Protect vaccine manufacturers... or make better vaccines?

Look, you're bouncing between what is legally required and what the science says. These are two different things.

I'm focusing more on what the science says and what major health organizations (such as the CDC and WHO) are saying, as the science is world wide and (as you point out) individual states can do what they want.

The CDC recommends age 11 or later for Hep B. That is why I said what I said.

I'm pretty darn sure the "activities" of concern to lawmakers in Florida would be those of the parents. But, I'm not going to bother to figure out the reasons for legislative response in each state and/or country.

You need to work on keeping the legislation and the science separate.

You're still trying to pump fear concerning vaccines, and you just do not have an argument.

 

My post was probably too long. You missed the main point. I'll summarize the numbers:

Whats the chance of getting shingles from Zostavax? 0.3%.
Whats the chance of keratitis from Zostovax? 0.57%
Whats the chance of getting shingles if you are not vaccinated? 3.3%
Whats the chance of getting shingles if you are vaccinated? 1.6%

Is the risk worth the vaccination? I say the risk is too high.

 

Wrong.

The legal requirements should be consistent with both science and individual rights.

Why do people (such as yourself) claim mandatory vaccination is safe and a good idea? Because they claim the science shows it is safe and necessary.

The science does not support mandatory vaccination programs as implemented in the USA. I've shown the science can be wrong (Zostovax, MMR, Japan).

If you are going to FORCE people to take a host of vaccinations, you better have an ironclad reason. You do not.

 

The CDC does not recommend that anyone take the Zostavax vaccine.

 

Japan demonstrates why MMR should be required. Let's remember that this isn't just about protecting the vaccinated individual. There are those who can not take vaccines, and on top of that are more susceptible to the diseases vaccines combat. The result is that there is an important advantage in reducing these diseases.

Again, Zostovax is not even recommended for anyone. That's been mentioned more than once. I can only suspect that it's on your list for the PURPOSE of being misleading.

You don't have to "show" that science can be wrong. It's a human endeavor.

 

No, but children become sexually active at an early age. Furthermore, this vaccine is administered for the concept of herd immunity, as lack of this vaccination produces hepatitis b epidemics among young people and adults.

This the reason....not some nefarious conspiracy that someone dreams up.

 

Note that Battle3 claims age of 1 to 2 MONTHS.

But, the CDC recommends not until age of 11 YEARS.

Maybe there is some law somewhere that runs against the CDC that hard for some reason. But, if so that is a local issue.

 

It has nothing to do with "conspiracy".

Revisit HepB. Babies certainly do not need the HepB vaccine. Why not delay it until a child is older? That helps ease the burden of having so many vaccinations (19 vaccinations in the first 18 months) on very young children.

You also assume all children will be sexually active, and those that are will engage in unprotected sex. Thats false. And it still does not require vaccination in the first year of life.

And...herd immunity is a false argument. Its immunity rates, not vaccination rates, that matter in "herd immunity". The immunity rates are lower than vaccination rates (sometimes far lower) and are far too low for herd immunity to account for the low rates of infection of various illnesses. Immunization from vaccination often does not grant lifelong immunity. Its more likely that mature immune systems and a high quality of living (good sanitation practices, clean water, food and shelter) account for the low rates, not herd immunity.

 

And, with 1.8 seconds on Google, I found this:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/rr/rr6701a1.htm

"
New or Updated Recommendations
The following recommendations are new or updated:

• universal hepatitis B (HepB) vaccination within 24 hours of birth for medically stable infants weighing ≥2,000 grams;
  

..............

You might want to consider discarding your sources.

 

Wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/zostavax/index.html
" CDC recommends that people 60 years old and older get shingles vaccine (Zostavax®) to prevent shingles and PHN"

 

No it isn't, what utter nonsense.

Amd immunity rates are completely dependent om vaccination rates. So this statement by you is just as absurd.

 

Measles, mumps, chicken pox are not significant childhood illnesses. Vaccination is not required or even necessary. Rubella vaccination is a little more important because if a pregnant women gets rubella it can cause birth defects in her unborn baby.

You argue that an entire nation should be forced to take vaccinations because some tiny segment is at risk? Even for a trivial illness like chicken pox? Thats an exceptionally weak argument.

And extrapolate your position to other issues. There are always some small sliver of people who are at risk to anything you can name.

Since you repeat it here, I'll repeat my answer:

Wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/zostavax/index.html
" CDC recommends that people 60 years old and older get shingles vaccine (Zostavax®) to prevent shingles and PHN"

I was not being misleading. You were just uninformed and too lazy to do the proper research. Maybe thats a hint that you should rethink your position on this entire subject.

 

Wrong. Learn to think.

Herd immunity claims that an infectious illness cannot spread if a population reaches a threshold of immunity.

For many vaccinations, immunity to the weakened or dead virus in the vaccine is not lifelong. Pertussis (very infectious and spread through the air) immunity from the vaccine lasts only 4-6 years. Yet almost no adults get re-vaccinated, there is no herd immunity. Why aren't there massive annual breakouts of pertussis? Because its not the vaccine that protects adults, its the high standard of living, and the fact they are adults and have mature robust immune systems.

In fact, in the USA, since adults are generally not re vaccinated after high school or college, the immunity from vaccinations has worn off for most of those vaccinations in almost every adult over 30 years old. Yet there are not massive outbreaks of those illnesses.

Why? Its not herd immunity.

 

"Shingrix is the preferred vaccine, over Zostavax® (zoster vaccine live), a shingles vaccine in use since 2006. Zostavax may still be used to prevent shingles in healthy adults 60 years and older. For example, you could use Zostavax if a person is allergic to Shingrix, prefers Zostavax, or requests immediate vaccination and Shingrix is unavailable."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/

 

So now you want to resort to blatant misrepresentation.

You wrote:

I replied:

You made a direct clear claim. You were proven wrong. You don't have to admit you were wrong, but to pretend you were right is blatant and obvious dishonesty.

 

False. It claims the rate of spread decreases dramatically, past a threshold.

That is a scientific fact, and one that supported by every shred of evidence available all over the world .

It took you one sentence to change the subject. And there is still a degree of herd immunity where it counts: among children, who are not only more susceptible to the ill effects of disease, but are also more pronounced vectors of diseases due to poorer sanitation habits.

And you are not presenting an honest analysis, anyway. All vaccines perform differently.

 

I found:
"The vaccination schedule most often used for adults and children has been three intramuscular injections, the second and third administered 1 and 6 months after the first. Recombivax HB® has been approved as a two dose series for adolescents 11–15 years of age."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hepb/public/index.html

Their main Hep B site states:

https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hbv/vaccchildren.htm#reccs

So, yes, it can be administered to infants, but in cases where there is serious risk.

 

Almost every single pharma product has exceptions like that.

You can not claim you were referring to these exceptional circumstances for Hep B and shingles is nonsense. If you were AND if you were honest, you would have stated the exceptional circumstances rather than having me have to present them to you.

 

Wrong, you misread all of that. First of all,the age recommendation you posted was for ONE type of ONE brand of hep b vaccine. They are not all the same.

Furthermore, I clearly showed you that the CDC recommends it for newborns.

Lastly, you only posted recommendations for babies of infected parents, and it mentioned NOTHING about risk. Nor have you demonstrated a single shred of statistical (or otherwise) evidence that it is too risky for children.

 

Wrong.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/
"The herd effect or herd immunity is an attractive way to extend vaccine benefits beyond the directly targeted population. It refers to the indirect protection of unvaccinated persons, whereby an increase in the prevalence of immunity by the vaccine prevents circulation of infectious agents in susceptible populations."

A trivial aspect, but you are so wrong so much of the time.

Irrelevant since that is not what I claimed.

I did not claim herd immunity was a myth, I wrote that it was not present in the USA.

Learn to read. Your irrationality triggered by questions to your bias is clouding your judgement.

 

I addressed your direct and clear claim that the CDC did not recommend Zostavax. The CDC did and does. I gave you the CDC link. At this point you are bordering on blatant lying.

 

Yes. And, I gave YOU a CDC link supporting what I said.

I'm trying to figure that out. But, I'll have to say I'm losing interest, because I think the real issue is more general than that.

The general issue is that singling out vaccines as a type of pharmaceutical to avoid does not make sense to me in any way. It's clearly true that any specific vaccine may be inappropriate for a specific individual (due to age or condition). But, I'm pointing to the problem of vaccines in general being rejected.

What has happened in Japan has led to an endemic in measles - which is more serious than you give it credit for being.

That is just one occurrence of what happens when modern medical practice is rejected.

This goes way beyond which shingles vaccine is best or when to administer Hep B vaccines.

 

Exactly what is said. I don't think you are following.

Herd immunity is granted by vaccinating a percentage of the population. Thresholds are determined by which a certain percentage of vaccinated people confer acceptable levels of herd immunity and can be and are different for different diseases. However, the correct tactic, so that we aren't getting different vaccines every single year of our lives and only some of us getting them (allowing thw possibility of falling below these thresholds), is to group vaccinations together based on the highest thresholds.

 

The larger issue is whether its right to force people to take an extensive course of vaccinations. The science does not support the mandatory vaccination schedule in the USA.

The huge majority of people who are called "anti-vaxxer" are not anti all vaccinations. I am typical.

I oppose forcing children to take all the vaccinations on the schedule. Despite your claim, measles is not serious, and being endemic in Japan just means people get it, not that it is a problem. Mumps, chicken pox, are not serious. There is no reason to get those vaccinations.

I do not oppose the HepB vaccination, just not in all children. That vaccination can be taken at any time in life, as a preventative 10 years old is fine, and reduce the number of vaccinations given within that birth to 18 months interval.

Polio is serious, but it is on the verge of worldwide eradication. Its not seen in the USA, its only found in 2 or 3 third world countries. It should not be mandatory at this point.

I oppose forcing people to take the flu vaccine. That vaccines effectiveness varies from 10% to 60%, its usually 40-50%. Far too low for herd immunity. And the "effectiveness" of the flu vac is the reduction in seeking medical care, as in a 50% effectiveness means you are 50% less likely to seek medical care if you get the flu.

Pertussis vaccination I highly recommend including for people around children as it is prevalent in the USA, is highly contagious, and does cause problems for infants.

Tetanus I also recommend as the bacteria is everywhere, there is no cure for tetanus, and the disease can be excruciating and deadly.

Rabies vaccination is required for veterinarians, I do not support that mandate. The vaccine is not very effective (maybe 50%, its hard to tell) and it has side effects which are usually a week of nausea and joint pain and headaches. And there is not an outbreak of rabies in the vet community, and never has been.

Veterinarians are educated on rabies and their risk, let them decide for themselves.

And so on.

And the science and medical knowledge supports my position.

 

The answer is yes, and it absolutely does.