Vaccinations

[kriz]

What people need to realize is that this is a vaccine for an STD!!! They don't mention that because people don't want to think about their 16 year olds having unprotected sex. What about safe sex? Oh no, let's not even talk about it, let's try to make it mandatory for all young girls to be given these shots. Geez.

I totally agree with you there, snivelingchild. It's interesting that most people assume that ALL teens must have lots of sex very early. I think it's important to evaluate and discuss before a series of shots (and pills) are given.

[snivelingchild]

So in their interest to make money, true of any business, they spend billions of dollars on sham testing procedures (concocted just for show) guaranteed to clear their drugs as being safe, even though they know they are quite possibly dangerous and will kill/harm the women and children of their own country/family once released (or they simply don't know/care). That makes sense.



That's great news! Since the doctors and scientists of the CDC, FDA, FSA, and other regulatory agencies entrusted to protect our society gain their "knowledge" as to the safety of a drug/food/medicine simply by taking the manufacturer's word for it (based on these sham tests they do), I guess there's no longer any need to kill animals anymore doing safety testing. They can just make up the data instead. Hurray!

You completely misinterpret EVERYTHING I just said. I feel like I'm wasting my time to try and take the 5 spare minutes I have at the moment to try and quickly summarize my thoughts when you aren't even going to understand them anyway. (At least not in the ways I mean) Sorry I don't have all the free time in the world to explain to you my words, since it usually takes 5 posts just to explain what I meant in the first one.

[Enchantress]

I consider part of safe sex to be not having sex with someone until you have both been screened for STDs, unless neither of you had any previous partners. Putting on a rubber DOESN'T mean you're having safe sex in the least.

That would mean that if my potential sexual partner did turn out to have HPV (which approximately 80% of women in the UK do have, I don't know the statitics for men, but as most women catch HPV of men and most women don't have very many sexual partners, I assume the percentage must be quite high there too) I couldn't have sex with them, protected or otherwise, ever. Either that or I could sleep with them anyway, rendering having ourselves screened for HPV pointless and risking contracting a virus that could potentially kill me when there is a vaccination against it.

[Quantum Mechanic]

I hear Bob was fired and then murdered. See he had threatened to go public with the truth that their organization's entire existence was based solely to lull the general public into a false sense of security so that the drug industry can peddle their poisons and mind control drugs on all of us.

That's the biggest thing that gets to me..if this was really the case, why no one has come forward? There's so many people, and it's not all just CEOs and the like, there are researchers and people who aren't on so much the business side of things - why wouldn't any of them say anything?

[Mahk]

Although she seems to think I've misconstrued her overall meaning, I must admit that I agree with Sniv in that a vaccination such as Gardasil (which helps prevent girls/women from contracting HPV type 16 and 18, together responsible for 70% of cervical cancer, the 5th leading cause of cancer death not to mention genital warts and other forms of cancer) should probably not be a compulsory vaccination as stipulated by the government; unlike air borne diseases that threaten schoolchildren simply from attending school, sex is optional, but attending school is for the most part compulsory.

As for my own hypothetical teenage daughter who insists "But I don't like boys, or girls for that matter, and will never have sex so I don't want the shot and if for some odd reason I change my mind later in life I'll simply have all my sex partners tested fist." *loud buzzer* Nope. You're getting the shot, young lady, and you're going to wear your safely belt too, like it or not.

"But Dad, if I'm careful not to be in a car accident there's no need for the safety belt!" Oh, puh-leez.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sniv, I'm sorry if I misconstrued your words and that I snapped. Perhaps instead of taking my post as addressing you, which I must admit I was initially attempting to do, instead it should be taken as my thoughts about the people who think the vaccination/medical industry is morally corrupt and out to get us. NOT YOU.

If I seemed a little nasty it was because I was lashing out at them. Sorry if I was taking it out on you.

[snivelingchild]

That would mean that if my potential sexual partner did turn out to have HPV (which approximately 80% of women in the UK do have, I don't know the statitics for men, but as most women catch HPV of men and most women don't have very many sexual partners, I assume the percentage must be quite high there too) I couldn't have sex with them, protected or otherwise, ever. Either that or I could sleep with them anyway, rendering having ourselves screened for HPV pointless and risking contracting a virus that could potentially kill me when there is a vaccination against it.

I never said that no one should get vaccinated. I said everyone should weigh the risks/consequences for themselves, on an individual basis, the way it SHOULD be for ALL vaccines.

Mahk, how about letting your hypothetical daughter choose for herself? Or can she be mature enough to decide when to have sex, but not mature enough to decide for herself? (Yeah, I know, millions of kids make bad decisions, but so much of this is parenting. Hopefully Mahk will raise his fake child to respect themselves, and he will have many, many honest, open talks with them about when to decide to have sex, and whatnot. Come on, go with it.)

[Mahk]

She get's to pick her boyfriends/girlfriends, music, sexual activity, drug use, etc (within limits), but as for wearing a helmet to ride a motorcycle, a safety belt to drive a car, or an anti HPV shot to interact freely with humans, I get to choose these sorts of things while she's 9-12 years-old, not her. She can sue me in court if she doesn't like it but I'm pretty sure I'm going to win.

[Mahk]

oops, duplicate post removed

[Ruby Rose]

I agree with Sniv in that a vaccination such as Gardasil should probably not be a compulsory vaccination as stipulated by the government... sex is optional

But that's precisely why universal compulsory vaccination is the right choice here - it completely neutralises any moralistic or judgemental aspect of the transmission of the disease. In a nutshell: cervical cancer kills, the vaccine doesn't. The fact that currently one known route of contracting the disease is HPV, and currently we know that one route of transmission for HPV is sexual intercourse is something of a red herring because our society still makes negative judgements about women's sexuality.

It would be wrong to put any young person or any parent in a position to have to be making a judgement about the entire life experiences and sexual choices of a woman when she is a 9 year old child - or even when she is 14 - instead, by vaccinating everyone, no-one has to say "Is she going to be the kind of girl who will?" or "Does she come from a family where her parents might now or in the future hold different views about sexuality than she does and she feels more comfortable concealing details of her sex life from her parents?" or "Will she ever in her life have unprotected sex with anyone including her life partner?". If everyone's covered, it's not about sex any more.

[Gorilla]

Mahk, how about letting your hypothetical daughter choose for herself? Or can she be mature enough to decide when to have sex, but not mature enough to decide for herself? (Yeah, I know, millions of kids make bad decisions, but so much of this is parenting. Hopefully Mahk will raise his fake child to respect themselves, and he will have many, many honest, open talks with them about when to decide to have sex, and whatnot. Come on, go with it.)

i don't think it is just down to parenting. you could have the best parents in the world but you still might not want to share the details of your sex life with them. i don't think any girl can tell how her life is going to pan out at the age when the vaccine needs to be administered for it to be effective.

i agree with what Ruby Rose said above.

[herbwormwood]

I consider part of safe sex to be not having sex with someone until you have both been screened for STDs, unless neither of you had any previous partners. Putting on a rubber DOESN'T mean you're having safe sex in the least.

I would like to politely point out that your opinion is a minority one..you are of course entitled to it.

For any sexually inexperienced people reading this forum, the facts are that most sexually transmitted infections are made much less likely to be transmitted by the practice of safer sex.
Anyone who has been involved in sexual health enducation will always use the term safer sex rather than safe sex, for obvious reasons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/s...safersex.shtml

Condom use not only reduces risk of unwanted pregnancy, but also provides one of the best ways of reducing transmission of all sexually transmitted diseases, including the one under debate).

[Mahk]

Ruby Rose, you make a very compelling argument. I'm not 100% certain what to think. It is a difficult issue for me because I see two different rights in direct opposition to each other:

A) People have the right to insist that the general population does their best to keep contagious diseases at bay, including the use of compulsory vaccinations, so we all may move about society freely and not be afraid to send our kids to school.

versus

B) People who believe in things I think are complete poppycock like fairies, gremlins, god, ghosts, Bigfoot, and "Gardasil causes autism and death" (or whatever they think it causes) have a right to believe as they do.

As you might know from other threads, I vehemently fight for the freedom of religion even though I myself have none. I see this hysteria against vaccinations similarly to a religion. Even though I personally only care about "right A", I feel compelled to stand up for people who care about "right B" even though in my book they are delusional.

[bradders]

I do believe in universal vaccinations (wishing they were vegan) but not in forcing people to have them. There is a bit of a fear/ reality imbalance though such as the autism claims and the mmr jab (falsified research that pretty much only said could and link, which are just corollary not proof) and has been discredited since. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4311613.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3308485.ece

[snivelingchild]

It is delusional just to want to stay away from vaccines because it seems unnecessary??? WTF??

I'm sorry, you can't force me to put ANY substance into my bloodstream, even if it is equivalent to a placebo! I have the right to have an abortion, but not refuse medication?!? I don't necessarily think vaccinations have bad side effects, but I'm still not taking ANYTHING tested on animals and the like unless necessary!!! I don't even take pain killers for my migraine, but I'm stepping on your rights because not getting vaccinated MIGHT mean I get sick (even though vaccinations are not 100% and do not last a lifetime) and pass it on to you? This is why I want to live out in the woods away from all people.

I mean, yeah, I might walk out the door today and get raped. I'm not taking a vac on that chance. Frankly, I'd have a million worse things to worry about than HPV. If I was truly scared of getting raped all the time, I'd wear one of those things that latches on to a man's penis is he penetrates me. Wearing something in my vagina all the time, awesome! I still couldn't do that on my period. There are no guarantees in life. I think people forget that in this vastly disconnected world we live in where anything in a hallmark card is possible, and life can be perfect. What ever happened to nature and natural selection? If I die, and didn't do every possible thing I could have to prevent it, so what? I take some precautions, but I base my decisions on what I see the most need.

Should we force girls on birth control at age 12, because it is so likely they will have sex under whatever circumstances? It's just like a seatbelt or airbag, right?

[bradders]

with this vaccine I think it should be voluntary and to the point where there is an in school programme, like the bcg but that at a certain point it has to be the teenager's decision and the teenager should be able to get the vaccine or refuse it without parental consent .

[Ruby Rose]

I mean, yeah, I might walk out the door today and get raped. I'm not taking a vac on that chance. Frankly, I'd have a million worse things to worry about than HPV. If I was truly scared of getting raped all the time, I'd wear one of those things that latches on to a man's penis is he penetrates me.

Should we force girls on birth control at age 12, because it is so likely they will have sex under whatever circumstances? It's just like a seatbelt or airbag, right?

With complete respect to you, Sniv - you, as an adult, have every right to decide exactly whether you want to be vaccinated or not. That's not really the point - and the HPV vaccination isn't going to be offered to us, so it's not really something we have to make a personal decision about. (So we can save our money on the vagina bear traps!) And so it's really not personal, it's a theoretical discussion.

For me, the issues really on the table here are:
a) There is a disease which can kill which has a 'lifestyle' transmission factor. There is a vaccination which can negate this factor. Vaccinating girls under 9 is, you're right, a "seatbelt and airbag" approach, the underpinning rationale for which is that as a parent (or as a child making the decision for herself) you don't need to make any judgement about the child's lifestyle choices under all circumstances for her entire life. If as a parent you opt your child out of vaccination, you are making a moral judgement on her behalf about her future (unknowable) lifestyle/choices.

b) All medications are currently animal tested in order to be legal. Vaccines no more or less than other medications. For some/all (debatable point as the information is mixed) vaccinations there is an addition animal component/'ingredient'. Is vaccination "worse" than taking other medications - i.e. is preventing illness as morally okay as curing an illness after it has been contracted?

[Ruby Rose]

with this vaccine I think it should be voluntary and to the point where there is an in school programme, like the bcg but that at a certain point it has to be the teenager's decision and the teenager should be able to get the vaccine or refuse it without parental consent .

As I understand it, the effectiveness of this vaccination relies on the girl being vaccinated before she becomes sexually active. Whilst I fully understand and respect that there are plenty of women here on this forum, and in the world at large, who do not become sexually active until late teenage years or beyond (and I applaud their maturity in so doing - to be honest, I wasn't among them), statistically speaking many teenagers are becoming sexually active prior to the point in the curriculum where sex education is taught. In effect, you would be relying on the entire current pre-teen population of the countries who have the vaccine having an amazing sudden upswing of maturity and insight: to be able to fully relate their current feelings and behaviours to all the possible twists and turns her future might take. No more "invincible youth" effect, in the way that young people who smoke or eat burgers all the time don't currently fully take on board the impact this will have on their health in later years. I think your position is liberal, but untenable in this situation.

[snivelingchild]

As for B, that's why I say not to take medication unless there is no good alternative. I don't need a pain killer for my migraines, so I just deal with it. It's just pain. I would take meds to save my life, but only if it's not too intensive. I wouldn't take an organ transplant or want to be kept alive by machines, or anything like this. I just don't see a vaccine (which is never 100%) for something you can take many steps to avoid, as necessary. That's me. If you want to take it, fine. You want it for your daughter? I personally wouldn't do it if my daughter didn't want it, but that's me. I'm against legislation to make it mandatory. Plus, the vac is available to women of all ages, so it is an issue with me is someone thinks I am stupid for not getting it, because I could be raped or something. Yeah, I know it wasn't said like that, but those points were mentioned.

Edt: Okay, didn't know the above. I thought it was for all ages.

I still stick by my guns that making a 9 year old girl take a vac against an STD is like putting her on birth control before she is sexually active, and not giving her a choice.

[bradders]

As I understand it, the effectiveness of this vaccination relies on the girl being vaccinated before she becomes sexually active. Whilst I fully understand and respect that there are plenty of women here on this forum, and in the world at large, who do not become sexually active until late teenage years or beyond (and I applaud their maturity in so doing - to be honest, I wasn't among them), statistically speaking many teenagers are becoming sexually active prior to the point in the curriculum where sex education is taught. In effect, you would be relying on the entire current pre-teen population of the countries who have the vaccine having an amazing sudden upswing of maturity and insight: to be able to fully relate their current feelings and behaviours to all the possible twists and turns her future might take. No more "invincible youth" effect, in the way that young people who smoke or eat burgers all the time don't currently fully take on board the impact this will have on their health in later years. I think your position is liberal, but untenable in this situation.

I think somewhere around the age of 10 or 11 is a good time for sex ed and the vaccine shortly after

[Ruby Rose]

It's a good position, Sniv - and really interesting to talk about. (And I think Mahk is pretty upfront that he sometimes makes a bit of an overstatement for effect - no offence to you either, Mahk! - so I can see where his remark would have felt personal and a dig for you).

It's so interesting to tease out those tiny differences between us as vegans as to our personal 'lines in the sand' about what is "practical and reasonable". My position is exactly as valid as yours - and I'm so delighted that we have the freedom to talk about our lines... that we don't live in societies where our rights and choices as women about our health, sexuality and reproduction are largely in our own hands.

Like you, I try and avoid medications where there's an alternative - and sometimes the alternative is just putting up with it (though I suspect I'm more of a wimp than you are!). For me, I don't think preventative medicine is worse than reactive medicine - in fact, if I think about it, I probably have some sense that it ultimately prevents more medication/treatment being carried out if the person were to contract the disease. I'm also aware that my feelings about vaccination are coloured by my experiences in my work with people who are living with the results of diseases for which there are now vaccines - I guess I'd just like everyone to live long and prosper! (And we won't come and disturb you in the wood unless you invite us to come and party ).

[Ruby Rose]

I think somewhere around the age of 10 or 11 is a good time for sex ed and the vaccine shortly after

I completely agree! Now in terms of practicality, 11 would be the first year of secondary school, 10 would be the last year of primary school. If you give Sex Ed when children are the "big fish" in the school pool rather than the "minnows" at the bottom of the next school, I suspect (though I have no evidence) that it would encourage them to feel mature and 'grown up' - which is exactly the approach you'd want for Sex Ed. But I'm still not confident that every girl that age would be able to make an appropriate choice for herself about vaccination. What do you think?

It's the same age that the rubella vaccination is given to girls too.

[bradders]

I think on the question of prevention v treatment the old phrase "why sell 1 cure when you can sell 1000 palliatives" is really relevant. If people are vaccinated then there is less need to treat them afterwards, less human suffering from the diseases and vastly reduced transmission/ infection risks even for those unvaccinated. This means that in the end there would be fewer medicines required and as a consequence reduced use of animal testing and use in medicine.
It does make more sense to lock the door rather than try to get your things back after you have been burgled.

[bradders]

I completely agree! Now in terms of practicality, 11 would be the first year of secondary school, 10 would be the last year of primary school. If you give Sex Ed when children are the "big fish" in the school pool rather than the "minnows" at the bottom of the next school, I suspect (though I have no evidence) that it would encourage them to feel mature and 'grown up' - which is exactly the approach you'd want for Sex Ed. But I'm still not confident that every girl that age would be able to make an appropriate choice for herself about vaccination. What do you think?

It's the same age that the rubella vaccination is given to girls too.

I think it should be towards the end of primary school (around the age when physical maturation begins) and that there should be some time for it to 'sink in' but that it should be before there is any real likelyhood of sexual activity.

[kriz]

Although she seems to think I've misconstrued her overall meaning, I must admit that I agree with Sniv in that a vaccination such as Gardasil (which helps prevent girls/women from contracting HPV type 16 and 18, together responsible for 70% of cervical cancer, the 5th leading cause of cancer death not to mention genital warts and other forms of cancer) should probably not be a compulsory vaccination as stipulated by the government; unlike air borne diseases that threaten schoolchildren simply from attending school, sex is optional, but attending school is for the most part compulsory

This is where I agree, too - as a vegan I only want to take medication and vaccines that are absolutely necessary. Airborne diseases are almost impossible to control, unless we opt to home-school, not take public transportation etc. I'm sure there will be many more vaccines coming out on the market in the near future which will prolong our lives, but that doesn't mean we should jump on every single one, or?... I will carefully select which one applies to my life at the time, if I'm at risk for a certain disease through my job or life situation. I believe it's required in schools and certain jobs for a very good reason, and I have always complied.

I'm not completely anti-vaccination (neither is Sniv as I understand), but I believe we should have a choice in most cases, especially when it comes to STD and cancer prevention.

[Ruby Rose]

I still stick by my guns that making a 9 year old girl take a vac against an STD is like putting her on birth control before she is sexually active, and not giving her a choice.

I can completely see that you're uncomfortable with the age issue - and the way you've phrased it here, it's suggesting that in some way a vaccination at 9 is giving a child the "go ahead" to be sexually active at 9. I suppose, for me, it seems perfectly normal to believe that a girl of 9 will survive into adulthood, and as a grown woman is likely to be sexually active at some point in her life. So to me, it's nothing like putting a child on birth control, because it's nothing to do with the child's current experiences (I bloody well hope). From this perspective, it's a bit hard to see what choice would be taken away from the person - unless, the right to contract cervical cancer as an adult?

[Ruby Rose]

This is where I agree, too - as a vegan I only want to take medication and vaccines when absolutely necessary. ... I will carefully select which one applies to my life at the time, if I'm at risk for a certain disease through my job or life situation.

I think we're all pretty much on the same page broadly. For me, the difference with this vaccination is that it cannot be given after the person has been exposed to the risk (i.e. after the woman becomes sexually active) to be effective. And so for me, I suppose the issue would be whether there was ever a chance that the girl would - later on in life - be exposed to this risk that could be prevented. I'd think that in this case, my feeling would be yes - it's statistically likely that she would.

[Mahk]

I still stick by my guns that making a 9 year old girl take a vac against an STD is like putting her on birth control before she is sexually active, and not giving her a choice.

To me it is like handing my 9 year old daughter a box of condoms and saying "It's up to you if you ever feel a need to use these when you get older but 99.9% of women are sexually active during their adult life so I can safely assume the odds are you will be too. If you don't need them don't use them, but handing them to you now helps protect you if you do decide to have sex later. I'm giving you more choices for the future, not taking any away."

It's not telling her "you must have sex" or "you will have sex", that's up to her, it is telling her "as an adult you will have the right to have sex and I want you to be as best protected from the dangers associated with it that I know of."

[Haniska]

Haven't read all the posts yet, sorry.
I saw on the news that dogs do not need to be immunized for EVERYTHING every year, like, certain shots last 5 years etc. I wonder if they are any human shots with the same MO? I can't think of anything yearly or whatever. I would like to not have to give my children all of those shots, but I figure(without doing any research on my part) that some vaccines are the best thing we have going right now even if they do have side effects.

[Ruby Rose]

To me it is like handing my 9 year old daughter a box of condoms and saying "It's up to you if you ever feel a need to use these when you get older"

I totally see where you're coming from with that analogy, but it's a little weird for me - personally, I wouldn't be giving my pre-pubescent daughter birth control, though I might tell her about birth control in the context of sex education. And again, in this context it's conflating the age of the child receiving the vaccination with onset of sexual activity, which is not the case.

[Ruby Rose]

I saw on the news that dogs do not need to be immunized for EVERYTHING every year, like, certain shots last 5 years etc. I wonder if they are any human shots with the same MO? I can't think of anything yearly or whatever.

Probably vaccinations like winter flu shots, tetanus etc. would be things where the protection effect is not permanent, hence need for regular "booster jabs". I think it's probably the case that the vaccinations might provide cover for a variable length of time, so docs might recommend re-immunising at the point where the protection might have worn off, though they wouldn't know for certain, in order to provide continuous cover. In the UK, for example, your child can have a meningitis vaccination early on and then have a further booster jab later to confer immunity for life. In my workplace, they encourage to check our Hep B vaccinations are still effective on a regular basis and offer top ups if not.

[Haniska]

Thanks Ruby Rose. The vaccine will have been given a while by the time I have a girl old enough to get it. I totally agree that making it mandatory would take away the sexuality of it.
BTW: How mandatory can mandatory be? Its not like they could keep your kid out of school for it.
For those who think it is permission to have sex... I've come to discover in my short life that there are feelings and emotions, and then there are facts and data and outcomes. Kids are going to have sex WITHOUT your permission. They are going to do drugs without it.
And like Enchantress said, a large number of the population have the virus. In fact, off the top of my head I can only think of three women who do not. Is it okay that you kid gets cervical cancer when she's married because you didn't want to give her the vaccine when she was 9?

[tizer]

Doctors don’t conduct research in their consulting rooms; they rely solely on the information put out by the manufacturer. In this respect doctors unwittingly foist onto an ill-informed public drugs that may have dubious value in the disease they purport to prevent or cure.
There is no deliberate attempt by doctors or Big Pharma to kill off sections of the population with their products. But in their quest to maximise corporate profits this could be an unintended consequence. They never, or rarely ever, accept that their drugs may cause death in certain cases. Their standard response is that any deaths are the result of pre-existing conditions.
The public rely on the regulatory authorities to police the drugs market. This is a misplaced trust. For example, in the early 1990s, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drastically downsized its network of independent drugs-safety experts, and began hiring more people simply to ‘rubberstamp’ drugs. Presently, drug companies pay ‘user fees’ to fund the majority of the FDA’s drugs review process. These fees and how they’re spent are renegotiated every five years, with Big Pharma having a big say as to which drugs are fast-tracked. At this time, the industry continually presses for faster drug approval as well as approval of direct-to-consumer ads. This leaves the FDA’s regulatory budget and priorities open to control by the very industry they are paid to oversee. Authorities like the FDA which, at the moment, are less a watchdog than a drug company’s dearest friend.

[herbwormwood]

There is a protocol in place for monitoring this kind of thing, its called adverse drug reaction monitoring.
Pharmacists, doctors and nurses who come into contact with patients who have a bad reaction are supposed to report them, unfortunanately a lot of the time it doesn't happen.
Here is a bit of info on it...maybe needs a new thread?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...rugsandalcohol

[tizer]

Yes, herbwormwood, your link says it all. One begins to wonder how much of reporting of adverse reactions to vaccinations and drugs ever becomes public knowledge. Perhaps if the truth was known, we may have to revise our opinions about vaccinations and pharmaceutical drugs in general.

[Mahk]

One begins to wonder how much of reporting of adverse reactions to vaccinations and drugs ever becomes public knowledge.

In regards to vaccinations in the US the answer to your question is 100%. The VAERS monitors and records every single reported adverse reaction "said" to be caused by a vaccination and has this information publicly available to all, free of charge.

Pharmacists, doctors and nurses who come into contact with patients who have a bad reaction are supposed to report them,

Not just them, but actually anyone can report adverse reactions to VAERS, about 7% total coming directly from parents and guardians of children, for instance: "My 12 year old daughter, who hasn't had a seizure in years, had the Blah-blah vaccine last week and this week she had a seizure and is now dead. I'm quite sure it was the Blah-blah vaccine that did her in." [hypothetical, not a real quote] This is reported, recorded, added to the list, and followed up by professional investigators, but never removed from the list even if deemed to be coincidental by them.

This is exactly how the anti-vaccination crusaders gain their half truths used for their campaigns of scaremongering:

"Did you know that over 52 deaths are now attributed to the Blah-blah vaccine that we were tricked by the FDA into thinking it was "perfectly safe"! Don't believe their lies! If you care about your loved ones, we urge you, don't give them this deadly vaccine!" [Of course the fact that 52,000 deaths have been prevented thanks to the Blah-blah vaccine seems immaterial to them.]

Grieving parents have a hard time accepting that even perfectly healthy children can spontaneously die or suffer from things like strokes, cancer, seizures, blood clots, sudden infant death syndrome, and countless other causes that have nothing to do with any vaccinations they've had, but the first thing that pops into their heads'? You've got it, that vaccination they had last month!

Want to report a death (or adverse reaction) caused by the Blah-blah vaccination bumping the scaremongers' propagandizing death toll to 53? [just a joke] Here is the form for any and all to use, free of charge. You don't have to be a medical professional to submit it at all. Of course when investigators come knocking at your door a week later you better have a good excuse if you don't want to be convicted of fraud.

Want to find out the death toll "attributed" to a particular vaccine so you can start your own anti-vaccination smear campaign website/newsletter using their typical half-truths technique? Here is where you can find your data.

[tizer]

Quote: Makh “The VAERS monitors and records every single reported adverse reaction ‘said’ to be caused by a vaccination and has this information publicly available to all, free of charge”.
With regard to VAERS, I am sure that most people in the UK are unaware of its existence as I’ve never heard of anyone ever been given one. Its existence may be common knowledge in the US but not here.
Returning to your argument about “how the anti-vaccination crusaders gain their half truths used for their campaigns of scaremongering”. There is no concrete evidence that vaccines prevent the disease it is supposed to prevent as I’ve known of cases where individuals were vaccinated and still went down with the disease. If one does not get struck down during an epidemic it may not be due to the immunity accorded by the vaccine, it’s just the natural immunity of the individuals that protected them. Therefore statistics supporting vaccines are meaningless. It’s the pharmaceutical industry that is responsible for the scaremongering by exaggerating the threat that some diseases present to an ill-informed public. Just taking my own family history as an example, neither I nor my siblings were ever vaccinated and yet we came through most epidemics unscathed. Diet and life styles may have had a lot to do with it. We are all now in our mid to late 70s.
As an addendum to my argument I quote this extract from Nutrition & Healing
“[Regarding pneumonia] my father almost died from it. And he's not the only person in my family to have been attacked by this stealth enemy. Just last year his brother, my uncle, lost his own battle against it. So you'd think I'd be all for the pneumonia vaccine if it could protect others from the same fate. But the price of that so-called "protection" is more than I can stomach.

“For the past year, the pharmaceutical giant Glaxo has been testing its version of the pneumonia vaccine on Argentinean children from low-income families. But that's not the most disturbing part of the trial – or the pneumonia vaccine. This is: Since that study began, 12 of the babies who were part of that study have died, presumably as a result of the vaccine itself.

“Of course, Glaxo argues that that number is quite small in proportion not only to the number of infants enrolled in the trial (around 15,000) but also to the overall number of deaths caused by pneumonia each year. And those points may be true. But we're talking about innocent, defenceless babies here. This makes the whole notion of "acceptable risk" seem downright tasteless, particularly when there's really no need for anyone – adult or child – to undergo the pneumonia vaccine to begin with.

“As Dr Jonathan V Wright has mentioned before in Nutrition & Healing, there are a number of natural bacteria-destroying methods you can use instead…

“The bottom line is, there are ways to protect yourself from pneumonia without submitting to a potentially deadly vaccine. And if you do happen to come down with it, remember that, while it is a serious condition, it doesn't have to be fatal. The earlier you seek treatment, the better off you'll be”.
Sources:
"Infant deaths disputed in Glaxo vaccine trial," Pharmalot (www.pharmalot.com) 7/15/08
"12 babies die during vaccine trials in Argentina," Dr. Joseph Mercola's eHealthy News You Can Use (www.mercola.com), 7/31/08

[bradders]

one of the big problems of course is that much of the testing is done on animals rather than on human cells. This means that they hope that the drugs and vaccines will be safe because they didn't kill animals and they then begin human testing knowing little of the effect on human cells. Of course a major cause of this is that too few people are willing to donate blood etc in life and their organs and tissue in death. Ah well. So people get killed and animals do to by this practice. But I still believe in the principle of vaccination (if not the derivation.

[Mahk]

With regard to VAERS, I am sure that most people in the UK are unaware of its existence as I’ve never heard of anyone ever been given one. Its existence may be common knowledge in the US but not here.

The equivalent government body responsible in the UK is called the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA:

"The MHRA keeps the safety of all vaccines on the UK market under continual review and takes appropriate action if any hazards are identified. Such action may range from adding a new possible side effect to the product information to withdrawing a product from the market."

Source.

Although I must admit I have no direct evidence that the MHRA isn't merely a sham regulatory agency the UK government has set up to facilitate evil, big pharma's continual efforts to harm and kill their own country's general population for financial gain, as some seem to contend.

Similarly, the Yellow Card System is the method by which either a layperson or healthcare professional may submit a suspected adverse reaction to a vaccine or medicine.

There is no concrete evidence that vaccines prevent the disease it is supposed to prevent as I’ve known of cases where individuals were vaccinated and still went down with the disease.

Whoever told you that vaccines were supposed to be 100% bullet-proof guarantees against the diseases they are said to address was 100% incorrect. They greatly reduce one's odds but infections are still quite possible and expected (but in very small numbers). Since birth control methods such as the pill and condoms are also not 100% effective should we do away with them too?

If one does not get struck down during an epidemic it may not be due to the immunity accorded by the vaccine, it’s just the natural immunity of the individuals that protected them. Therefore statistics supporting vaccines are meaningless.

Scientifically controlled statistical analysis is "meaningless", you say? Then it's really pointless discussing this with you any further since you seem to employ a methodology called reverse scientific method. Here are the chronological steps:

1.) Draw your conclusion. e.g. "Vaccines both don't work and are also harmful."

2.) Select data, no matter how flawed, to support your conclusion. "Anecdotally, I can tell you I'm not dead, yet I've never received a vaccine."

3) Discard any data, no matter how valid, which does not support your conclusion. "All the statistical results that show millions of people have benefited from vaccines are meaningless."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

...there's really no need for anyone – adult or child – to undergo the pneumonia vaccine to begin with.

“As Dr Jonathan V Wright has mentioned before in Nutrition & Healing, there are a number of natural bacteria-destroying methods you can use instead…

“The bottom line is, there are ways to protect yourself from pneumonia without submitting to a potentially deadly vaccine. And if you do happen to come down with it, remember that, while it is a serious condition, it doesn't have to be fatal.

I guess the parents of the 2,000,000 children under 5 who die every single year from pneumonia, the leading cause of infectious disease death in fact, must not be using these "natural bacteria-destroying methods" properly then. [Of course that's called "blaming the victim", folks.]



Source

"Who needs vaccines? Just boil all your bathing and drinking water and don't go outside. You'll be just fine."

[tizer]

Thanks Mahk for the link, you’ve made my case.
“Under-nutrition may be implicated in up to half of all under-five deaths worldwide. Source: Child Health Epidemiology Resources Group (CHERG), with additional data from UNICEF.
Developing countries bear the greatest burden
More than 150 million episodes of pneumonia are estimated to occur every year among children under five in developing countries, accounting for more than 95 per cent of all new cases worldwide. Between 11 and 20 million children with pneumonia will require hospitalization. South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have the highest incidence of pneumonia cases among children under five. These two regions combined bear the burden of more than half the total number of pneumonia episodes worldwide”.

Developing countries have very poor standards of hygiene and sanitation and this coupled with under-nutrition conspire to produce the very conditions where all diseases not just pneumonia thrive. All contagious diseases thrive in conditions conducive to their spreading. The way forward is to improve living standards in developing countries not vaccination programs.

Using statistics to claim that vaccinations prevented a particular disease is misleading as there is no way of telling if it was the vaccine that prevented the disease or the individuals natural immunity since those who aren’t vaccinated also do not contract any disease.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend vaccination for these groups:
• People age 65 or older
• People over age two years of age who have problems with their lungs, heart, liver, or kidneys
• People over age two years of age with health problems like diabetes, sickle cell disease, alcoholism, or HIV/AIDS
• Persons over two years of age who are taking any treatments that weaken the body's immune system
• Alaskan natives and some Native American populations

Except for those in the last category for some unexplained reason, you can see that those who could benefit from vaccination are those whose immune systems could be severely compromised by any of the pre-existing diseases mentioned above.

Using statistics to claim that vaccinations prevented a particular disease is misleading as there is no way of telling if it was the vaccine that prevented the disease or the individual’s natural immunity since those who aren’t vaccinated also do not contract any disease.

As I mentioned previously every fall for the past 13 years my physician inveigles me, as a senior citizen, to have a flu jab which I summarily decline. Except for one year when I did go down, but soon recovered after a few days, I have not had flu. Neither I, my siblings, my parents, nor my grand parents (going back to mid-19th century when vaccines weren’t around) ever had vaccinations and none of us have had any serious illness. My forebears all died of old age. Perhaps it’s something in our genes!

[Mahk]

Developing countries have very poor standards of hygiene and sanitation and this coupled with under-nutrition conspire to produce the very conditions where all diseases not just pneumonia thrive. All contagious diseases thrive in conditions conducive to their spreading. The way forward is to improve living standards in developing countries not vaccination programs.

Dec. 2008 update: Decades of attempting to address the poor living conditions of developing nations has failed miserably and 2,000,000 innocent children under the age of five continue to die slowly and painfully from pneumonia every year single year, with no end in sight. The World Health Organization (WHO), speaking about all vaccinations in general, not specifically pneumonia:

Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year. It is one of the most cost-effective health investments, with proven strategies that make it accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations.

Source: WHO

Using statistics to claim that vaccinations prevented a particular disease is misleading as there is no way of telling if it was the vaccine that prevented the disease or the individuals natural immunity since those who aren’t vaccinated also do not contract any disease.

Incorrect. It would seem to me that you are unaware of the concept of a "double blind, placebo-controlled study", which pretty much all vaccination studies are. Allow me to pedantically use the current pneumonia vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), currently in clinical trials worldwide at an expense of 900 million dollars to the makers (1 billion is about the average, BTW).

19,000 of the 24,000 total test subjects have already been injected, but only half will actually receive the real test vaccine, the other half, called the control group, will receive a harmless placebo. Neither the test recipients nor their families will be told which they were injected with [until the conclusion of the tests]. Even the doctors/nurses injecting them won't know (that's what makes it "double blind"). Both groups are then tracked over the years to determine statistically if the truly vaccinated ones have any better protection than the control group that merely had the placebo and their own natural immunities to fend off the pneumonia.

[tizer]

Yes Mahk, I am aware of double-blind placebo-controlled studies, but these are undertaken when the drug or vaccine is trialled before release to the public. However, such studies are no assurance of the efficacy or safety of the drug or vaccine being trialled. The results of these studies are usually weighted in favour of the drug or vaccine. Scandals such as that over the arthritis painkiller Vioxx, which caused heart attacks, and the antidepressant Seroxat, which was found to increase the risk of suicidal thinking in young people is evidence of this. Zoë Gannon, of the think-tank Compass said, "The industry knows about these adverse reactions but choose not to accept responsibility because its ultimate goal is to make a profit. It is all about getting a balance between risk and benefit and we feel that the balance is wrong."

When Jean-Paul Garnier, the outgoing CEO of GlaxoSmithKline was asked by ace anchor, John Humphries, in a BBC Today program about cover-ups and other misleading statistics produce by his company he refused to answer and walked out of the studio! When Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the time he was campaigning on behalf of the MMR vaccine was asked if his little son had the MMR jab, told the enquirer to mind his own business as his family’s health matters were not for public knowledge. Obviously he had something to hide otherwise he would have been only too eager to announce to the public, ‘sure, my son’s had the jab’. It’s a case of do as I tell you and not as I do!

The latest news current in the UK is the dramatic rise in the number of flu cases so far this season, the highest it’s been in the past decade despite there being no drop in the take-up rate of the vaccination program. In a TV interview with the head of the general physicians association when asked to account for this rise he simply said he didn’t have an explanation. Perhaps dear Mahk you have an explanation!

I live by my convictions. I once asked a hospital doctor why is it that my family and friends (one of whom is 90 and a retired physician to boot) who don’t have the flu jab and don’t get flu when the disease is doing its rounds; he just shrugged his shoulders and walked away! Perhaps Mahk you have an explanation for this phenomenon also.

I wish you all a disease free New Year whether you’re vaccinated or not. Cheers

[Mahk]

Yes Mahk, I am aware of double-blind placebo-controlled studies, but these are undertaken when the drug or vaccine is trialled before release to the public. However, such studies are no assurance of the efficacy or safety of the drug or vaccine being trialled.

They are however 98% accurate and the gold standard of science. Would you suggest we switch to the testing methodology which is 100% accurate instead? That would be problematic since it doesn’t exist nor will it ever. Over 4000 drugs, vaccines, and medicines have been released since the 1960’s using this protocol and about 2% are later shown to have adverse reactions in some individuals, often due to some unforeseen cross drug interaction or pre-condition for example, prompting new safety warning labels or removing the drug entirely such as was done to Vioxx. Aspirin was on the market for over a hundred years before it was connected to Reye’s Syndrome in some children, for example. Should we remove all the thousands of drugs and medicines on the market and not attempt to develop any further “just to be on the safe side”? [As if the millions who will die and suffer don't matter.] This technique of attempting to discredit the field of medicine by trotting out its failure to identify a particular risk associated with a drug or medicine (found at a later date) is absurd and amusingly parodied here. Drugs, medicines, and vaccines are all monitored, even after their release, forever.

Scandals such as that over the arthritis painkiller Vioxx, which caused heart attacks, and the antidepressant Seroxat, which was found to increase the risk of suicidal thinking in young people is evidence of this. Zoë Gannon, of the think-tank Compass said, "The industry knows about these adverse reactions but choose not to accept responsibility because its ultimate goal is to make a profit. It is all about getting a balance between risk and benefit and we feel that the balance is wrong."

That “think tank” as you call it is made up of a full-time office of two people, herself and a guy named Gavin Hayes, neither of which have any professional training or education in medicine, science, or public health to the best of my knowledge, but Zoe has a book coming out (or maybe I should say “paper”) on the subject so maybe that makes her an expert.

[Note to self: Start referring to myself as a member of a prestigious “brain trust”. My pet spider living under my sink will be the other member of "the trust". Spiders do have brains after all.]

When Jean-Paul Garnier, the outgoing CEO of GlaxoSmithKline was asked by ace anchor, John Humphries, in a BBC Today program about cover-ups and other misleading statistics produce by his company he refused to answer and walked out of the studio!

That’s an interesting spin on what actually happened. John Humphrys may indeed be an “ace anchor” but he never interviewed Jean-Pierre Garnier at all. It was James Naughtie who ambushed Garnier by duping him into a telephone interview he was told would be about the bird flu pandemic. Naughtie had a different agenda instead and that was to hector Garnier about Seroxat, which has nothing to do with the pandemic, asking the same nebulous question seven times, according to The Guardian. After giving what he felt was an adequate response (despite being rudely cut-off mid sentence before he could finish his answer) he then politely asks that they move the interview along. Naughtie then proceeds to mangle his guest’s name on the air, is corrected on that point yet offers no apology whatsoever and then asks the same nebulous question yet again, this time amending it with an extra, condescending “and be honest.” Garnier’s primary language is probably French, not English, but even to me I think that’s tantamount to amending a question with “and don’t lie this time.” Naughtie was a condescending jerk if you ask me, Garnier was a complete gentleman, and I too would've concluded the interview if I were in his shoes. How do I know all this? I’ve heard the interview for myself as you are about to. Here it is for all to hear. [One needs a free media player on their computer such as itunes or Windows Media Player to hear this mp3 file, both are free to download if you don't already have one.]

When Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the time he was campaigning on behalf of the MMR vaccine was asked if his little son had the MMR jab, told the enquirer to mind his own business as his family’s health matters were not for public knowledge. Obviously he had something to hide otherwise he would have been only too eager to announce to the public, ‘sure, my son’s had the jab’. It’s a case of do as I tell you and not as I do!

Oh no, first it was the drug companies, then it was the industries of science, medicine, and public health which test the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in worlwide trials, then it was the FDA/FSA/CDC/NHS/MHRA and other related regulatory agencies which watch over them, but now it has reached all the way up to the ranks of the (now ex) Prime Minister! I’m sorry but it's hard for me not to laugh.

First off let’s set the record straight. It is an established fact that Blair’s young son Leo did receive an MMR jab (vaccine shot), albeit delayed due to an undisclosed health condition which indeed is none of our G-D business.

But let’s pretend for just a moment that The Independent and other newspaper agencies that have verified this are also “in on it” as well and in fact little Leo hasn’t received the MMR jab because his father has received secret classified briefings that it is actually harmful. Considering that he campaigned for MMR jabs I can see only two plausible explanations:

A) Blair has ill will against his friends, neighbors, and fellow countrymen’s children and wishes them harm/death.

or

B) Blair has no morals or ethics and instead is driven by “Hush money” that is secretly funneled in to his secret bank accounts so that he will promote MMR jabs for financial gain despite his belief in their danger. He doesn’t care that his actions are harming/killing his country’s children; money is apparently more important to him.

Somhow I’m not buying either scenario, A or B.

Referring to himself and his wife, here's what Blair actually said:

"The suggestion that the government is advising parents to have the MMR jab whilst we are deliberately refraining from giving our child the treatment because we know it is dangerous, is offensive beyond belief."

Source.

The latest news current in the UK is the dramatic rise in the number of flu cases so far this season, the highest it’s been in the past decade despite there being no drop in the take-up rate of the vaccination program. In a TV interview with the head of the general physicians association when asked to account for this rise he simply said he didn’t have an explanation. Perhaps dear Mahk you have an explanation!

Assuming the events happened exactly as you described above, I’d say the “head of the general physicians association” is an inept moron considering I can give you a perfectly simple explanation living here in the US, thousands of miles away, with no education in medicine, and with only my brain trust (me and Mr. spider, that is. ) and google to guide me.

Your country’s uptake ( percentage of people who have received a given vaccine) for the annual influenza vaccine was only around 8% for the general under 65/not-high-risk population in 2008. [See the red triangled curve on the bottom of this chart] Your government really only targets the over 65s (people over the age of 65, that is), high risk groups such as diabetics, and some select healthcare workers in hospitals etc. who care for people in these high risk groups so they don’t spread it. The vast majority of your general public are not immunized for the flu at all (it's rarely lethal to them after all) and therefore the flu rate in your country has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the flu vaccine since the vast majorty of the UK population isn’t immunized.

I live by my convictions. I once asked a hospital doctor why is it that my family and friends (one of whom is 90 and a retired physician to boot) who don’t have the flu jab and don’t get flu when the disease is doing its rounds; he just shrugged his shoulders and walked away! Perhaps Mahk you have an explanation for this phenomenon also.

Statistics. Perhaps, say, 10% of your population will catch the flu this year so picking out any given individual(s) and asking “why didn’t they?” means there is a 9 out of 10 chance they wouldn’t be expected to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influenza and influenza related complications (pneumonia, mostly) kill on average 4000 people who are not immunized yearly in the UK, mostly in the over 65 bracket. In some bad years (1999 was one) that number may be as high as almost 20,000! I urge anyone over 65 or in a high risk group to seek out the annual jab. If you have a grandparent or a loved one over 65 think about this: Giving them a ride or urging them to go to the doctor's office to help facilitate this process could be the most important thing you do in your entire life.

Happy new years everyone!

[ellaminnowpea]

I've had to have the influenza vaccine every year as I'm in the 'high risk' category. This year I refused the shot and decided to see how my body deals without it. I am sick most of the time anyway, I literally don't stay healthy much longer than a 3-4 WEEKS at a time. I can see the benefits of getting the shot for most in the 'high risk' category, but I got the shot last year AND got the flu. TBH, my annual round of pneumonia, strep throat, bronchitis, and sinus infections seems inevitable.

[Mahk]

^ Hope you stay well.
-------------------------------------------
We talk about "the flu" but in truth there is more than one strain. Unlike bacterial diseases the flu is a virus. They are known to mutate on their own very quickly so the vaccine for 2007 wont work on the 2008 strain very well, if at all. I think that's part of the reasoning why one should take it right before the flu season. It has an expiration date if you will and one wants to take the freshest, most up to date version.

This may be of help LMNOP. It also talks about how a critical element of last year's formula was left out due to unanticipated complications of manufacturing which made it a much less potent formula.

Many vaccines are nothing more than dead versions of the disease virus or bacteria they wish to combat. Since it is 100% dead, without a doubt, it can't harm you or multiply but your body can then identify it as an alien, unwelcomed guest in the blood stream and start to build antibodies to combat it or things that seem very similar to it should you become infected with real live ones at a later date. Your body has a head start so to speak. They had trouble growing one of the strains they would then kill off so they had to scrap that part of the 2008 formula making it much less potent.

Things are looking better now though.

[ellaminnowpea]

Thanks, I hope I'm even slightly healthier next year than I was this year.
And I understand all that. I've studied immunology in college/uni courses. I also got the vaccine last year quite early, even though we had HUGE shortages. I am just not convinced that my immune system is capable at all... and as I've said in another post in this thread, I had terrible 'reaction' after I got a bunch of vaccines at age 10/11.

[Mahk]

OK, I see. Here's a toast to all our health(s)! Cheers! *clink sound*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To everyone, a little trivia I picked up from researching for my posts:

By show of hands, how many people here think that in lieu of a disposable tissue [we call it "Kleenex" here in the States] one should cover their mouth at least by hand when they cough or sneeze in public?

[I'm guessing 99% of you are raising your hands in agreement.]

Wrong! Current medical wisdom is that hand to hand contact is the main method of disease/flu transmission. After coughing on your hand that next door knob, telephone, stapler, ATM/store check out keypad etc. you touch will then become contaminated for the next person to use, not to mention handshakes of course. Instead, people should learn to cough into the inside of their elbows instead. It doesn'y really help you but it keeps you from spreading the disease further. If all of society were to change in this way it could have a huge impact.

Current testing of this in closed "bio-dome-like" communities is underway as we speak, I kid you not!

[Quantum Mechanic]

OK, I see. Here's a toast to all our health(s)! Cheers! *clink sound*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To everyone, a little trivia I picked up from researching for my posts:

By show of hands, how many people here think that in lieu of a disposable tissue [we call it "Kleenex" here in the States] one should cover their mouth at least by hand when they cough or sneeze in public?

[I'm guessing 99% of you are raising your hands in agreement.]

Wrong! Current medical wisdom is that hand to hand contact is the main method of disease/flu transmission. After coughing on your hand that next door knob, telephone, stapler, ATM/store check out keypad etc. you touch will then become contaminated for the next person to use, not to mention handshakes of course. Instead, people should learn to cough into the inside of their elbows instead. It doesn'y really help you but it keeps you from spreading the disease further. If all of society were to change in this way it could have a huge impact.

Current testing of this in closed "bio-dome-like" communities is underway as we speak, I kid you not!

I've been doing that since I was about 5. I put 2 and 2 together, when after I sneezed into my hand and then someone tried to shake my hand. I thought, 'That can't be too sanitary.'

[snivelingchild]

I've had to have the influenza vaccine every year as I'm in the 'high risk' category. This year I refused the shot and decided to see how my body deals without it. I am sick most of the time anyway, I literally don't stay healthy much longer than a 3-4 WEEKS at a time. I can see the benefits of getting the shot for most in the 'high risk' category, but I got the shot last year AND got the flu. TBH, my annual round of pneumonia, strep throat, bronchitis, and sinus infections seems inevitable.

My dad spread the flu around at Christmas this year. Every single blood relative got sick, and all the married into relative didn't. And I've been sneezing into the husband all week. Seems inevitable that I got it too. Most of my family has been in bed for days from it, and I haven't missed a day of work (though I was miserable at work today) so I figure I'm doing pretty well considering.

One guy I work with makes a point to bring up the fact that I'm "always" getting sick, despite my "healthy" lifestyle (not all that healthy while I'm in college, but in comparison to his drinking and drug use) while he almost never gets sick. Well as long as I can remember, my dad has been getting sick at least 5 times a year. Of course I don't get sick hardly ever when I'm not under stress and have time to cook healthy meals and the like, but still, to him I might as well shoot up since my "healthy lifestyle" is OBVIOUSLY not doing me ANY good since I get the sniffles every now and then. (Even as 'often' I get sick, I still only miss maybe 3 days of work a year, so I'm not getting that sick at all; when everyone else gets sick, they're sick off work for a week)

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic-ness.

[bradders]

I tend to cover my mouth with my arm too

[annabanana]

Hello,
I have not been able to read all the thread due to drinking quite a lot of wine, hic
but just had a quick point: vaccinations do not always work - my daughter had all the statutory vaccines and still got whooping cough, my friends boy had his too and still got measles.

personally i still believe in vaccines and get pissed off when i get warnings from the school that measles/mumps is going round cos of parents that didn't vaccinate, but i know that there are probably going to be some vaccines that i don't agree with, so each to their own, just practice good health!