Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Beck And The Fringe View Of Pandemic Flu (382 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I oppose even religious exemptions. (5+ / 0-)

    So there you go.

    I think it's much more unethical to allow diseases that threaten the public health to spread by allowing people to opt out for nebulous, subjective reasons (such as religion, "personal", or "philosophical" reasons) than it is to force it on people. I do, of course, support exemptions for medical cause as determined by a doctor. I also think it's different for children vs. adults: I think there should be a much more stringent requirement placed on children, since they don't deserve to suffer merely because their parents are silly (it should be considered child neglect to not vaccinate).

    (Short of actual force, I would at least very highly pressure  to get vaccinated and vaccinate their children, maybe by taking away major tax credits (e.g., child tax exemption), etc for not vaccinating for a silly reason.)

    I don't believe that people should have absolute autonomy over whether to get these things when other people can't receive them for medical reasons and are threatened by the lack of herd immunity. Immunocompromised people, for example, depend on everyone else having received vaccinations.

    I realize that the "popular" thing now seems to be to accommodate people who have silly "concerns" about vaccines. So I realize some people will disagree with me on this. But I don't think that pretending that the emotional reasoning of people who fear vaccines is valid is going to help the situation.

    •  Will You Pay for My Care? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mzinformed

      A close friend now living in Florida got a ("regular") flu shot a couple of years ago.

      He suffered an onset of G-B syndrome, causing partial paralysis below the waist.

      His doctor told him -- and I can't vouch for the medical information, but I'd suppose the doctor knows better than I do -- that G-B is suspiciously prevalent in people who grew up in New Jersey in the 1950s and were given dearly versions of one of the two major polio vaccines, I forget which.

      Since my friend and I are the same age, and grew up in the same town, and I had both the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines, I suspect I am at increased risk of G-B from flu shots.

      Plus, the N1N1 vaccine is being rushed to market, its efficacy is unproved and legitimately open to doubt, it contains toxic substances, AND THE MAKERS HAVE BEEN IMMUNIZED BY CONGRESS FROM LAWSUITS if it harms you, or kills you.

      So, dear "public health" posters:  if I had the shot, and became paralyzed, would you be willing to contribute to my future support?  Then STFU over my private medical choices.  Unless there is clear, convincing and and convincing evidence of the efficacy and safety of any vaccine AND the infectious disease in question is both highly lethal and highly contagious, there isn't even an argument in favor of forcing people to have it.

      •  We will pay for your care, yes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stitchmd

        There is a government vaccine industry compensation program for precisely that reason. It's very misleading of you to whine about the government immunizing the vaccine makers from lawsuits without mentioning that the reason for that is that a government program has assumed responsibility for compensating victims in lieu of that.

        So yes, I'm perfectly willing to contribute to your future support, if you can demonstrate that you were injured by a vaccine (I think the injury compensation fund is funded by fees from the vaccine members, but I don't remember the details. Regardless, a little piece of it gets passed on to everyone).

    •  My concern is that the CDC (0+ / 0-)

      is actually recommending that immunocompromised people be first in line for the shot even though the safety of the vaccine hasn't been tested in those people.  

      Who will be recommended to receive the 2009 H1N1 vaccine?
      CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended that certain groups of the population receive the 2009 H1N1 vaccine when it first becomes available. These target groups include pregnant women, people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age, healthcare and emergency medical services personnel, persons between the ages of 6 months and 24 years old, and people ages of 25 through 64 years of age who are at higher risk for 2009 H1N1 because of chronic health disorders or compromised immune systems.

      We do not expect that there will be a shortage of 2009 H1N1 vaccine, but availability and demand can be unpredictable. There is some possibility that initially the vaccine will be available in limited quantities. In this setting, the committee recommended that the following groups receive the vaccine before others: pregnant women, people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age, health care and emergency medical services personnel with direct patient contact, children 6 months through 4 years of age, and children 5 through 18 years of age who have chronic medical conditions.

      Link

      Contrast that with part of the exclusion criteria used in the clinical trials of the pediatric H1N1 vaccine:

      Have immunosuppression as a result of an underlying illness or treatment, or use of anticancer chemotherapy or radiation therapy (cytotoxic) within the preceding 36 months

      Have long term use of glucocorticoids including oral, parenteral or high-dose inhaled steroids (>800 mcg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate or equivalent) within the preceding 6 months. (Nasal and topical steroids are allowed.)

      Have an acute or chronic medical condition that, in the opinion of the investigator, would render vaccination unsafe, or would interfere with the evaluation of responses

       Link  Link

      Can you understand why this is confusing and why it damages trust between parents of chronically ill children and medical professionals?  Can you understand why I want to be able to make this decision for my daughter without having to obtain an exemption "for medical cause as determined by a doctor"?

      I have yet to meet a doctor who is not dismissive of my concerns about vaccine safety even though my daughter has a chronic autoimmune disorder treated with steroids and has an abnormal immune system including no thymus gland and low IgG and IgA levels.

      I have only recently learned that I should be cautious in allowing her to be vaccinated because I have read what some of those people with "silly 'concerns'" have written.  To me it feels like you're really trivializing parents' concerns and I can only assume that is because you don't have any real life experience with this.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site