What would happen if we stopped Vaccinations....

On Apr 26, 10:32 am, bigvince wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:52 pm, "Jeff" wrote:





"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 8, 6:29 pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"JOHN" wrote in message

.. .

wrote in message
oups.com...
Alot of people would die....

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...WhatIfStop.htm

great bit of propaganda

if people stopped vaccinating the CDC would be out of a job, its main
function is flogging vaccines

It main function is controlling and preventing diseases. Although it does
a
lot of work with vaccination, if vaccination were stopped, it would have
a
lot more work to do because it would be spending a lot of time and money
tracking outbreaks of diseases that are easily prevented with vaccines as
well as tracking all the resulting deaths.

The CDC does a lot of stuff: It does tons of statistics on all types of
diseases, not just infectious diseases. It does a lot of work with
infectious diseases that aren't controlled or prevented with vaccines,
like
Ebola, TB and AIDS. The CDC does a lot more than just vaccination.

Your ignorance shines again, John.

Jeff

Jeff recently questions have been raised about the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccines. Do you really believe that a vaccine that only
preforms slightly better than a placebo should be forced on all girls
age 12. Thanks vince

No vaccine is being forced on anyone in the US.

I am not aware of any studies that suggest that the HPV vaccine only
performs slightly better than a placebo. Can you please cite some
references?

Thanks.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Vaccines are mandated or forced in every state in the US, Many times
they are required to enter school .To say that people are not reguired
or forced on peple is inaccurate. A resent article in the Wall street
journal raised questions about the effectiveness of
Gardasil .According to the Journal clinical studies have shown
precancerous lession occur only 14% less frequently in the treated
group than the untreated group. Full details herehttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss...
Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So that 14% less of a chance isn't worth it?
That's an extra 14 lives out of 100. I would say it is well worth the
effort.

On Apr 27, 8:48 am, wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:32 am, bigvince wrote:





On Apr 25, 6:52 pm, "Jeff" wrote:

"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 8, 6:29 pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"JOHN" wrote in message

.. .

wrote in message
oups.com...
Alot of people would die....

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...WhatIfStop.htm

great bit of propaganda

if people stopped vaccinating the CDC would be out of a job, its main
function is flogging vaccines

It main function is controlling and preventing diseases. Although it does
a
lot of work with vaccination, if vaccination were stopped, it would have
a
lot more work to do because it would be spending a lot of time and money
tracking outbreaks of diseases that are easily prevented with vaccines as
well as tracking all the resulting deaths.

The CDC does a lot of stuff: It does tons of statistics on all types of
diseases, not just infectious diseases. It does a lot of work with
infectious diseases that aren't controlled or prevented with vaccines,
like
Ebola, TB and AIDS. The CDC does a lot more than just vaccination.

Your ignorance shines again, John.

Jeff

Jeff recently questions have been raised about the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccines. Do you really believe that a vaccine that only
preforms slightly better than a placebo should be forced on all girls
age 12. Thanks vince

No vaccine is being forced on anyone in the US.

I am not aware of any studies that suggest that the HPV vaccine only
performs slightly better than a placebo. Can you please cite some
references?

Thanks.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Vaccines are mandated or forced in every state in the US, Many times
they are required to enter school .To say that people are not reguired
or forced on peple is inaccurate. A resent article in the Wall street
journal raised questions about the effectiveness of
Gardasil .According to the Journal clinical studies have shown
precancerous lession occur only 14% less frequently in the treated
group than the untreated group. Full details herehttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss...
Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So that 14% less of a chance isn't worth it?
That's an extra 14 lives out of 100. I would say it is well worth the
effort.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your numbers and conclusions are in error. Again from
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss
.. . Scott Emerson, a professor of biostatistics at the University of
Washington who sat on the FDA advisory panel that recommended approval
of Gardasil, .... "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16
and 18, but the effect it will have on cervical cancer rates in this
country is another question entirely," Emerson said, adding, "It's
almost the treating the symptom but not the disease sort of
idea" (Wall Street Journal, 4/16. So you feel that they should be
mandated for every girl in america. Certainly if you chose to take
this vaccine perhaps believing the risk benefit is good I think you
should. But when this is mandated the bar should be set higher Vince

On Apr 26, 8:06 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
bigvince wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:52 pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Apr 8, 6:29 pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"JOHN" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in message
legroups.com...
Alot of people would die....
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...WhatIfStop.htm
great bit of propaganda
if people stopped vaccinating the CDC would be out of a job, its main
function is flogging vaccines
It main function is controlling and preventing diseases. Although it does
a
lot of work with vaccination, if vaccination were stopped, it would have
a
lot more work to do because it would be spending a lot of time and money
tracking outbreaks of diseases that are easily prevented with vaccines as
well as tracking all the resulting deaths.
The CDC does a lot of stuff: It does tons of statistics on all types of
diseases, not just infectious diseases. It does a lot of work with
infectious diseases that aren't controlled or prevented with vaccines,
like
Ebola, TB and AIDS. The CDC does a lot more than just vaccination.
Your ignorance shines again, John.
Jeff
Jeff recently questions have been raised about the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccines. Do you really believe that a vaccine that only
preforms slightly better than a placebo should be forced on all girls
age 12. Thanks vince
No vaccine is being forced on anyone in the US.

I am not aware of any studies that suggest that the HPV vaccine only
performs slightly better than a placebo. Can you please cite some
references?

Thanks.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Vaccines are mandated or forced in every state in the US,

Absolutely incorrect. I assume that you know the meaning of "mandate"
and "forced".

Do take some time to actually prove "mandate" and "force" using real
world definitions.

A child whose parents want to take the risk of disease can home school
them and no one will force them to be vaccinated.

Of course, if parents do not want to do the work of home schooling, then
they have to play by the rules. Their unvaccinated children are at
greater risk of disease and place other, vaccinated children at risk. If
my kids were of the age of going to school, I would demand that no
unvaccinated child be allowed to attend. I play by the rules.

BTW, if you want to see what the consequences of not vaccinating a

http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=538

Lovely that a parent puts their child through this.

Many times

they are required to enter school .To say that people are not reguired
or forced on peple is inaccurate.

Nope. It is accurate. Parents have a choice. Like I said above, if they
want to home school, they do not have to vaccinate.

A resent article in the Wall street



journal raised questions about the effectiveness of
Gardasil .According to the Journal clinical studies have shown
precancerous lession occur only 14% less frequently in the treated
group than the untreated group. Full details here
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss...
Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mark you think and write like an attorney A "real world 'or as you
might say 'de facto' definition: when the state "mandates a vaccine
parents are "forced' to have thier child take it. I'll let any parent
decide if thats a fair defination. The rest of you comments have
nothing to do with the Wall Street Journal article on gardasil. any
one interested .

In article .com,
bigvince wrote:

Vaccines are mandated or forced in every state in the US, Many times
they are required to enter school .To say that people are not reguired
or forced on peple is inaccurate.

On the contrary, it's accurate. There are almost always exceptions
made for religious objections, and usually for 'philosophical'
objections as well.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher

On Apr 27, 9:36 am, bigvince wrote:
Your numbers and conclusions are in error. Again fromhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss
. . Scott Emerson, a professor of biostatistics at the University of
Washington who sat on the FDA advisory panel that recommended approval
of Gardasil, .... "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16
and 18, but the effect it will have on cervical cancer rates in this
country is another question entirely," Emerson said, adding, "It's
almost the treating the symptom but not the disease sort of
idea" (Wall Street Journal, 4/16. So you feel that they should be
mandated for every girl in america. Certainly if you chose to take
this vaccine perhaps believing the risk benefit is good I think you
should. But when this is mandated the bar should be set higher Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


No. My numbers and conclusions were not in error.
You quoted this from your link....
"According to the Journal clinical studies have shown
precancerous lession occur only 14% less frequently in the treated
group than the untreated group. Full details here "

Which means that a young woman who has had the vaccine has a 14% less
chance of developing a precancerous lesion.

Which means....
"So that 14% less of a chance isn't worth it?
That's an extra 14 lives out of 100. I would say it is well worth the
effort."

Your thought process on your quote must be in error. Professor Emerson
believes that vaccine is something women should have. He is just
unsure of the rate it will have on preventing cervical cancer rates.
Nowhere in that statement you quoted does anyone say a woman shouldn't
have the vaccine.

So you feel that they should be mandated for every girl in america. Certainly if you chose to take this vaccine perhaps believing the risk benefit is good I think you
should. But when this is mandated the bar should be set higher

Do I believe it should be a mandated vaccine? Yes, it should.

Now a question for you...
"How high would you like the bar to be set?"

How many lives should be lost before this "bar" can be set?
Give us a number, 1?, 5?, 10?, 20?, 100?, 1000?, more.

Give us a number of lost lives you are comfortable with.

On Apr 27, 10:39 pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article .com,

bigvince wrote:
Vaccines are mandated or forced in every state in the US, Many times
they are required to enter school .To say that people are not reguired
or forced on peple is inaccurate.

On the contrary, it's accurate. There are almost always exceptions
made for religious objections, and usually for 'philosophical'
objections as well.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher

Again many states do not allow philosophical objections. When states
mandate a vaccine parents feel compelled to get them .Any parent who
is in this position is the best judge of the accuracy of this
statement.

On Apr 27, 10:43 pm, wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:36 am, bigvince wrote:

Your numbers and conclusions are in error. Again fromhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67980&nfid=rss
. . Scott Emerson, a professor of biostatistics at the University of
Washington who sat on the FDA advisory panel that recommended approval
of Gardasil, .... "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16
and 18, but the effect it will have on cervical cancer rates in this
country is another question entirely," Emerson said, adding, "It's
almost the treating the symptom but not the disease sort of
idea" (Wall Street Journal, 4/16. So you feel that they should be
mandated for every girl in america. Certainly if you chose to take
this vaccine perhaps believing the risk benefit is good I think you
should. But when this is mandated the bar should be set higher Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No. My numbers and conclusions were not in error.
You quoted this from your link....
"According to the Journal clinical studies have shown
precancerous lession occur only 14% less frequently in the treated
group than the untreated group. Full details here "

Which means that a young woman who has had the vaccine has a 14% less
chance of developing a precancerous lesion.

Which means....
"So that 14% less of a chance isn't worth it?
That's an extra 14 lives out of 100. I would say it is well worth the
effort."

Your thought process on your quote must be in error. Professor Emerson
believes that vaccine is something women should have. He is just
unsure of the rate it will have on preventing cervical cancer rates.
Nowhere in that statement you quoted does anyone say a woman shouldn't
have the vaccine.

So you feel that they should be mandated for every girl in america. Certainly if you chose to take this vaccine perhaps believing the risk benefit is good I think you

should. But when this is mandated the bar should be set higher

Do I believe it should be a mandated vaccine? Yes, it should.

Now a question for you...
"How high would you like the bar to be set?"

How many lives should be lost before this "bar" can be set?
Give us a number, 1?, 5?, 10?, 20?, 100?, 1000?, more.

Give us a number of lost lives you are comfortable with.

There is no number of lives lost that I'm comfortable with. This
vaccine has had guestion raised as too its effectiveness. So far in
clinical tests it has only reduced lessions slightly better than
placeboI dont think youve fairly characterised what professor Emerson
said so let me quote him he" said he is not convinced that the vaccine
is worth the billions of dollars likely to be spent on it in the
coming years. "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16 and
18, but the effect it will have on cervical cancer rates in this
country is another question entirely. There are guestion about this
vaccine at best it offer partial protection against cervical cancer it
may not even be that good it needs much futher evaluation and should
not be mandated for anyone certainly if you feel comfotable taking it
at this point you should again full discussion here
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss

"bigvince" wrote in message
oups.com...
...

There is no number of lives lost that I'm comfortable with. This
vaccine has had guestion raised as too its effectiveness. So far in
clinical tests it has only reduced lessions slightly better than
placeboI dont think youve fairly characterised what professor Emerson
said so let me quote him he" said he is not convinced that the vaccine
is worth the billions of dollars likely to be spent on it in the
coming years. "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16 and
18, but the effect it will have on cervical cancer rates in this
country is another question entirely. There are guestion about this
vaccine at best it offer partial protection against cervical cancer it
may not even be that good it needs much futher evaluation and should
not be mandated for anyone certainly if you feel comfotable taking it
at this point you should again full discussion here
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss

yet the studies you cite were in an older population with a high proportion
of females already having the infection. When given to girls without HPV,
the vaccine still provides very good protection. When given to girls who
already had the infeciton, it is less effective. So it will still be very
effective for most 12-year olds.

You are not looking at the right picture.

Jeff

On Apr 28, 12:07 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...
...

There is no number of lives lost that I'm comfortable with. This
vaccine has had guestion raised as too its effectiveness. So far in
clinical tests it has only reduced lessions slightly better than
placeboI dont think youve fairly characterised what professor Emerson
said so let me quote him he" said he is not convinced that the vaccine
is worth the billions of dollars likely to be spent on it in the
coming years. "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16 and
18, but the effect it will have on cervical cancer rates in this
country is another question entirely. There are guestion about this
vaccine at best it offer partial protection against cervical cancer it
may not even be that good it needs much futher evaluation and should
not be mandated for anyone certainly if you feel comfotable taking it
at this point you should again full discussion here
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss

yet the studies you cite were in an older population with a high proportion
of females already having the infection. When given to girls without HPV,
the vaccine still provides very good protection. When given to girls who
already had the infeciton, it is less effective. So it will still be very
effective for most 12-year olds.

You are not looking at the right picture.

Jeff

That remains to be proven. It is possible that this vaccine will have
very little effect on cancer rates . It will have side effects some
serious. So far the evidence on prevention is not in and untill that
evidence is much more conclusive people should have a right to make
thier own inforned judgement on this issue. To say it will be very
effective at what? No data on cancer so far what is in is
disapointing. No data on the effect a false sense of security will
have on lifestyles perhaps increasing dangerous activity. No data on
how long this protection will last. Several vaccines lose there
effectiveness unexpectedly with time. On such weak evidence you are
willing to turn every 12 year old girl into a test ground. This drug
needs time before it is mandated. Thanks Vince

"bigvince" wrote in message
ps.com...
...

That remains to be proven. It is possible that this vaccine will have
very little effect on cancer rates.

And, it is possible George Bush will think about something before he does
it.

It will have side effects some
serious. So far the evidence on prevention is not in and untill that
evidence is much more conclusive people should have a right to make
thier own inforned judgement on this issue.

After the evidence is in, people will have the right to maek informed
judgements, too.

To say it will be very
effective at what? No data on cancer so far what is in is
disapointing.

Depends on your point of veiw. Unforunately, it does not work well for
people already exposed to HPV. But it is effective for those who aren't
exposed.

No data on the effect a false sense of security will
have on lifestyles perhaps increasing dangerous activity. No data on
how long this protection will last. Several vaccines lose there
effectiveness unexpectedly with time. On such weak evidence you are
willing to turn every 12 year old girl into a test ground. This drug
needs time before it is mandated. Thanks Vince

And any parent who wishes not to have his child vaccinated can decline to do
so. There is no penalty (except higher risk of cancer and HPV disease) for
doing so.

Jeff