Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-31-2013, 03:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

Saw this article today on Reddit.  

 

He says "If your kid gets the measles, and remember public health officials are getting very very good at tracing outbreaks to their source, and makes my kid sick (can happen since vaccine is not 100 percent effective), my newborn baby die (newborns can’t benefit from vaccines) or my wife miscarry (fetuses are at especially high risk), then shouldn’t I be able to sue you for the harm you have done?"

 

http://www.pri.org/stories/health/bioethicist-says-parents-who-don-t-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences-13929.html

 

What does everyone think about this? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-01-2013, 01:16 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

No.

 

And there is no figuring out the source.  Contagious diseases do not materialize out of nowhere very often.  If I give you the measles, I got it from somewhere, and they got it from somewhere, and so forth.  Gonna sue everybody down the line?  Are you only going to sue the unvaxxed?  What about if a vaxxed person had measles and went out in public, giving it to numerous people?  What if the person who got measles turns out to be Vit. A deficient?  Where does it end?


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 06-01-2013, 02:51 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

No.

And there is no figuring out the source.  contagious diseases do not materialize out of nowhere very often.  If I give you the measles, I got it from somewhere, and they got it from somewhere, and so forth.  Gonna sue everybody down the line?  Are you only going to sue the unvaxxed?  What about if a vaxxed person had measles and went out in public, giving it to numerous people?  What if the child who person who got measles turns out to be Vit. A deficient?  Where does it end?

Yeah, that guy has watched too many movies. Disease just doesn't materialize out of nowhere.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 06-01-2013, 03:03 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

Yeah, that guy has watched too many movies. Disease just doesn't materialize out of nowhere.

This is was jumped out at me, too!
pek64 is offline  
Old 06-01-2013, 03:10 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Saw this article today on Reddit.  

 

He says "If your kid gets the measles, and remember public health officials are getting very very good at tracing outbreaks to their source, and makes my kid sick (can happen since vaccine is not 100 percent effective), my newborn baby die (newborns can’t benefit from vaccines) or my wife miscarry (fetuses are at especially high risk), then shouldn’t I be able to sue you for the harm you have done?"

 

http://www.pri.org/stories/health/bioethicist-says-parents-who-don-t-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences-13929.html

 

What does everyone think about this? 


Since we're talking hypothetically, why not sue the vaccine manufacturers when vaccinated people get measles due to vaccine-failure, or when women miscarry due to not having an immunity to measles, or when newborns are denied the maternal antibodies because their mothers never had a chance to develop the right type of immunity, etc.... it makes just as much sense. 

 

The bottom line is that the efficacy of measles vaccine was grossly inflated for a long time, but many people are reluctant to admit that, and would rather find a scapegoat than admit that the eradication plans were a bit unrealistic.

rachelsmama is offline  
Old 06-01-2013, 03:19 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


Since we're talking hypothetically, why not sue the vaccine manufacturers when vaccinated people get measles due to vaccine-failure, or when women miscarry due to not having an immunity to measles, or when newborns are denied the maternal antibodies because their mothers never had a chance to develop the right type of immunity, etc.... it makes just as much sense. 

The bottom line is that the efficacy of measles vaccine was grossly inflated for a long time, but many people are reluctant to admit that, and would rather find a scapegoat than admit that the eradication plans were a bit unrealistic.

Yes, and to start, perhaps we could also develop a system in which parents of children, unavoidably, predictably, injured or killed by vaccines could actually expect compensation for their losses. Wait, that will never happen in the United States of Corporate America.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 06-01-2013, 03:37 PM
 
suzyfsunshine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

im torn with the vaccinations. this is my third baby.. the first two were vacs on schedule.. no bad side effects.. however my current sig other has never been vaccinated nor has seen a doctor more than one time when he was involved in a car accident.. he is beautiful and healthy and strong.. he doesnt believe in the vacs ( for good reason id say) but he did allow me to choose what kind of prenatal care i thought was best for me.. he has said he doesnt want the baby vaccinated until he reads EVERYTHING about them and makes an educated decision. he never went to school formally and seems to absorb and learn better by reading.. he is the smartest man i know.. i think its a very personal decision and that doctors and the government should back off about it.. thats the problem i think.. they have too much authority to tell you what to do and how to do the raising of your children...

suzyfsunshine is offline  
Old 06-01-2013, 06:17 PM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

Couldn't be much of a bioethicist if he couldn't see the holes in his argument. eyesroll.gif


Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   nearly 10 years old; DS  6.5 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
Old 06-01-2013, 06:58 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

If his kid gets measles it is because the vax didn't work for his kid, in which case his kid is just as much at risk of spreading the disease to mine than the other way around. So, sure if I can sue you when your vaxxed kid gives mine a disease, go ahead. eyesroll.gif

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:39 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I think it's just about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:48 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

That would be no different than suing for passing around the flu at work.  Someone shows up get you sick then you lose a few days or weeks of work depending on your health and you sue them for loss time. 

 

 

People are weird. 

Imakcerka is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 12:28 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

Where will he draw the line?  Will he sue people with MEDICAL exemptions from vaccination?  Does he expect them to take a vaccine for his benefit if they already know they have a high risk of serious reaction? Or is he only going to sue the people who looked at the risks and decided for themselves--rightly or wrongly--that they prefer the risk of disease over the risk of vaccine reaction?  Who's he gonna sue if the disease is traced to someone who is fully vaxxed, who spread the disease and didn't know it, because they thought--wrongly--that the vaccine would not only protect them, but prevent them from spreading germs?

 

What kind of ethics does he believe in, if he thinks it's good to sue someone for breathing germs in your general direction, but you can't sue the company that purposely hid the adverse reactions of the vaccine that caused your child's seizures, brain damage, or death, just so they could make more profits?

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 06-05-2013, 11:57 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Oh pish posh. This argument is nothing new. In 2009, The Michigan Law Review hosted a series of articles debating the topic. Four years later, Caplan is apparently wanting a little attention.

Everyone has already hashed out points about there needing to be a way to sue drug companies if individuals can sue these nebulous Patient Zeros.

Just recognize this as one more bullying tactic to threaten and frighten parents into compliance. irked.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 06-07-2013, 06:45 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

Hilary Butler, telling us how she really feels!

 

Pied Pipers and duped lemmings

 

 

Quote:
There are days when you wonder where supposed experts leave their brains. Worse, you wonder about the people who follow like lemmings. Dr Arthur Caplan has scored another hit in the brainless bullseye for his recent medieval thinking blog. I will intersperse comments amongst his mental witterings:

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 06-20-2013, 03:46 PM
 
JenVose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Our family immunizes selectively, probably on a different basis of selection than others. Our daughter is receiving her MMR series, as well as DTaP, and polio, so far, because we've had no contra-indications in the family and feel that these vaccinations have been around longer therefore making more testing and data available, and also that these diseases are more serious dangers not only because of the reaction they might cause but because many docs now practicing will have never seen a case and the delay in accurate diagnosis/treatment. All of that said, just to add what perspective I am bringing to the issue.

 

Which is this: No, I don't feel that "Patient Zero" should have a responsibility to any others harmed as a result of a disease that is vaccine-preventable. No. 1, even this supposed "Patient Zero" must have had exposure/gotten the disease somewhere, so it's impossible to determine where to pass the buck. No. 2, this "Patient Zero" and/or family has already been "punished" for their choices - they have had the same disease. No. 3, it would be long and costly to implement a system that would allow this to happen, as surely it would have to have exemptions for situations such as if "Patient Zero" was found to be in a category that had unquestionable exemption from immunization, such as a child too young to be immunized or one with serious documented previous reactions who was not given a full schedule, or for people who were under a reasonable assumption that they were properly immunized. And No. 4, once we begin assigning blame for transmitting vaccine-preventable illnesses, where does it end?

 

Sometimes, bad things just happen and there is no legal "fault."

JenVose is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 06:04 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm pro-vaccine but I think this is nonsense. Every such case would disintegrate into a courtroom evaluation of the legitimacy of the decision not to vaccinate on the part of the non-vaccinating patient or their parents. If my kid gets the measles and I can prove she was vaccinated, I might be off the hook, but then Taxi has to explain her kids' vaccine reactions and why she chose to not continue to vaccinate, and then someone else who has no medical issues whatsoever gets grilled on whatever rationale they have, and it's all too much. I do think it's terrible when vulnerable people are badly injured or killed by a disease because somebody who could have gotten a vaccination didn't, but I don't think that addressing it through the law/courts is a good approach. 

erigeron is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 09:43 PM
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

I'm pro-vaccine but I think this is nonsense. Every such case would disintegrate into a courtroom evaluation of the legitimacy of the decision not to vaccinate on the part of the non-vaccinating patient or their parents. If my kid gets the measles and I can prove she was vaccinated, I might be off the hook, but then Taxi has to explain her kids' vaccine reactions and why she chose to not continue to vaccinate, and then someone else who has no medical issues whatsoever gets grilled on whatever rationale they have, and it's all too much. I do think it's terrible when vulnerable people are badly injured or killed by a disease because somebody who could have gotten a vaccination didn't, but I don't think that addressing it through the law/courts is a good approach. 

I think and hope this is how most people who vaccinate feel. It's simply absurd. We have to be able to choose what medical treatments we want to undergo. And for anyone who may be reading that thinks this is okay, that means you are agreeing to get every vaccine they come out with and suggest- no matter what. And it's a slippery slope to legislating other medical procedures as well.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 07:56 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

One: if it was that easy OR common, it would have already happened! Heck they let Bill Gates write an episode of Law & Order or some other such Baby Boomer type show about it already! Actually, TaxiMom is right. Are you going to sue those with Medical Exemptions? My friend's daughter got ACTUAL measles from MMR. Are you going to sue her? You can't sue Merck, so forget that!

 

I love that Vax Manufacturers are lawsuit proof, but they want to sue children. 

 

Here are some other things Bio'Ethicists' have recently proposed: 

 

After Birth Abortion (aka, the new hip name for Infantacide and I know we are not allowed to discuss it here so it is not up for debate but I am citing an EXAMPLE of a radical idea that recently graced the pages of a BioEthics journal)

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

 

And BioEthicist Peter Singer just proposed throwing down a One Child Limit on yk, everyone. If you know how grisly that looks in China, you would shudder! He said this at a MAJOR global conference.

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/peter-singer-women-should-sacrifice-having-kids-to-protect-environment

 

So basically anything goes in BioEthics Now A Days, as long as it is sorta against individual rights.

 

There is some quote about Academia mostly propping up the actions of the Ruling Class and I believe that more and more lately.

dinahx is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 08:03 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

By that logic I should also be able to sue families with tobacco use in the home, everyone who drinks soda or let's their kids drink soda, especially if it results in obesity and I am a nurse/CNA/EMT who throws her back out trying to lift them, and foreign travelers of all stripes!

dinahx is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 08:08 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is also an old story. OF COURSE Public Radio picked it up. They are really one sided on this issue, really highlighting their funders (Gates & Gov) I have heard Public Radio stations say on air that DTaP is '98% effective' however, that is not what yk, the people who make the vaccines think! And it is easily fact checked. I think they speak not from a place of science on this issue but from a place of PSA, if you want to put it nicely.

 

He is on shaky territory trying to sue over a m/c too. His peers don't consider a fetus or a BABY a person until it is an active agent capable of self reflection, so I don't see how the baby would have the right of redress in a court of law in that climate. He can't have it both ways.

dinahx is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 11:43 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Did any of you catch this? A law professor at NYU took him to town with this rebuttal:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/0/21/guest-post-crack-down-on-those-who-dont-vaccinate-a-response-to-art-caplan/#more-6556

Somehow, I don't think this will get an NPR story.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 03:40 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

LOL. NPR would have to clear it by their main sponsor, a certain 'Foundation'. It is so useful to me when ProVax types also throw down for RoundUp Ready GMO Crops & Fluoride. In case I ever doubt myself! I am only 95% sure about Vaxes but I am 1000% sure about the other two!

dinahx is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 04:56 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

That is a great rebuttal, Turquesa. 

 

Such a shame about NPR.  I used to count on them for unbiased news, but sadly that just isn't available anywhere, is it?


chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 09:52 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Every media outlet serves a higher Master. It's important to remember that.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 07-20-2013, 11:27 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
I'm bumping this up because I had another thought.

SO many of these communicable diseases are impossible to track. The radical pro-vaxxers like to claim that it's easy for epidemiologists to track down Patient Zero, who in their mind got the disease from the moon and will be invariably unvaxxed and sued to death.

But what about a mild case of measles or chicken pox, with a parent mistaking the rash for an allergic reaction? The adult with pertussis who never seeks medical treatment or lab confirmation because she mistakes it for a mere PITA cold? The child who has parapertussis, which is not vaccine-preventable, but whose doctor diagnoses pertussis based on clinical judgment and not laboratory confirmation? Somebody catching symptomatic rubella from someone who was asymptomatic and didn't know they had it? Somebody catching a replacement serotype of pneumococcal without any laboratory confirmation to determine if the strain is vaccine-targeted?

So many of these vaccine-targeted diseases, including good 'ol polio, can be asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, or confused for flu-like illness or the common cold. This makes Patient Zero an illusive search target. Epidemiologists may not like to admit it, but much of what they do is, by necessity, based on conjecture.

And then there's the issue of tracking down vax status. How do you get the vax status of the Patient Zero who had the disease without knowing it or with a clinical misdiagnosis? What about a person who comes down with mumps and spreads it... but was vaccinated for it in 1972 and can't find vaccination records? Should we go ahead and sue this nefarious Patient Zero?

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 07-25-2013, 09:26 AM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

Another thought... wouldn't HIPAA protect patient zero anyway? Even if they could figure out who it was, pretty sure that they can't actually reveal that info to the public or that persons vax status. Seems like a whole lot of legal wrangling would have to take place for a case to even get to court with enough evidence. Would a lawyer even bother taking on that case? And would the person who sued actually get any money out of the deal?

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 07-25-2013, 09:34 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
^Yes & the bit about m/c made me shake my head: they don't do a lot of detective work on miscarriages, generally, even for women who want it. I was never offered anything besides chromosomal sleuthing. And I had a record of Mercury exposure. So I doubt they would ever be willing to extend the type of testing to all women to find the specific reason for miscarriages AND doing so & assigning blame would open the door to ALL sorts of personhood arguments that mainstream bioethicists are staunchly against today (there are even bioethics professors that believe that 'personhood' is not achieved until way after birth.)
dinahx is offline  
Old 07-25-2013, 09:46 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi everyone,

I think it's a very interesting point, philosophically speaking. I'm not sure about he practicality of the bioethicist's argument.

 

Philosophically, if the public rightfully so expects companies and agencies to be held accountable for vaccination injuries, why shouldn't anti-vaccine parents be held accountable for the consequences of their actions too? Wouldn't this be fair?

to

Having said this, in part of his example on measles he states that vaccinated people can still get the disease. This is not true, although infants too young to be vaccinated could contract the disease. In the case of an infant, contracting measles is very, very dangerous. Most of the time it is difficult to track down the source. Hypothetically, it is possible to do so though. In these cases, why shouldn't an anti-vax parent be held accountable?

 

Furthermore, pertussis CAN be contracted by people who have been vaccinated for the disease.

 

In any case, Dr Caplan made his intentions clear as found in the link below: "Caplan wants parents to have more information before they choose not to vaccinate. Specifically, he wants them to consider all the consequences of their actions."

http://www.pri.org/stories/health/bioethicist-says-parents-who-don-t-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences-13929.html

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-25-2013, 09:56 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You can definitely get measles after having the Vax, it is less likely than after the Pertussis Vax, but still possible & reported.

Also, companies cannot be held liable for Vaccine Injury, no matter what the public expects. All injury claims must go through VICP with a cap on awards & a table of admissible injuries.
dinahx is offline  
Old 07-25-2013, 10:37 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

Having said this, in part of his example on measles he states that vaccinated people can still get the disease. This is not true, although infants too young to be vaccinated could contract the disease.

Please post some proof of this.  I"d be curious to see what source you have, since even Merck's  claim is that 95% of those vaccinated would be protected for life, which leaves 5% unprotected by Merck's own admission.  

 

In addition, I need to remind you (again!) that the MMR is a live virus vaccine, and someone vaccinated with MMR may be contagious for those diseases for up to 3 weeks following vacicnation, especially to people with compromised immune systems.

 

So, vaccinated people CAN still get the disease, and vaccinated people CAN spread it as well.

 

Let's make sure this is widely known, so that people aren't fear-mongered into getting vaccines against their better judgment because of intimidation tactics like Caplan's.

Taximom5 is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off