be a personal INDIVIDUALIZED decision based on informed RISKS, benefits and alternatives with the patient choice respected, period. There is no justification to force somebody to have vaccines injected into there body against their will for a theory of herd immunity that does not work, period.

 

2 hours ago, JMPA said:

read carefully, i said "vaccine herd immunity" yes vaccine herd immunity does not work. Please read carefully before joining a discussion. 

You try to clarify by specifying "vaccine herd immunity." Even placing it into quotations as if you have specifically linked those three words together in a post previously - unfortunately for you, you never did that.  A quick keyword search reveals that quite readily.  I have also quoted your initial post on "herd immunity" and you never specify that you are only talking about herd immunity through vaccinations.

But, of course, the reality is that herd immunity through vaccinations has been shown to be very effective, this is "FACT," "immunology 101."  "Scientific textbooks on immunology cover this subject in detail." If you want to refute my position find PEER reviewed sources to cite....(sound familiar...🙄)

 

2 hours ago, JMPA said:

typical drivel, refocus and state why you disagree with my quote. the truth hurts. why don't you cite to me and all the people who read this forum, why herd immunity applies to vaccines?  why don't you show me peer reviewed articles that state that immunization is equivalent or superior to immunity from direct infection? you cannot argue with my statement because it is true scientific fact. 

This is just confusing.  You posted a position of the failure of herd immunity (through vaccines or otherwise).  The onus is on you (the original poster) to provide support for your claim, not on us - but of course Neotrion was kind enough to do the work anyway.

 

I highly suggest that no one replies to JMPA regarding vaccines, herd immunity, or any other related topic in this thread until JMPA provides PEER REVIEWED sources supporting his position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mgriffiths said:

 

You try to clarify by specifying "vaccine herd immunity." Even placing it into quotations as if you have specifically linked those three words together in a post previously - unfortunately for you, you never did that.  A quick keyword search reveals that quite readily.  I have also quoted your initial post on "herd immunity" and you never specify that you are only talking about herd immunity through vaccinations.

But, of course, the reality is that herd immunity through vaccinations has been shown to be very effective, this is "FACT," "immunology 101."  "Scientific textbooks on immunology cover this subject in detail." If you want to refute my position find PEER reviewed sources to cite....(sound familiar...🙄)

 

This is just confusing.  You posted a position of the failure of herd immunity (through vaccines or otherwise).  The onus is on you (the original poster) to provide support for your claim, not on us - but of course Neotrion was kind enough to do the work anyway.

 

I highly suggest that no one replies to JMPA regarding vaccines, herd immunity, or any other related topic in this thread until JMPA provides PEER REVIEWED sources supporting his position.

Vaccine herd immunity, i cannot make it any clearer

As for herd immunity, have fun: " Vaccination stimulates an artificial, temporary immunity that does not last as long as naturally acquired immunity. Sometimes vaccination does not prevent infection at all but allows infection with few or no symptoms in the vaccinated person, who is still able to transmit the infection to others, which is the case with B. pertussis (whooping cough). At best, it may stave off infections in some vaccinated people for a limited period of time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeoTrion said:

Of interest, a few vaccines induce a better immune response than natural infection:

  • Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — The high purity of the specific protein in the vaccine leads to a better immune response than natural infection.
  • Tetanus vaccine — The toxin made by tetanus is so potent that the amount that causes disease is actually lower than the amount that induces a long-lasting immune response. This is why people with tetanus disease are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine — children less than 2 years old do not typically make a good response to the complex sugar coating (polysaccharide) on the surface of Hib that causes disease; however, the vaccine links this polysaccharide to a helper protein that creates a better immune response than would occur naturally. Therefore, children less than 2 years old who get Hib are still recommended to get the vaccine.
  • Pneumococcal vaccine — This vaccine works the same way as the Hib vaccine to create a better immune response than natural infection.

So, in summary, vaccines afford us protection with lesser quantities of virus or bacteria and the control of scheduling the exposure.

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

It seems you are advocating for infection of healthy individuals when the disease is far worse than the vaccine.  Risk vs Benefit of natural infection vs. Vaccine seems pretty clear cut.  Your original assertion was somewhat invalidated by the above.  As you said, immunology 101.  Please post your peer reviewed source as originally requested.  At this time the science is on the side of Vaccination and not natural infection due to risk vs benefit of Vaccine vs Natural Infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf

Dont stray from the topic which seems to be a common theme on this forum.

Note the first sentence of your response:Of interest, a few vaccines induce a better immune response than natural infection:

Yes, a few! How do they prove that the vaccines offer better immunity? They can not.

This response does not detract from my original statement concerning rude, unethical unlawful clinicians behavior towards people choosing not to vaccinate nor the failure of vaccine herd immunity. The responses to my comments have been childish at best. Wake up people, know immunology 101, learn the limitations and benefits of vaccination and provide knowledgeable,  courteous, professional medical care to your patients without resorting to "bias, bullying, childish, harmful behavior".

I'm done lecturing infants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little surprised where this thread has ended up, and I must say the personal attacks are a bit disheartening. I believe pretty strongly in patient autonomy and the freedom of patients to make their own medical decisions, even if those decisions aren't what is recommended by their health-care provider or what is best for their health. However, when that decision-making may result in inadvertent harm to other patients or other members of society, I think it changes the issue. 

 

JMPA, you keep mentioning "Immunology 101" -- I'll do you one better, and include a quote from the text used in my upper-level immunology course (which is also the same text used by my university's medical school to teach immunology). 

 

The text is Janeway's Immunobiology, 8th Ed. This quote comes from Chapter 16: Manipulation of the Immune Response (specifically section 16-21 on page 700): 

"A successful vaccine must possess several features in addition to its ability to provoke a protective immune response (Fig 16.23). First, it must be safe. Vaccines must be given to a huge number of people, relatively few of whom are likely to die of, or sometimes even catch, the disease that the vaccine is designed to prevent. This means that even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable. Second, the vaccine must be able to produce protective immunity in a very high proportion of the people to whom it is given. Third, particularly in poorer countries where it is impractical to give regular 'booster' vaccinations to dispersed rural populations, a successful vaccine must generate long-lived immunological memory. This means that the vaccine must prime both B and T lymphocytes. Fourth, vaccines must be very cheap if they are to be administered to large populations. Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective measures in health care, but this benefit is eroded as the cost per dose rises. 

Another benefit of an effective vaccination program is the 'herd immunity' that it confers on the general population. By lowering the number of susceptible members of the population, vaccination decreases the natural reservoir of infected individuals in that population and so reduces the probability of transmission of infection. Thus, even unvaccinated members will be protected because their individual chance of encountering the pathogen is decreased. However, the herd immunity effect is only seen at relatively high levels of vaccination within a population; for mumps it is estimated to be around 80%, and below this level sporadic epidemics can occur. This is illustrated by a marked increase in mumps in the United Kingdom in 2004-2005 in young adults as a result of the variable use in the mid-1990s of a measles/rubella vaccine, rather than the combined MMR, which was in short supply at that time.

 

I apologize for the length of this post, but I figured I'd provide the entire passage since a good overview seemed important, rather than cherry-picking a single sentence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ProSpectre said:

I'm a little surprised where this thread has ended up, and I must say the personal attacks are a bit disheartening. I believe pretty strongly in patient autonomy and the freedom of patients to make their own medical decisions, even if those decisions aren't what is recommended by their health-care provider or what is best for their health. However, when that decision-making may result in inadvertent harm to other patients or other members of society, I think it changes the issue. 

 

JMPA, you keep mentioning "Immunology 101" -- I'll do you one better, and include a quote from the text used in my upper-level immunology course (which is also the same text used by my university's medical school to teach immunology). 

 

The text is Janeway's Immunobiology, 8th Ed. This quote comes from Chapter 16: Manipulation of the Immune Response (specifically section 16-21 on page 700): 

"A successful vaccine must possess several features in addition to its ability to provoke a protective immune response (Fig 16.23). First, it must be safe. Vaccines must be given to a huge number of people, relatively few of whom are likely to die of, or sometimes even catch, the disease that the vaccine is designed to prevent. This means that even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable. Second, the vaccine must be able to produce protective immunity in a very high proportion of the people to whom it is given. Third, particularly in poorer countries where it is impractical to give regular 'booster' vaccinations to dispersed rural populations, a successful vaccine must generate long-lived immunological memory. This means that the vaccine must prime both B and T lymphocytes. Fourth, vaccines must be very cheap if they are to be administered to large populations. Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective measures in health care, but this benefit is eroded as the cost per dose rises. 

Another benefit of an effective vaccination program is the 'herd immunity' that it confers on the general population. By lowering the number of susceptible members of the population, vaccination decreases the natural reservoir of infected individuals in that population and so reduces the probability of transmission of infection. Thus, even unvaccinated members will be protected because their individual chance of encountering the pathogen is decreased. However, the herd immunity effect is only seen at relatively high levels of vaccination within a population; for mumps it is estimated to be around 80%, and below this level sporadic epidemics can occur. This is illustrated by a marked increase in mumps in the United Kingdom in 2004-2005 in young adults as a result of the variable use in the mid-1990s of a measles/rubella vaccine, rather than the combined MMR, which was in short supply at that time.

 

I apologize for the length of this post, but I figured I'd provide the entire passage since a good overview seemed important, rather than cherry-picking a single sentence. 

**drops the mic**

Nicely done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More