MABB v6.6.6

Vaccination: the moral imperative



Q: Polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about the H1N1 virus (swine flu), but also about the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine. Is it ethical to say no to this or any vaccine? Are there valid religious reasons to accept or decline a vaccine? Will you get a swine flu shot? Will your children?



Are there valid religious reasons to ignore the speed limit? Or to dump sewage in a river? Or to ignore basic construction safety principles in the design of a bridge or a skyscraper? Why is it that we can immediately see the absurdity of such an idea when applied to other areas of public health and safety but can happily entertain the thought, even for a second, when it comes to vaccines?



Perhaps it is to do with the religious notion that suffering is somehow part of a divine plan; that it is either ordained by God in order to punish us or to shape us in some other way, or it is simply the natural consequence of Adam and Eve and that pesky scrapple, and therefore in some never-to-be-adequately-explained way something we have deserved and which it behooves us to accept meekly. From this perspective to conquer a disease is to fly in the face of divine providence, it is to overreach ourselves and to meddle in the affairs of God.



In reality, however, I suspect that opposition to the H1N1 vaccine has less to do with religion and more to do with the widespread mistrust of scientific medicine: a stance which is as baffling to me as religious belief. Scientific medicine has transformed our lives and made the business of living safer, less painful, healthier and consequently longer than it has ever been in the whole course of human history.



When scientific medicine began to be introduced in the 19th century it met with resistance from some quarters, who felt baffled and bamboozled by remedies they did not understand: having a vein hacked open with a blunt and rusty knife and then having two pints of blood removed may have been painful, and may have left them feeling even weaker than before, but patients could see what was going on and they could understand it too: the theory of the four humors which had prevailed since the days of Ancient Greece was one that was easily visualized and, to minds totally innocent of scientific reality, it 'made sense'. They also took comfort in so-called remedies which had been handed down through the generations and consisted of foul concoctions made of newts' eyes, owl pellets and horse urine, among other delights: surely something that disgusting must be effective and, besides, if it was good enough for granny, even if she did end up dying of poisoning ... Such 'remedies' sat well with people's ignorance: the new therapies involving needles and injections and drugs did not. We fear what we do not understand.



But today we do not have the excuse that the uneducated masses had 150 years ago. Thanks to over a century of scientific medicine, the vast majority of us live longer than our forefathers could ever have imagined, and in a state of health and freedom from pain that they could only have dreamed of. Thanks to over a century of scientific medicine, very few of us (in the Western world, at least, where scientific medicine is most prevalent) now need to suffer the torment of seeing our children die before our very eyes. And thanks to over a century of scientific medicine, diseases which were once the scourge of mankind have been conquered, wiped out or dramatically curtailed.



The tragedy is that we have largely refused to educate ourselves about science and consequently the gap between its knowledge and our own has become ever greater. Our fear and suspicion of it have grown accordingly - and yet when it comes to irrationality in all its guises, we have cast all suspicion to the four winds and thrown ourselves on the mercy of quacks and mountebanks. Hence we barely raise an eyebrow when we find a well known television presenter using his position of influence to promote dangerously anti-scientific nonsense on the subject of vaccines: nonsense which we could have excused a hundred years ago but which is now simply the height of ignorant irresponsibility.



As a result of this sorry state of affairs, where people are regularly conned into believing that 'nature knows best', diseases which we once thought had been wiped out or weakened beyond the point of serious harm are now making a comeback. Thanks to a huge global immunization program, polio was on the point of being wiped out a few years ago: but then a combination of administrative failings and a campaign by Muslim clerics in Nigeria, who invented the disgraceful story that the vaccine was part of an American plot to make their children sterile, saw a huge drop in the number of children being immunized and a consequent steep rise in the number of polio cases; and not just in Nigeria, but in seven surrounding countries as well. In Nigeria alone, at least 257 children who might have led healthy, normal lives, are now paralyzed as a result.



Here in the UK, totally baseless fears about the safety of the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine led to a sharp decline in the number of parents having their children vaccinated: with the result that measles once more stalked our children's playgrounds and, tragically, once again started claiming infant lives: a horror which, thanks to vaccination, had previously become just a distant memory.



Vaccines save lives. It is as simple as that. And they do so most effectively when a community achieves what is known as 'herd immunity': when roughly 80% of a population is vaccinated against a disease and is therefore immune to it, even the remaining 20% are protected against it because they are less likely to come into contact with an infected individual. This puts a huge responsibility on those of us who take seriously our obligations to ourselves, our families and our communities, to ensure that we are in the 80%.



Vaccines are a matter of public health. If we refuse to be vaccinated it is not just ourselves we are endangering, but our children, our elderly parents, our neighbours, our fellow passengers on the bus and the pregnant woman in the queue at the supermarket.



Our moral obligation is so abundantly clear that surely even religion cannot prevent us from seeing it.

People who decline vaccinations can only directly affect other people who decline vaccinations. Of course, if they get sick with what they declined to be vaccinated for, it is on someone else's dime to care for them. The indirect effects can cause unnecessary troubles for others.

[quote name="Maddox"]I will never take the swine flu vaccine because I already have it; it's called my immune system, and it's badass.[/quote]

[quote name="Johnny"]Vaccination: the moral imperative



Vaccines are a matter of public health. If we refuse to be vaccinated it is not just ourselves we are endangering, but our children, our elderly parents, our neighbours, our fellow passengers on the bus and the pregnant woman in the queue at the supermarket.

[/quote]



this is an important notion. its the same deal with nicotine, alcohol, or any bad habit. how often does someone defend their apathy with "its my life, and my body."



first of all, statistics show that addicts tend to give birth to addicts. i imagine, (without scientific evidence of course) that when we give into bad habits we are literally (?) re-writing our genetic code? i don't know if its true, but at least a nod-worthy hypothesis.



and second, you were born into your body and your life by the universe. so, quite literally, its not your life or your body.



how does this effect the economy? we're pushing for universal health care. 1+1=2 right?

Yea.



Definitely.

anyone who takes the flu shot is an idiot, something really bad is behind this flu shot idea.

what now johnny? so much for your thoughts.

I will not take a vaccine. I don't believe in microchips and other things like that. I have not yet diagnosed skin allergy and rheumatic disorder. My doctors said it might make my immune system react in some insane way.

[quote name="KARMABLADE"]anyone who takes the flu shot is an idiot, something really bad is behind this flu shot idea.[/quote]

Oh shut up with your PROOFLESS BASELESS nonsense already.

[quote name="KARMABLADE"]anyone who takes the flu shot is an idiot, something really bad is behind this flu shot idea.[/quote]



why?

[quote name="Chaohinon"]
[quote name="Maddox"]I will never take the swine flu vaccine because I already have it; it's called my immune system, and it's badass.[/quote][/quote]

That's KARMABLADE logic.

I want swine flu.

Well you can't have it!



It's mine!

Redd, "I want swine flu." was your post #666.

archive

There is no archive.

[quote name="zim"]
[quote name="KARMABLADE"]anyone who takes the flu shot is an idiot, something really bad is behind this flu shot idea.[/quote]



why?[/quote]

i just sense the government having bad intetions with it.

its an unhealthy and immature fictitious delusion.

[quote name="cat hallucination"]its an unhealthy and immature fictitious delusion.[/quote]

oh my god

What... that I agreed with you? Fear over this vaccine is an unhealthy and immature fictitious delusion. You are correct, sir.

Some may consider "fictitious delusion" to be a manifestation of the double-negative.

[quote name="Johnny"]Some may consider "fictitious delusion" to be a manifestation of the double-negative.[/quote]



i was thinking the same. or an "oxymoron". but the manifestations that make a delusion problematic do appear in fictitious beliefs.

[quote name="Johnny"]Some may consider "fictitious delusion" to be a manifestation of the double-negative.[/quote]



i was thinking the same. or an "oxymoron". but the manifestations that make a delusion problematic do appear in fictitious beliefs.



[quote name="abzu"]What... that I agreed with you? Fear over this vaccine is an unhealthy and immature fictitious delusion. You are correct, sir.[/quote]



lol, i responded to this from your link to the this thread from the other thread. and then for a second, i thought it showed up on that thread, and i was about to make a quantum leap joke.



*edit* ignore my last post.

[quote name="cat hallucination"]its an unhealthy and immature fictitious delusion.[/quote]

no, its unhealthy and immature and stupid to believe the government when they say you need to take this.

i don't believe they are telling me that i "must take the vaccine." i won't get fined or sent to jail if i don't. when they tell me i must pay taxes, that's a different story. do you absolutely reject the advice in the first post? where are you from? i'd say if you're from a mid-eastern country, your skepticism might actually be more relevant. i'm from the u.s. our government is awesome.

KARMABLADE, you have Neurosyphilis.



General paresis of the insane.

[quote name="KARMABLADE"]
[quote name="zim"]
[quote name="KARMABLADE"]anyone who takes the flu shot is an idiot, something really bad is behind this flu shot idea.[/quote]



why?[/quote]

i just sense the government having bad intetions with it.[/quote]



What do you think the governments "bad intentions" are?

Basing your conspiracy theories around little things like vaccines, meanwhile Palestinians are having their lungs ripped out of their bodies thanks to phosphorus bombs that the U.S. sold to the IDF, is just a tad bit insulting and disingenuous

[quote name="Chaohinon"]Basing your conspiracy theories around little things like vaccines, meanwhile Palestinians are having their lungs ripped out of their bodies thanks to phosphorus bombs that the U.S. sold to the IDF, is just a tad bit insulting and disingenuous[/quote]



that's ndmg in a nutshell. stupid, delusional and gay

Oh good old propaganda



Yeah, you don't get your vaccine you're gonna totally get sick and die!11!11111111



Unless you've got a condition making it harder for you to fight off the flu or are very old or very young I don't think it's neccessary to get a vaccine, especially considering there is now a shortage.

Yeah, the media is just blowing this entire thing out of proportion anyway. Isn't the regular flu more fatal?

There have been like 114 deaths of children from H1N1 so I'm not sure, I'd think so though.

So far, the death toll says this is more fatal than the normal flu. Part of this, from what I've read, is due to our bodies being somewhat used to tackling the seasonal influenza, despite its mutations each year. 2009A-H1N1 is genetically different and we are not so used to it (unless you were alive in or before 1920 wherein you were exposed to the 1918 influenza which was genetically similar to this new one). Vis a vis, our immune systems are not as well equipped to cope with this influenza. This is not a huge deal if you are in your prime and healthy, as you have a very good shot of riding out the storm, so to speak. However, if you have underlying health problems, are pregnant (pregnancy diminishes the immune system so that the body will not reject the fetus in an immuno-response), or are either very old (but born after 1920, of course) or very young, you stand a good chance of dying. Case in point: the 40something children (last I saw the count) who have died of 2009A-H1N1 had no underlying health problems and were, before contracting said virus, perfectly healthy.



And for conspiracy nuts spouting the same garbage over and over: There is no squalene in this or any other modern US vaccine (it is an adjutant more common to European vaccines) and there is an option for a Thiomersal free version of the vaccine for those concerned with that particular preservative. A vaccination can NOT cause dystonia. The rate of people who developed GBS allegedly from vaccinations is the same (yes SAME) as the background rate of people who developed the syndrome on the whole (in other words, the same odds with or without a vaccine).

Mercury..How ya like them apples?



Frankly I'm not in the mood to research this shit anymore but if someone can tell me why mercury is even required in a vaccine it would be nice.

There were 33 deaths and more than 81000 sick in Ukraine in last two weeks. They still don't know what infection it is - normal flu, swine flu or other upper respiratory tract infection. Government closed all the schools. They don't have enough medicines, not only vaccines, they miss basic medicines too. There were gossips doctors diagnosed pague in some cases, but there is no official confirmation.

[quote name="mabb_"]Mercury..How ya like them apples?



Frankly I'm not in the mood to research this shit anymore but if someone can tell me why mercury is even required in a vaccine it would be nice.[/quote]

If you had even a modicum of knowledge of chemistry, you'd know there's a difference between methyl mercury and ethyl mercury. Methyl mercury is the stuff we think of when we think mercury in fish or mercury poisoning. Ethyl mercury, Thiomersal, while the same element, is a different compound with no established toxicity. In fact, you risk more toxicity eating fish.



Do you get dumber with each post? How ya' like them apples, incompetent?

[quote name="abzu"]So far, the death toll says this is more fatal than the normal flu. Part of this, from what I've read, is due to our bodies being somewhat used to tackling the seasonal influenza, despite its mutations each year. 2009A-H1N1 is genetically different and we are not so used to it (unless you were alive in or before 1920 wherein you were exposed to the 1918 influenza which was genetically similar to this new one). Vis a vis, our immune systems are not as well equipped to cope with this influenza. This is not a huge deal if you are in your prime and healthy, as you have a very good shot of riding out the storm, so to speak. However, if you have underlying health problems, are pregnant (pregnancy diminishes the immune system so that the body will not reject the fetus in an immuno-response), or are either very old (but born after 1920, of course) or very young, you stand a good chance of dying. Case in point: the 40something children (last I saw the count) who have died of 2009A-H1N1 had no underlying health problems and were, before contracting said virus, perfectly healthy.



And for conspiracy nuts spouting the same garbage over and over: There is no squalene in this or any other modern US vaccine (it is an adjutant more common to European vaccines) and there is an option for a Thiomersal free version of the vaccine for those concerned with that particular preservative. A vaccination can NOT cause dystonia. The rate of people who developed GBS allegedly from vaccinations is the same (yes SAME) as the background rate of people who developed the syndrome on the whole (in other words, the same odds with or without a vaccine).[/quote]



This was helpful. Thank you.

For fuck's sake.



Any particular "regular flu" (there are many of them) will not spread through the entire world's population, as they evolve slowly over the years. In a sort of "arms race" with humans. A combination of previously infected and previously vaccinated people mean the "herd immunity" is too high for this to happen. Some of the "regular flu" viruses may kill a higher percentage of those they infect, but because they can only infect very small numbers of people, there's no worldwide panic. There's just the yearly vaccine for at risk groups.



The point with Swine Flu, like the Spanish Flu in 1918, is that it formed by "mixing" of genomes of different flu viruses. This means it is a completely new virus, and nobody in the world has any significant immunity to it. This is what makes it a pandemic. We were just lucky in that it does not kill as high a perentage of those it infects as the Spanish Flu did. Like the "regular flu" viruses which are most likely to be fatal to already weakened people, so it is wth Swine Flu. Although, Swine Flu poses a risk to the entire world's population of already weakened people, rather than just small geographical pockets. That in itself is a reason for "healthy" people to be vaccinated. Sure if you get the virus, you may just be sick for a few days and not die. But you may pass it on to someone else, like your children, and they may die.



The main reason I think there is such a fuss is, as I said, pretty much nobody in the world has any significant immunity to it. We are lucky it doesn't kill many previously "healthy" people like Spanish Flu did, but now that the virus is out there, it will be evolving continuously in the "regular flu" way. The problem is that the virus does not need very much mutation at all to become massively more virulent. And that, combined with it's background ability to infect everyone, could cause a huge death toll.



If everyone got the vaccine, any such change in virulence of the virus would cause no more problem than a "regular flu" does. Because it then would not be able to spread globally. Even if the vaccine is against the present form, before it changes to become more deadly, the virus still would not be able to spread any more than a "regular flu".

[quote name="Johnny"]For fuck's sake.



Any particular "regular flu" (there are many of them) will not spread through the entire world's population, as they evolve slowly over the years. In a sort of "arms race" with humans. A combination of previously infected and previously vaccinated people mean the "herd immunity" is too high for this to happen. Some of the "regular flu" viruses may kill a higher percentage of those they infect, but because they can only infect very small numbers of people, there's no worldwide panic. There's just the yearly vaccine for at risk groups.



The point with Swine Flu, like the Spanish Flu in 1918, is that it formed by "mixing" of genomes of different flu viruses. This means it is a completely new virus, and nobody in the world has any significant immunity to it. This is what makes it a pandemic. We were just lucky in that it does not kill as high a perentage of those it infects as the Spanish Flu did. Like the "regular flu" viruses which are most likely to be fatal to already weakened people, so it is wth Swine Flu. Although, Swine Flu poses a risk to the entire world's population of already weakened people, rather than just small geographical pockets. That in itself is a reason for "healthy" people to be vaccinated. Sure if you get the virus, you may just be sick for a few days and not die. But you may pass it on to someone else, like your children, and they may die.



The main reason I think there is such a fuss is, as I said, pretty much nobody in the world has any significant immunity to it. We are lucky it doesn't kill many previously "healthy" people like Spanish Flu did, but now that the virus is out there, it will be evolving continuously in the "regular flu" way. The problem is that the virus does not need very much mutation at all to become massively more virulent. And that, combined with it's background ability to infect everyone, could cause a huge death toll.



If everyone got the vaccine, any such change in virulence of the virus would cause no more problem than a "regular flu" does. Because it then would not be able to spread globally. Even if the vaccine is against the present form, before it changes to become more deadly, the virus still would not be able to spread any more than a "regular flu".[/quote]



The truth has been told.

What the fuck happened to bird flu?

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="mabb_"]Mercury..How ya like them apples?



Frankly I'm not in the mood to research this shit anymore but if someone can tell me why mercury is even required in a vaccine it would be nice.[/quote]

If you had even a modicum of knowledge of chemistry, you'd know there's a difference between methyl mercury and ethyl mercury. Methyl mercury is the stuff we think of when we think mercury in fish or mercury poisoning. Ethyl mercury, Thiomersal, while the same element, is a different compound with no established toxicity. In fact, you risk more toxicity eating fish.



Do you get dumber with each post? How ya' like them apples, incompetent?[/quote]



If he knew anything about vaccines he'd know they don't use mercury at all anymore.



Also dead culture vaccines like the H1N1 vaccine are perfectly harmless. The live culture ones (like the nasal version) are where they use the neurotoxin (I'm drawing a blank on the name) that gives VERY FEW people some issues.

I don't know,that's why I asked,dickwads.

i dont give a sh*t

[quote name="seafoam"]i dont give a sh*t[/quote]



thank you for providing us with this vital piece of information. now that the puzzle is complete, we may finally solve the mysteries of the universe. let make take you trough a tour of all the achievements that were made possible by your fantastic theorem. btw, how do you come up with such a marvelous and ingenious idea? anyway, if you look through your right gay man's telescope, you may see general gleeso completing the superstring theory. with no hands, mind. how fascinating! further ahead, still on your right, you can see nokya getting the world rid of hunger. isn't it wonderful? magnificent, i would say. and all thanks to you! maaan, you're awesome. almost as awesome as captain Kirk. oh, now we come to the fun part. wait for it. waaaaait for iiiiiit. now, quick! look to your left. cool, huh? what?! you missed it?! after all my effort you didn't see me bitchslapping your mom for dodging that last cumshot?! okahoma slamma, u gay.

Thank you for your addition, Sir Gleeso.



Redd: You're welcome.

[quote name="Noyka"]If he knew anything about vaccines he'd know they don't use mercury at all anymore.[/quote]



In fairness, many US vaccines do still use Thiomersal (sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate, C9H9HgNaO2S) which metabolizes to ethylmercury, the non-bioaccumulate compound containing elemental mercury. People who rely more on stupid little youtube videos rather than actual research (read:fucking morons) mix it up with methylmercury.