Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Vaccines


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#76 Swar

Swar
  • com muito orgulho, com muito amor <3


  • 9,068 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 February 2015 - 04:11 PM

I wouldn't trust an anti-vax doctor...



#77 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,103 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 February 2015 - 04:49 PM

I wouldn't trust an anti-vax doctor...

Why are they a doctor then? "Oh, I want to help people! But vaccines are bad, so I'll just tell people they're dangerous or refuse to give them! That'll help people!" 

 

Vaccines save lives, and doctors save lives. If you're an anti-vax doctor, you're technically not helping people live heather lives and protecting them form deadly diseases. 

The hippocratic oath says "do no harm". You're doing harm to people by telling them not to get vaccines/ not giving people vaccines because you're an idiot. You're making it so they have no protection against deadly diseases, and without those vaccines they can pass those diseases on to those too sick or too young to have the vaccine, which harms those people. You're technically doing double damage here. 

 

How on earth did they get a medical license when they believe something that has been debunked multiple times and was completely made up? 



#78 Jess

Jess
  • šŸ“Aioli-AmericanšŸ“



  • 9,203 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 February 2015 - 06:03 PM

Why are they a doctor then? "Oh, I want to help people! But vaccines are bad, so I'll just tell people they're dangerous or refuse to give them! That'll help people!" 

 

Vaccines save lives, and doctors save lives. If you're an anti-vax doctor, you're technically not helping people live heather lives and protecting them form deadly diseases. 

The hippocratic oath says "do no harm". You're doing harm to people by telling them not to get vaccines/ not giving people vaccines because you're an idiot. You're making it so they have no protection against deadly diseases, and without those vaccines they can pass those diseases on to those too sick or too young to have the vaccine, which harms those people. You're technically doing double damage here. 

 

How on earth did they get a medical license when they believe something that has been debunked multiple times and was completely made up? 

How many doctors do you know for sure are pro-vax? Do you ask all of them? You wouldn't even have to ask if they're pro-vax or not, just start asking them which brand they prefer to use on themselves and their children. It's definitely a fascinating exercise in people, if not vaccines. It's not information that's given without question in most cases, because the majority of the population is pro-vax and that kind of thing would likely hurt their practice and reputation as doctors. Their personal vaccination choices and schedule are part of their personal health history, which is no ones' business at all, which I'd assume is why they would have a medical license. 

 

I think I've already addressed the issue of "deadly" diseases and those too sick and young in this thread already.


I wouldn't trust an anti-vax doctor...

And I'm sure there's people who would say the same about a seemingly pro-vax doctor who wouldn't admit to not getting themselves or their children vaxxed either.



#79 SheOfTheEnderworld

SheOfTheEnderworld
  • The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist


  • 3,838 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 February 2015 - 09:26 PM

How many doctors do you know for sure are pro-vax? Do you ask all of them? You wouldn't even have to ask if they're pro-vax or not, just start asking them which brand they prefer to use on themselves and their children. It's definitely a fascinating exercise in people, if not vaccines. It's not information that's given without question in most cases, because the majority of the population is pro-vax and that kind of thing would likely hurt their practice and reputation as doctors. Their personal vaccination choices and schedule are part of their personal health history, which is no ones' business at all, which I'd assume is why they would have a medical license. 

 

I think I've already addressed the issue of "deadly" diseases and those too sick and young in this thread already.


And I'm sure there's people who would say the same about a seemingly pro-vax doctor who wouldn't admit to not getting themselves or their children vaxxed either.

 

You're entire post is perfect, Jess, and in fact I think that one of the most MAJOR issues at play with everything actually comes down to consumers who don't care to do research at all on their own and rather place utterly blind faith in a medical practitioner without using their own goddamn brains and critical thinking to begin with.

 

Just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean that they are The Risen Son Of Christ Crawling Off The Crucifix And Walking On The Water (unfortunately, I know people who pretty much feel that any tripe falling out of a doctor's mouth truly IS sacred...alas, I digress...but they are nothing more than people trained in a given profession, and we all know that some people rock and some people suck at whatever they have chosen to do).

 

To throw another aspect for consideration out there: as with all things, vaccination is NOT a black and white issue! Thus, it definitely cannot simply be "pro-vax" versus "anti-vax"...there are considerable shade of grey therein, and neither extreme is 100% correct. Not all vaccines are made alike in terms of contents, mechanism of action, and on and on and on. There are several vaccines that no way, no how would I ever take them in a million years, for example, and actually I base my anti-specific-vaccine thing on the basis of specific things I know of them from the research that I've done and that others have done (in short, I base my abstention from a very specific few on personal rationales).

 

Sorry for babbling...just wanted to get my 2 cents out there and also commend Jess on her post, which kind of forced me to spew this stuff that I hadn't planned on spewing to this point.



#80 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 February 2015 - 06:56 AM

There are several vaccines that no way, no how would I ever take them in a million years, for example, and actually I base my anti-specific-vaccine thing on the basis of specific things I know of them from the research that I've done and that others have done (in short, I base my abstention from a very specific few on personal rationales).

 

Curious as to what they are



#81 Jess

Jess
  • šŸ“Aioli-AmericanšŸ“



  • 9,203 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 February 2015 - 08:01 AM

There are several vaccines that no way, no how would I ever take them in a million years, for example, and actually I base my anti-specific-vaccine thing on the basis of specific things I know of them from the research that I've done and that others have done (in short, I base my abstention from a very specific few on personal rationales).

This is an important statement. It's not like I'm pulling anti-vax shit out of nature blogs. I'm pulling facts from places like the CDC and the WHO, which make me understand 100% why people would deny part or all of their vaccinations. The WHO website even tells people how to prevent severe complications and death from measles, which I suspect is why the death rate from it in the US went down, even though there wasn't a vaccination yet, because we were gaining those knowledge and advances.

#82 Jess

Jess
  • šŸ“Aioli-AmericanšŸ“



  • 9,203 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 March 2015 - 05:37 PM

This link also might be interesting to those of you who trust your doctors to be 100% pro-vaccine and that vaccinations are 100% proven to be safe.



#83 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:06 PM

 

Give me the short version. I have finals next week. It looked like it had over 50 pages. 



#84 Jess

Jess
  • šŸ“Aioli-AmericanšŸ“



  • 9,203 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 March 2015 - 08:05 AM

Give me the short version. I have finals next week. It looked like it had over 50 pages.

The short version is ethics and conflicts of interest are less important than money.



#85 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 March 2015 - 10:42 PM

The short version is ethics and conflicts of interest are less important than money.

Sadly that is the case. Pharmaceuticals are the freaking worst with that though. Heard about the new Hep C pill? Cures like 95% of cases, but a 3 month supply costs... Any guesses? over $90k. There was a competitor making a similar pill, but somehow they were allowed to be purchased by the company selling the $90k drug. Monopolies don't apply to medicines?



#86 zbarnwell

zbarnwell
  • 10 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 08:33 PM

Let me put it in simple terms. Scientists/doctors don't spend billions of dollars to come up with vaccines for the fun of it. They are definitely worth it in my opinion! :)



#87 Jayqwelin

Jayqwelin
  • 14 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 March 2015 - 10:14 AM

That link has nothing to do with vaccine's per se, it's about possible corruption or at least poor adherence to ethical procedures by the CDC. You don't have to read more than a couple pages to figure out what the document is about. Conflicts of interests have to be declared in any kind of situation where the public interest is involved - it doesn't have to be the CDC, it could be your municipal government, your local school board, or projects involving tax money. What that document shows is that the CDC has been lax with ethical procedures. It has nothing to do with doctors, unless these doctors are responsible for CDC oversight of SGEs (special government employees) or are the SGEs themselves, which in either case, these doctors probably wouldn't be practising medicine anyways (SGEs sit on committees). It's only tangentially related to vaccine safety. Besides, if you're really sceptical about any kind of vaccine, you might as well just google about evidence concerning its side effect. Any doctor worth his salt will be willing to discuss with you the knowledge available on the safety and efficacy of the treatments he's offering you.

 

The point is, vaccines are generally good because they offer immunity to diseases at an individual and population level. Not all vaccines are safe, because vaccines are like any other product - they have to be designed and refined and for many vaccines there's still research that have to be done. Not all vaccines are safe for all people, because they can be inappropriate for certain hypersensitive individuals or those with weakened bodies from illnesses. But it's a bit like driving a car - you shouldn't drive a car if you don't know how to drive. Likewise, you shouldn't take a vaccine if a vaccine is not safe for you. But that's not to say that vaccines are not good for you.



#88 kadoatie

kadoatie
  • 284 posts

Posted 11 June 2015 - 04:00 AM

I believe that declining vaccines is a fucking slap in the face to science.

 

So many goddamn people used to die regularly and/or get disabled from polio, measles, tuberculosis, etc.  Vaccines have helped bring down the number of incidents significantly.

 

The spoiled housewives who refuse to vaccine their previous little ones claim they know more than scientists who have dedicated years to research, yet research has shown how effective vaccines are in preventing diseases and help saving lives.


Edited by kadoatie, 11 June 2015 - 04:01 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users