CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[Snarkylark]

You keep saying that vaccination should be a choice. In this case it is a choice. If you choose to send your child to public then the consequence is that you have to get your children vaccinated.

You say it should be a choice, I think it is the responsibility of the community. We do not get to choose which diseases we are exposed to each day. The community is therefore responsible for limiting the exposure to diseases by vaccinating those who can receive them. Vaccination caused the eradication of polio in many countries including the U.S. If the vaccine was not effective then we would still have polio outbreaks.

I can not receive the flu shot because I am allergic to eggs. The doctor will not give me that vaccination because of my allergy. I also have asthma which makes me prone to complications by having the flu. I depend on the community to get prevent the spread of the virus by vaccinating and practicing good hygiene.

They have an egg free vaccination for the flu.

[Snarkylark]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/1 ... 0213475#12

So where's your goal post moving next?

I didn't say doctors made money from vaccines. I stated that SOMEBODY pays for them and the vaccine manufacturers are most certainly making money from the sale of the vaccines.

[FakePigtails]

I didn't say doctors made money from vaccines. I stated that SOMEBODY pays for them and the vaccine manufacturers are most certainly making money from the sale of the vaccines.

Yeah, and you act like it's something significant when it's really not. If they really wanted to make money they'd want people to be sick with these diseases. Which has been pointed out already, but maybe you missed it then.

So why do you think NICU doctors are giving those vaccines if they're so dangerous? Profit, idiocy? Or maybe they actually know what the hell they're doing.

[Snarkylark]

The ones I listed are on the CDC schedule for 2 months old, in addition to DTaP--which is also not optional--hepatitis B, and polio vaccine. I'm wondering what vaccines you want to delay giving these babies since at this point we're up to almost all of the CDC schedule (I'm assuming you'd ditch hepatitis B and polio vaccines). All of the vaccines you okayed above were also studied in the paper you linked and were associated with increased risk of side effects, which made you say you would not get them. :?

Edit: too many quote blocks

I wood probably give the pertussis, not the dtap combo, and I'm not sure off the top of my head what other vax are given at two months, pneumonia if that is one. Possibly Hib. Things my baby would be likely to catch in the NICU or shortly after d/c. There's no reason polio, tetanus, diptheria, hep B, can't wait, IMO. Whether I'd delay to corrected age is something I'd have to consider. I don't think there's one standard that works for all babies and that's what I'm trying to get across here.

[Petrel]

I wood probably give the pertussis, not the dtap combo, and I'm not sure off the top of my head what other vax are given at two months, pneumonia if that is one. Possibly Hib. Things my baby would be likely to catch in the NICU or shortly after d/c. There's no reason polio, tetanus, diptheria, hep B, can't wait, IMO. Whether I'd delay to corrected age is something I'd have to consider. I don't think there's one standard that works for all babies and that's what I'm trying to get across here.

There is a standard for well children with no unusual medical problems.

[Snarkylark]

Yeah, and you act like it's something significant when it's really not. If they really wanted to make money they'd want people to be sick with these diseases. Which has been pointed out already, but maybe you missed it then.

So why do you think NICU doctors are giving those vaccines if they're so dangerous? Profit, idiocy? Or maybe they actually know what the hell they're doing.

Pharmaceuticals are a multi billion dollar industry. They make a profit whether you get sick or not. Or if their vaccine "drifts" and doesn't protect like it was supposed to. If people get sick from the disease the vaccines are supposed to protect against then of course the answer is more vaccines or booster shots or vaccines with different strains. See?

I hope that that NICU study prompts more research and study into whether elbw babies really need all those vaccines so soon after birth and if they really need ALL of them so soon after birth as the current schedule recommends.

[formergothardite]

Snarkylark did you see how the cali vax choice website twisted information to make it match their agenda? Do you still that it is a good source of information?

[Snarkylark]

Snarkylark did you see how the cali vax choice website twisted information to make it match their agenda? Do you still that it is a good source of information?

I was trying to go back up thread but I haven't been able to find it yet while replying to other posts. I'll have to address it later after I make dinner. However if you think that doesn't happen on the other side of the coin... Not to mention who funds those studies. It's extremely hard to find an unbiased, accurate study because we can't ethically allow kids to get sick to prove or disprove theories. Does that make sense? I know I'm not explaining that the best way.

[FakePigtails]

Pharmaceuticals are a multi billion dollar industry. They make a profit whether you get sick or not. Or if their vaccine "drifts" and doesn't protect like it was supposed to. If people get sick from the disease the vaccines are supposed to protect against then of course the answer is more vaccines or booster shots or vaccines with different strains. See?

I hope that that NICU study prompts more research and study into whether elbw babies really need all those vaccines so soon after birth and if they really need ALL of them so soon after birth as the current schedule recommends.

All I see is that you're clearly twisting whatever information is set in front of you to fit your worldview. If the companies are so bad, why do you get any vaccines and why do you think such a vast majority of doctors support vaccinations when they're not even making much money on them themselves?

[FakePigtails]

I was trying to go back up thread but I haven't been able to find it yet while replying to other posts. I'll have to address it later after I make dinner. However if you think that doesn't happen on the other side of the coin... Not to mention who funds those studies. It's extremely hard to find an unbiased, accurate study because we can't ethically allow kids to get sick to prove or disprove theories. Does that make sense? I know I'm not explaining that the best way.

I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to see those sites from "the other side of the coin". The anti-vaccine ones have set quite a standard for lunacy and intellectual dishonesty.

[formergothardite]

I was trying to go back up thread but I haven't been able to find it yet while replying to other posts. I'll have to address it later after I make dinner. However if you think that doesn't happen on the other side of the coin... Not to mention who funds those studies. It's extremely hard to find an unbiased, accurate study because we can't ethically allow kids to get sick to prove or disprove theories. Does that make sense? I know I'm not explaining that the best way.

I think it is on page 12.

Are you really going with "Well they do it too!!!!" excuse? I don't accept that from my children. What I want to know, without you coming up with excuses, are you still going to act like it is a reliable, trust worthy source?

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

As a degreed medical expert I'm surprised that you don't realize that when it comes to medication sometimes things don't work and the solution is MORE or less or a different schedule. Seriously, you have never had to change a dosage of medication? Never had to up a dosage?

Nothing is 100% safe. As a medical professional I'm sure you know that even commonly taken medications can have serious and fatal side effects.

I still want to know why you keep saying "Why are you afraid of catching things from unvaxed people when you are vaccinated?!" when not only have people here explained it to you multiple times but you have admitted in this thread you understand that concept, but the you turn around and ask the same question again like you don't understand. I don't get it.

Because it's really her only argument.

[DarkAnts]

Flublok was approved in Janurary 2013 and has only been around for one full flu season. It is a special order item because it is not the commonly used version of the vaccine. It is so new that only one company has a patent for it and can make it. It is not readily available because it's new, has a short shelf life (6 months from date of manufacturing) and only serves a small portion of the population.

The FDA can force pharma companies to manufacture necessary drugs like vaccinations. The profit margin for them is small. Manufacturers make up the difference by producing other drugs with a higher profit margin.

[formergothardite]

I don't claim to be an expert on anything. Never did. I said I'm an RN. And no, nurses cannot change, increase, or decrease medications. That would be prescribing without a license. If we are concerned about a pt's dosage we have to consult the physician, practitioner, anesthesia, etc.

Herd immunity is ONE way vaccines work. It's not the only way. And there seems to be discussion on what exactly the number of vaccinated individuals has to be before outbreaks don't occur.

You rather missed the point. I'll try to make is simpler for you.

Vaccines work and are 100% safe, except when they don't, in which case the answer seems to be MORE vaccines!

Vaccines are a part of medicine. It isn't unusual when a medication isn't working to go with MORE medicine. Why is it hard for you to grasp the same about vaccines?

You still didn't answer my question. Why do you keep asking that if you know the answer?

Fuck it, I'm not even arguing in support of this bill, I'm arguing against your ignorance about vaccines and how they work.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I didn't say doctors made money from vaccines. I stated that SOMEBODY pays for them and the vaccine manufacturers are most certainly making money from the sale of the vaccines.

"The profits are going somewhere and the vaccine manufacturers are protected from any lawsuits." a direct quote from you from the quoted posts.

And it's stated in the quote that she posted that it makes up 1.5% of revenue. Revenue is NOT profit.

Because you claim to be a nurse, I won't expect you to know anything about economics. Revenue is the amount of money you take in at the exact point of sale. It does not take into account things like the cost of operations, manufacturing, shipping, etc. Profit is how much money you have AFTER you take into account all those costs.

The article then goes on to talk about how they lose money on vaccines. So, there is no profit. Therefore, no one is benefiting financially from the administering of vaccines. Which is why that same article states that 30 companies made vaccines 30 years ago, and now only 5 make 80% of the vaccines produced in America. If they were really making money off of it, all (if not most) of those companies would still be making vaccines.

[formergothardite]

You know who snarkylark should really look into? Who is truly funding the anti-vax movement. Because while vaccines might make a bit of money, do you know what makes a shit-ton of money? Sick children who need medical care.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to see those sites from "the other side of the coin". The anti-vaccine ones have set quite a standard for lunacy and intellectual dishonesty.

Have you seen the page Things Anti-vaxers Say on Facebook? If not, you should. It's chalk full of all their lunacy. One of the posts from today is:

[SassyPants]

Somebody pays for your vaccines and the manufacturer definitely gets paid. I haven't heard any claims of vaccine manufacturers donating their products to every hospital or clinic.

And they are expensive. When my kids were little, insurance did not cover vaccines (they are 28 and soon to be 25).

I wanted to get the shingles vaccine but at this point it would cost me $200- if I wait 2 years, it will be free. I toy with the idea...

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

You know who snarkylark should really look into? Who is truly funding the anti-vax movement. Because while vaccines might make a bit of money, do you know what makes a shit-ton of money? Sick children who need medical care.

There's A LOT of money being poured into homeopathic and naturopathic "medicine" right now from anti-vaxxers. And a lot of it is either completely useless (like all of homeopathy) or really dangerous (like colloidal silver). I wouldn't put it past them to fund that movement.

But I've long stated that I wouldn't be surprised that IF there is a conspiracy with "big pharm" and IF they're looking to make a profit off of vaccine preventable diseases, they'd be backing the anti-vaccine movement from afar. (They'd shoot themselves in the foot if they publicly funded the movement, but they'd get a lot of traction if they backed "alternative medicine" and mommy bloggers using money from individuals or pseudonyms.) Hell, I'm still not at all convinced that the "MMR/Autism doctor" wasn't paid off by one of those companies.

[formergothardite]

I'm going to debunk another one of those "debunking herd immunity" claims:

From CVC:

We investigated a measles outbreak that began in March 2003 in a Pennsylvania boarding school with >600 students to identify all cases, including the source; implement outbreak control measures; and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. Of the 663 students in the school, 8 (1.2%) had never received any doses of MCV, 26 (3.9%) had received 1 dose, and 629 (94.9%) had received 2 doses before the outbreak

What it actually said:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16322148

There were nine cases. 2 had not had any doses of the vaccine. 1 had only received one dose of the vaccine. 6 had received both doses. Of those 6, 3 had not gotten the vaccinations in America. When looking at the school as a whole the vaccine was 98.6 % effective.

They found this:

However, students who received both doses outside the United States had a higher attack rate (3 of 75) than those who received both doses in the United States

The conclusion was this:

The limited extent of this outbreak highlights the high level of population immunity achieved in the United States through widespread implementation of a 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination strategy in school-aged children. States and schools should continue to enforce strictly the 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination requirement and, in an outbreak setting, consider revaccinating students who received measles vaccine outside of the United States.

So instead of debunking herd immunity that article shows it works well. :lol:

[FundieFarmer]

Somebody pays for your vaccines and the manufacturer definitely gets paid. I haven't heard any claims of vaccine manufacturers donating their products to every hospital or clinic.

Great! I'm glad you said that, because it ties into my question upthread: in what model would vaccines be free? I can't imagine a non-profit model, though you've asked for one in your first quote but just now said that wasn't the case. As we were taught in high school, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always has to pay. What would you propose the solution be?

I get that you're trying to advocate for the choice not to vaccinate, though based on what I (and many others) believe is faulty or misunderstood information. But do you not get that by giving you a "choice", many others are put at risk? You said you were medically exempt from the flu shot and yet you continued to work. Great, you're medically exempt- but you posed a risk to your patients all the same by not having the vaccine. If that weren't a concern, there wouldn't be a requirement to get the flu shot. The reason behind the requirement is to prevent then spread of disease, which you could've picked up somewhere as mundane as the grocery store, or even in your own house from one of your own kids. Trust me, your most compromised patients don't care if you're medically exempt.

Somebody always loses in this equation.

[FundieFarmer]

And they are expensive. When my kids were little, insurance did not cover vaccines (they are 28 and soon to be 25).

I wanted to get the shingles vaccine but at this point it would cost me $200- if I wait 2 years, it will be free. I toy with the idea...

Not to burst your bubble, but I'm around your kids' age and my private, individually held insurance has always covered it. My appointments are approximately $10 for a regular physician visit, which includes vaccines. If you don't think you're at immediate risk, I'd wait on the shingles vax.

I do agree that vaccinations are expensive on their own (hell, all appointments are. Before insurance, a one-hour cardiac appointment comes back $13k. Ugh! After insurance, it's $20, hallelujah!). I also think that DuggarsTheEndIsNear made a good point about there not being a profit as much as revenue. However, I'd still like to see SnarkyLark's proposal for a non-profit vaccination model, which I think would ultimately tank production. If there is no profit whatsoever, companies will not produce, and right now they're making things that I (as well as others) believe are a necessity.

[tapdancer493]

I'm hestitant to post in this thread because it's moving quickly and I don't have any additional information...but ABC news just reported that the US just had its first measles death in 12 years. The patient/victim was a young woman from Washington, measles were discovered via autopsy. She reportedly displayed no symptoms. (That's all I know).

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

And they are expensive. When my kids were little, insurance did not cover vaccines (they are 28 and soon to be 25).

I wanted to get the shingles vaccine but at this point it would cost me $200- if I wait 2 years, it will be free. I toy with the idea...

And yet that pales in comparison to the cost of TREATING the illness.

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/ ... s-bigtime/ (not breaking the link cause it's a news article)

In 2011, the cost of 107 cases spread across 16 outbreaks cost local and state health departments an estimated $2.7 million to $5.3 million. Because measles is so contagious, infecting 90 percent of susceptible individuals and remaining airborne up to two hours after an infectious person has left the area, the number of contacts a single case can generate grows exponentially once an outbreak begins. The cases in 2011 involved contacting somewhere between 8,900 and 17,450 individuals, which required 42,000 to 83,000 personnel hours.

During another outbreak in 2008, during which an intentionally unvaccinated 7-year-old boy returned from Switzerland with the virus, San Diego grappled with 11 additional cases, costing taxpayers $10,376 per case. That outbreak involved more than 800 exposed individuals, including 48 children too young to be vaccinated who had to be quarantined at a family cost of $775 per child.

And there's this from the IDSA (Infectious Disease Society of America):

The U.S. measles vaccination program has been successful in eliminating endemic measles in the United States; yet this success has provided challenges that require ongoing vigilance for the rapid identification and response to measles cases in health care settings. In 2008, the largest reported health care-associated measles outbreak in the United States since 1989 occurred in Tucson, Arizona, costing approximately $800,000 in response and containment efforts. In a report published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases and now available online, researchers identify preventive measures hospitals and health care facilities can implement to reduce the likelihood and decrease the economic impact of a future measles outbreak in these settings.

Due to a highly effective vaccine and high vaccine coverage, measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000; however, the potential for measles infection still exists in this country. Non-adherence to U.S. vaccination recommendations and infection among unvaccinated travelers coming into the United States continue to pose potential threats to the public and to health care personnel. In the 2008 Tucson outbreak, an unvaccinated, infected Swiss traveler visited a hospital emergency department on February 12. The traveler was admitted to the hospital the next day, but a measles diagnosis was not confirmed until February 20. This ignited an intense and lengthy public health investigation and response to persons with suspected and confirmed measles as well as contacts of those persons.

From February 13 through July 21, 2008, there were 363 suspected, 8 probable, and 14 confirmed measles cases in Tucson. All 14 confirmed case-patients were unvaccinated. Seven of the 14 cases were classified as health care-associated infections, and 6 of those cases occurred in a single hospital. Health care-associated transmission included transmission from patient to health care personnel, from health care personnel to patient, from patient to patient, and from patient to visitor.

As part of the investigation, health care facilities attempted to access records documenting evidence of measles immunity for 14,844 health care personnel at seven hospitals. However, none of the hospitals maintained electronic records of health care personnel immunity status, so they were instead forced to review paper records. Without readily accessible electronic records clearly showing immunity status, unnecessary serologic testing was conducted for some personnel who were immune to measles. A total of 4,448 health care personnel at the seven hospitals received immediate measles vaccinations because they lacked documentation of measles immunity. About 15,120 employee hours were lost in furloughs because of presumptive exposure, disease, or lack of evidence of immunity. Overall, the estimated economic impact for just two of the hospitals was almost $800,000, with furloughs for health care personnel accounting for 56 percent of that cost.

In this report, Sanny Y. Chen, PhD, along with colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Arizona health authorities show the high costs hospitals can incur when responding to measles outbreaks in their facilities. To minimize these costs and to prevent the health care-associated spread of measles, they stress that hospitals must (1) ensure rapidly retrievable measles immunity records for health care personnel, (2) consider measles as a diagnosis, especially among patients presenting with fever, rash, and a recent history of international travel or contact with a person with a clinically consistent rash illness, and (3) institute immediate airborne isolation of patients with suspected and confirmed measles.

The authors believe that a number of factors contributed to the Tucson outbreak, including the following:

lack of adherence to U.S. vaccine policy recommendations,

delayed implementation of infection-control procedures in health care settings with patients/personnel experiencing respiratory symptoms,

delayed implementation of isolation procedures in health care settings with patients with an illness clinically compatible with measles, and

delayed diagnosis of cases by health care personnel and delayed laboratory confirmation due to lack of awareness of measles.

http://www.idsociety.org/Measles_Outbreak_PR/

I'd rather pay $200 for a vaccine. But, then, under the Affordable Care Act, as of 2010, even the shingles vaccine is administered with no added cost if you're in-network. I don't know why you're waiting 2 years to get the vaccine.

[FundieFarmer]

Here's an article from NBC.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne ... rs-n385946