Why so much mainstream hatred for non-vaxers? - Page 14

[erigeron]

I don't have time to read this entire thread right now, so I don't know if this was addressed downthread.

Originally Posted by slmommy 

In regards to flu vax - I do not remember, in my childhood, pharmacies advertising for flu vax, or even any push for the general public to be vaccinated, only at risk populations, I don't know if that was due to shortages or lower productions, both at times I'm sure. My parents both had professions were they received flu vax and felt lucky about that. I think this screaming from the street corners encouraging everyone to get flu vax is fairly recent?

Pharmacists giving vaccines is a relatively new phenomenon. That's why pharmacies weren't advertising it even ten years ago; it has nothing to do with availability of the drug product. The number of states where pharmacists can vaccinate and the number of vaccines we're allowed to give have both been growing even in the past five years.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Apparently, you've run out of arguments, so you've resorted to personal attack. 

Fine--you can play that game if you'd like.  Why don't you give an example of where I was dismissive and cruel in my attitude towards my friends' concerns about flu? 

Oh, that's right.  You can't--because I was neither dismissive nor cruel, ever.

If you'd like to discuss an issue, then discuss the issue.  If you are taken aback by people posting proof that something you believe in--no matter how whole-heartedly-- is actually not what you'd been led to believe, please don't attack the messengers.  It doesn't do you any good, and it annoys the heck out of the messengers.

I can understand you not wanting to be personally attacked. Can I ask though, what "proof" you have offered that the propaganda concerning vaccines today is even remotely similar to the propaganda put forth by the Nazi's saying that the Jewish were evil and sub-human? I get that you were merely arguing that the propaganda is similar, but I have yet to see you post any links or articles that even remotely prove your point. (the thread is long however, and though I think I read it carefully I could have missed it).

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by slmommy 
 

Quote:

But is it one country's responsibility to pay for the vaccines of foreign nationals leaving said country? 

I'm in a country where there is some YF in some areas, not the metropolitan areas. It is only available if you live in certain parts of the country. Paid for the govt of this nation.

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 
 

Well, when YF is required to enter another country, admission to that country can be denied without proof of receiving the vaccine. And considering the cost of deporting an individual, tacking on the cost of vaxing that individual against the required diseases is probably insignificant.

The context this arose from was I was questioning why CP needs to be on the state mandate, and some brought up that if it is not on the state requirements, insurance won´t pay for it, and it would cause financial hardship to families who would have to pay for the vax or risk having parent lose employment over taking care of sick kid for a week. (which appears to not even be an issue because of a federally funded program called Vaccines for Children (cdc), which provides free/low cost vaccines to uninsured, under-insured, and medicaid kids. It follows ACIP recommendations and not individual state mandates.)

Anywho... Stik mentioned her insurance would not pay for yellow fever. I found the point moot because an insurance company not covering YF is not going to lead to much financial hardship for an American family. Families are not losing employment/wages over YF infection - as was argued in cp case. The only cases YF vax would be recommended/required for an American family is if they were traveling to a place where YF is prevalent or required for entrance to the country. This type of travel is expensive and optional. I don´t see why this vaccine should be free or required in the US.

If an individual is leaving one country to go reside in another, I think it is the responsbility of individual/destination nation to work out the vax issues. For example, people applying for greencards to the US are required to have proof of or get certain vaccines. I believe this cost is on the individual - NOT of the nation which the person is LEAVING.
I think if the US is deporting an individual to a nation which requires YF, the individual most likely has already had YF vaccination, if not, would it not be the repsonsibilty of the destination nation?

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

If an individual is leaving one country to go reside in another, I think it is the responsbility of individual/destination nation to work out the vax issues. For example, people applying for greencards to the US are required to have proof of or get certain vaccines. I believe this cost is on the individual - NOT of the nation which the person is LEAVING.
I think if the US is deporting an individual to a nation which requires YF, the individual most likely has already had YF vaccination, if not, would it not be the repsonsibilty of the destination nation?

I don't know. I'm not an immigration attorney (although maybe I should have gone that route?), so I don't know what the obligations are of either country in a deportation case (not in a situation where an individual is choosing to leave one country for another - the difference is huge). I'm just saying it would be an insignificant cost when added to the cost of deportation proceedings which is HUGE.

Anyway, when I traveled to Haiti I was advised NOT to get any of the recommended vaxes (I'm up to date on all US vaccines though), because I was nursing at the time. My ds did not go with me, he stayed with his dad, and it turned out fine (I couldn't take malaria meds either - so I was constantly applying bug spray).

[DoubleDouble]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

Apparently Hep A vax has been around since 1980's but wasn't added to the schedule for everyone until 2006, so I guess some other people didn't consider it that important a vax for most kids either.

I'm not pushing for that vaccine, really. I am just baffled by some of the twisted logic.

Let's consider these:

A). Something has a potential for harming children's health => predictable reaction of "oh no, everyone run and hide your children!"

B). Something is already well-documented as harmful for children's health => "everyone would be better off getting [that disease] in childhood." Say what? Not "run faster and hide your children better", but suddenly "Hep A is your friend"?

So, why is (B) such a great option? Because (A) is an evil thing called vaccine?

I don't get it.

I think some people just have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "vaccine", why on earth would option (B) look attractive to anyone? How can it be recommended?

And it's very troubling how the same technique is used to dismiss the data - "oh, Dr Sears says only 30% of kids act sick, no biggie!" While if someone said "oh, only 5% of kids act sick after vaccine", people would be mad that side effects are carelessly dismissed and the damage minimized. I don't get the hypocrisy.

[slmommy]

Super Single Mama - ahh ok. I don´t know who would pay in deportation case either. Probably nation the person is getting returned to, since they would be a citizen of that nation. I was just disagreeing with someone trying to say that insurance/cdc program is unreasonable for not paying for YF vax. (haha I´m not saying i think insurance companies are reasonable! just in this instance)

Double Double - I don´t know what the rate of severe harm like your mother experienced is for Hep A. I haven´t looked into it much since everything I´ve read says that Hep A is virtually symptomless in the vast majority of kids. The 30% dr sears mentioned get mild intestinal problem. I haven´t seen anyone mentioning severe reactions among children or that rate.

I´m guessing Hep A wasn´t on schedule for a long time in US, and isn´t in other nations, because it´s probably a cost/harm figure... not that many kids have Hep A problems. vax is available for high risk populations. Most nations with good sewage/water sanitation and hygiene aren´t at as much risk as some developing nations.

I don´t think it´s ok to continue loading the schedule with everything under the sun. I don´t think it is an unreasonable assumption that the more vax we do, the more potential issues for reactions or longterm health issues immune-wise. No one knows the numbers or truth there. I also don´t think we can expect to live disease free lives. I personally, feel more comfortable taking my chances with Hep A than one more vax into DD.

[slmommy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erigeron 

I don't have time to read this entire thread right now, so I don't know if this was addressed downthread.

Pharmacists giving vaccines is a relatively new phenomenon. That's why pharmacies weren't advertising it even ten years ago; it has nothing to do with availability of the drug product. The number of states where pharmacists can vaccinate and the number of vaccines we're allowed to give have both been growing even in the past five years.

I didn´t realize that, thanks. I was wondering why it had changed. win-win for pharmacies, pharma, and people who want flu shots I guess?

I saw this researching something else, but related:

http://www.pharmacyowners.com/blog/bid/42659/24-Awesome-Flu-Shot-Marketing-Strategies-for-Independent-Pharmacies

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by DoubleDouble 

I'm not pushing for that vaccine, really. I am just baffled by some of the twisted logic.

Let's consider these:

A). Something has a potential for harming children's health => predictable reaction of "oh no, everyone run and hide your children!"

B). Something is already well-documented as harmful for children's health => "everyone would be better off getting [that disease] in childhood." Say what? Not "run faster and hide your children better", but suddenly "Hep A is your friend"?

So, why is (B) such a great option? Because (A) is an evil thing called vaccine?

I don't get it.

I think some people just have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "vaccine", why on earth would option (B) look attractive to anyone? How can it be recommended?

And it's very troubling how the same technique is used to dismiss the data - "oh, Dr Sears says only 30% of kids act sick, no biggie!" While if someone said "oh, only 5% of kids act sick after vaccine", people would be mad that side effects are carelessly dismissed and the damage minimized. I don't get the hypocrisy.

The difference is that the current schedule of recommended vaccines has not been tested for long-term safety or effectiveness.  It's not about acting sick after a vaccine.  It's about what possible effects the accumulation of the entire set of childhood vaccines can have on a person.  It's about the damage that many parents have seen immediately after their child gets vaccines, and lasts forever.

Illnesses are treatable.  Vaccine injuries are much less so.  I'm sorry your mother experienced long-term issues from a childhood illness.  But that's not the norm either.  My mother had measles at age 2.  No issues from it.  

The hypocrisy also lies in anecdotes like yours - if stories from parents who've seen their children have severe vaccine reactions aren't considered valid, then anecdotes about the VPDs themselves shouldn't be either.  It can't be both ways.

[DoubleDouble]

I've never said that severe vaccine reactions are invalid or don't exist. I'm not blindly pro-vaccination. Another anecdote, by the way: when I was a kid, the pediatrician told my mom to wait with some vaccines, and gave me exemptions for others, because the ped thought I would be too sensitive to them and might have a bad reaction.

What I don't get is recommending a disease like it's a great thing of some sort.

Also, I don't get how this:
 

Originally Posted by slmommy 

The 30% dr sears mentioned get mild intestinal problem.

seems to be alright, while "arm swelling after vaccination" is often presented as an unspeakable horror (I've seen it here on MDC, many times).

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by DoubleDouble 

What I don't get is recommending a disease like it's a great thing of some sort.

That was one poster's opinion based on her understanding of the disease. 

[slmommy]

I´m not saying Hep A is great.

I´m saying there are a number of vpds, that when caught during childhood, are not that big of a deal - Hep A, CP, Rubella, etc. (for vast vast majority of kids)

You get lifetime immunity - for when you really need it - as a teen/adult.

Hep A is also a bit different in that it is mostly spread through people not washing their hands or by being exposed to beaches polluted with sewage.

I wonder how many adults know their immunity to Hep A or get Hep A shots, especially those that are in the US and not traveling to a country with higher Hep A issue.

[Marnica]

Really well said and thought out post. You pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about the entire matter.

 

Originally Posted by littlest birds 

Vaccine reactions are not rare.  Even the confirmed ones are not rare, and I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that most reactions are never documented and confirmed.

Manipulation of parental fears as part of vax campaign is the norm.  I find it offensive that I cannot trust the sources of information because they are pretty much in the pocket of pharma-for-profit interests and out to use information as a tool for their interests.  I hate the tactics that are used to attempt to manipulate me and my friends.  The big questions about risk aren't being asked and studied, because the government and medical establishment is heavily biased to be pro-vaccine and every other question they consider starts with that spoken or unspoken given.  First assumptions: Vaccines are great and a cornerstone of good health.  You aren't even allowed to be taken seriously as a professional studying vaccines if you don't accept that assumption.  Unbiased information is unavailable because it's essentially a condition for membership.

The truth is that vaccines are a questionable approach to health care with some major successes as well as some major weaknesses and contraindications.  Vaccines have lots of side effects.  Death is one of them.  Brain damage is another.  These are facts.  Debating the numbers for occurrence of each of these is questionable because the methods of collecting data are flawed.  However, we KNOW that they occur sometimes, we simply can't be sure how often.  Some of the side effects look minor (fevers, swelling, seizures) but these symptoms can indicate invisible damage is occurring to the brain or immune system in many cases.  Such side effects are much more scary because we can't get any numbers at all that are trustworthy.  However, the minor side effects are not rare at all.  It's pretty well documented that "minor" reactions are common.  We have no way of knowing their effects are all temporary.  We have no way to tell how vaccinations do or do not effect the rampant autoimmune and allergic health problems in our population, but there is reason enough to suspect connections that our scientific community ought to be pouring lots of effort into finding out.  The token effort to rule out any connection to autism is a joke, and it is appallingly unscientific that the media is spreading what little has been studied as proof that there is no connection.  It's bad science to state that not finding one particular connection means that all possible connections have been disproven.  It is so sad to me that we cannot trust our scientists and health care organizations to place health and safety first--even those who aren't in the pockets of big-business are stuck using the studies and data provided by those who are and stuck with the absence of studies in broad areas because studies in those areas aren't profitable and don't get the funding. 

Anyone who really wants to weigh this out is stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to make an informed decision about this.  The information is appallingly limited and biased, so we have to make do with what we get and extrapolate from what we know if we don't want to just follow the directives we receive with little question.  I fall back on what I know of nature and its resilience.  I fall back on what I know about the typical "slippery slope" of side effects that lead to more interventions that lead to more side effects that come from so many of our "cleverest" interventions in human bodies.  Meddling with the immune system of newborns is a very scary intervention.  It's quite a propaganda victory that we aren't all a lot more scared of that.  Since I can't trust the information I can access, I have to fall back on the fact that I trust the immune system God gave me a whole lot more than I trust the humans who are entangled in this for-profit health care system.  It's not that that my natural immune system is never ever ever going to allow something bad to happen, but I sure don't see that great health and vitality is coming from that health care system.  Its methods are consistently flawed and frightening in many other health matters besides vaccination--what would make vax more trustworthy than some of these other interventions?  Increasing investment in pharmaceuticals (remember vaxes are really just a pharmaceutical product we are being sold) sure as heck does not make me feel that bad health outcomes are less likely for me.  Americans just aren't getting healthier from trusting what that system provides, and we aren't even on the path to begin to fix it.  I think the more health intervention I accept from "Big Medicine" the more risks I am taking that I will be the victim of the next severe side effect that we didn't see coming.  I notice so many people in deteriorating or vulnerable health with no known cause.  I suspect a fair bit of it is side effects that we just haven't tracked down yet, because it really doesn't seem natural to me.

Healthy immune systems don't come from shots.  Isolated immunity to some single diseases might come from shots, but something widespread in modern health is causing immune systems to fall apart, and vaxes are a top suspects for possible causes.  I think vaxes are a major risk to take for anyone who is concerned to have overall good health.  It's really hard to close one's eyes to that once you've glimpsed the rest of the story.  Once you see that there really are two sides to this, you can't forget it and you can never feel 100% sure that you are doing the right thing again. 

For anyone who comes here 100% knowing that vaxing is "right" I know that you have never seen that the other point of view.  Once you can see, you wouldn't judge because you would know that there are two sides.  You would know that the questions are quite serious even though they are hard to answer.  You would know that either action we take might be a mistake.  If you can't see that there is any legitimacy to the other point of view, I observe that your comments will always be harshly judgmental.  I cannot say whether your choice to vax is right or wrong, but I know that taking away my right to decide what goes in my body is a deep and serious violation.  I also know that the widespread propaganda that tricks me into making a particular decision is an equally serious violation.  The widespread propaganda that says mainstream folks should fear and judge non-vaxers is also a violation that turns us against each other when we should in fact be on the same side--the side that promotes the health of our children.  Vaccination masquerades as a simple solution, but it is not simple.  Nonvaxers deserve respect for what we face and choose as well, instead of being treated as though we must be ignorant and evil and dangerous to you.  It isn't that simple.  Don't be manipulated into thinking it is.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by DoubleDouble 

I'm not pushing for that vaccine, really. I am just baffled by some of the twisted logic.

Let's consider these:

A). Something has a potential for harming children's health => predictable reaction of "oh no, everyone run and hide your children!"

B). Something is already well-documented as harmful for children's health => "everyone would be better off getting [that disease] in childhood." Say what? Not "run faster and hide your children better", but suddenly "Hep A is your friend"?

So, why is (B) such a great option? Because (A) is an evil thing called vaccine?

I don't get it.

I think some people just have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "vaccine", why on earth would option (B) look attractive to anyone? How can it be recommended?

And it's very troubling how the same technique is used to dismiss the data - "oh, Dr Sears says only 30% of kids act sick, no biggie!" While if someone said "oh, only 5% of kids act sick after vaccine", people would be mad that side effects are carelessly dismissed and the damage minimized. I don't get the hypocrisy.

It is true that those who don't vax often have a bias against vaxes.  Our bias may be because we've learned that intervening in the body's systems can often cause unintended and difficult to identify harm.  Decades may pass before a chemical is found to be unsafe after being used extensively for some "essential" purpose.  Our bias is to leave nature alone if there is any reason to doubt safety.  Vaxes meddle with a very complex and beautiful and effective system, and I believe the harm is also complex.  We aren't tracking it because we are too ignorant to evaluate the causes of some of the problems that may be linked to vaxes.  The bigger risk to me is what comes from the intervention in nature, and the illusion of safety only exists because of what we don't know.  The health problems that I have suggested might be linked to vaccinations represent major risks.  If we were to confirm that 20% of people will have permanent immune dysfunction to some degree as a result of vaccination, then that would not be a trivial number compared to your 30% that would experience an illness and recover, and at this point such damage may be occurring and we wouldn't know it.  It could be that 90% of SIDS is related to vaccine toxicity.  We don't have good enough scientific knowledge to know.  We are willing to meddle with evolution's outcome, this human body, accepting 5% obvious reactions plus this unknown that may even be permanently altering the immune responses of 50-100% of all people, for the immediate effect of escaping potential normal illnesses.  I am indeed biased against interventions in health that can't be proven safe.  It's safer in my opinion to do without in such a case.

We see real risk.  You believe we are only imagining risks.  As long as you can't see that there is real risk, that is why you don't understand. 

I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to the word vaccine.  Maybe some people do. 

When I see a massive pharmaceutical industry riding on the coattails of early vaccine successes to promote every shot they can come up with for their own profit, I tend to reject what they are offering me.  When I know something can be unsafe and there is a blatant campaign to gloss over and keep that as quiet as possible, I'm not really so open to what they are selling me.  I am extremely biased against the products of the pharmaceutical industry--they aren't all bad but I won't accept anything from them without better answers.  Maybe I even have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that I am being manipulated into.  I have a strong reaction to having the "other side" acting to hide the truth from the level of nurses writing off reactions to the level of scientific research being misrepresented.  Well, I dont like that and I don't trust it.  It makes their products more frightening to me. 

I don't think Hep A is my friend.  Quite frankly, people who refuse vaxes can't identify many friends when it comes to this choice.  However, maybe the point is that having a natural immune system that can face and fight natural diseases is a blessing even though it does have risks as well.  Controlling all risks is beyond us, and our effort to do so often causes more problems than it solves.  I think vaccines are giving us false comfort--we pay for short term easy-to-see benefits by risking our long-term health in ways that are harder to see.  So many people criticize and every single one of them seems certain of one thing--the risks of vaccines are too small too count.  (And also worth facing if you love your neighbor.)  The current propaganda is making not vaxing seem really scary because they want moms to put peer pressure on other moms to reduce noncompliance, and if the pro-vax faction gets excited enough by this soon we will have new laws to take away our individual rights to choices in our health as well.  There are a lot of reasons this is being done, you know those who manipulate the information really think they are serving the greater good and protecting us from our own ignorance.  No one will then be able to protect us from the larger ignorance--the ignorance we have of the full true effects of vaccines.

Why do you suggest that potential harm is less dangerous than known harm?  That we can't measure risk or statistical occurrence or severity or long term effects definitely does not mean the likelihood of harm is smaller.  It's more than a maybe and fear.  Most things have more complex effects than we can measure.  I am NOT worried about temporary feelings of sickness after a vax.  I am interested in things like seizures and SIDs and brain damage and immune system damage.  Permanent effects.  I am interested in the toxic effects of the extra chemicals that always accompany the biological component that people think of when they think of what a vaccine is.  Preservatives have anti-life effects whatever they are because they are intended to prevent natural processes from occurring.  Whenever it isn't mercury, it's aluminum or something else.  The bottom line is that those chemical have to be pretty intense to do their job stabilizing those isolated biological materials.  These are things that you wouldn't want in your food, and why not?  As I said before, this does not represent a smaller or a false body of risk.  It's just less well-known.     

[my mountain]

I just had a few comments.  The first is about the comment on health insurance companies making money and follow the money trail.  Do you think they make money off the $50 vaccine or if the child gets the illness, I say illness.  Also, my kids are on a delayed vaccine schedule, one vaccine every 2 months.  Basically those of you not vaccinating are hoping that all the other kids are vaccinated and they are not spreading any diseases or illnesses.  Because honestly don't you think a lot of kids would have polio, or measles, mumps and rubella if we all chose not to vaccinate.  i am doing all of you non-vaxers a solid.

[slmommy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by my mountain 

I just had a few comments.  The first is about the comment on health insurance companies making money and follow the money trail.  Do you think they make money off the $50 vaccine or if the child gets the illness, I say illness.  Also, my kids are on a delayed vaccine schedule, one vaccine every 2 months.  Basically those of you not vaccinating are hoping that all the other kids are vaccinated and they are not spreading any diseases or illnesses.  Because honestly don't you think a lot of kids would have polio, or measles, mumps and rubella if we all chose not to vaccinate.  i am doing all of you non-vaxers a solid.

Several pages back I was discussing CP vax with Stik. She was stating that cp MUST be state mandated or insurance companies will not pay for it. I also brought up your point, that it would be cheaper to pay a vax instead of complications, but she was of the position that insurance companies are short-sighted and about bottom line.

The CP vax is about $90. I don't know how much insurance companies would actually have to pay for care if most of the population still had wild infection. Probably in most cases a dr. visit. 

In regards to the rest of your post... I suppose we could take this thread in the way of debating herd immunity, but I don't have time to start that at the moment, and already addressed other issues in regards to that several pages back, as in the ethics of doing something we know will result in severe injury/death without informing individuals of the true risks, real information about vaccines, or options (I'm not talking about swollen injection site). Read back a bit.
 

ETA: actually, come to think of it... a lot of people wouldn't even take their kid to the dr. for cp probably. And even 1 dr. visit is going to be less than $90 every 10 years for a lifetime. Serious complications resulting in expensive hospitalization are pretty rare with cp.

[littlest birds]

(Reply to My Mountain) Are you sure that is what we are thinking and hoping?

The money trail supports continual research in expensive facilities resulting in patents and products being delivered to a captive market.  Treating straightforward illnesses doesn't do these.  This is about millions and millions of vaxes--and you are definitely not going to see that many hospitalizations and those hospitalizations are not going to pay off big for the pharmaceutical industry because different types of less expensive products are used for treatment.  It's not a guaranteed source of income nor does it keep the labs in business inventing new products.  Citizens can actually treat illnesses at home in many cases.  But they can't do their own vaxes.  That's why it guarantees a profit, especially if the government is mandating them and new children are being born every day to require them.

The pharmaceutical industry is not the same as insurance companies of course.  Insurance companies are mostly pursuing other ways to guarantee their profits as far as I can see.  Insurance companies don't so much make money off hospital stays--they make money off of premiums paid by consumers and finding ways to pay out less than they take in.

[my mountain]

Slmommy:

I did read your post with Stik, the two of you went back and forth for a while and I never once heard your deal about the herd mentality?  You kept refferencing it but never debated it.  Why only pick one vaccine out, how about if we talk about polio. This was before 1988... 

Polio is a highly infectious disease caused by a virus. It invades the nervous system, and can cause total paralysis in a matter of hours. The virus enters the body through the mouth and multiplies in the intestine. Initial symptoms are fever, fatigue, headache, vomiting, stiffness in the neck and pain in the limbs. One in 200 infections leads to irreversible paralysis (usually in the legs). Among those paralysed, 5% to 10% die when their breathing muscles become immobilized.

Now lets start posting propoganda about how great it is to not vacinate for polio!  Lets put it in mainstream media!  See how quickly this comes back, especailly when there are still countries that are transmitting the disease.  I pray your kids are close to some vaccinated kids.

[member234098]

.

Edited by member234098 - 5/27/12 at 9:09am

[slmommy]

My Mountain, 

My DD has had IP because we live in a country were they have massive OP campaigns in one month every year. I was worried about that shedding - which OP does, that's why it's off the market in the US - it was causing paralysis in kids. There are water/sewage problems here too.

So, I don't have that much research about polio... but I could tell you what I've seen other people saying, or you can go to the polio archive here and see yourself, or someone else can jump in here. I'm spending way too much time here as is!

I've heard arguments about increased sanitation/water being a factor in decreasing polio naturally, theories/speculation that the epidemics in the 20th century were misdiagnosed or caused by something else - pesticides? or had other factors. I also saw something once about introduction of DTP having some affect on the epidemics, but I don't remember where or how legit a source it was. Maybe someone else here has info/links to argue with you.

I do know that the history of the polio vaccines are fraught with deaths and other issues - sv40.

Throughout this thread, I believe I have been arguing that it would behoove the pro-vax side to be a little more understanding with the sel/del/non vax issues - it might even improve vax rates! - I think state requirements need to be loosened (instead of being increased) or exemptions need to be more available (instead of becoming less) - and there could be different exemptions for sel/non - really when x% of a school has exemption, it does not mean that x% is completely unvaccinated - that misleading figure does not help anyone, it causes more panic on provax and nonvax bears the brunt. 

I have not been arguing for total end of vaccine campaigns or ending all vaccine production.

btw, I realize it was a typo, but "herd mentality" is pretty relevant to the original topic of the thread

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by my mountain 

I just had a few comments.  The first is about the comment on health insurance companies making money and follow the money trail.  Do you think they make money off the $50 vaccine or if the child gets the illness, I say illness.  Also, my kids are on a delayed vaccine schedule, one vaccine every 2 months.  Basically those of you not vaccinating are hoping that all the other kids are vaccinated and they are not spreading any diseases or illnesses.  Because honestly don't you think a lot of kids would have polio, or measles, mumps and rubella if we all chose not to vaccinate.  i am doing all of you non-vaxers a solid.

I think it's the pharmaceutical industry making the most money (vaccines are multibillion-dollar market), more so than the health insurance companies, but don't forget, the health insurance companies derive quite a lot of financial benefit from the pharmaceutical industry.

http://www.thepharmaletter.com/file/47191/global-vaccines-market-forecast-to-grow-to-34-billion-by-2012.html

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/March/25031003.asp

"The drug industry will contribute more than $80 billion (£54 billion) over the next decade to help fund the legislation"

http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/PsychiatricBulletin.htm

"In an era of reduced government expenditure on research, the pharmaceutical industry is funding and conducting an increasing proportion of research on medical drugs. It is also increasingly involved in funding some aspects of health services."