Wouldn't it be mildly interesting to know who among us is alive today because of vaccination?

[HuckleB]

I'd buy a "I'm Alive Thanks To Vaccination" t-shirt.

Hell, I probably should do that, anyway.

[kestrel91316]

1. We have no way of knowing, but it's a pretty safe bet that, without

herd immunity improvements most of us have seen in the past 50 years combined with our ever-greater population density, epidemic diseases would be unimaginably awful, frequent, and deadly.

[HuckleB]

2. Indeed.

Of course, population density might not be such an issue without vaccines.

Just saying.

:hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I think I'm alive and kicking because of the polio vaccine.

Sometime around 1952 or '53 my aunt in Florida contracted polio. We had been vacationing with her, and she was just getting sick with what she thought was the flu when we left to drive back to Ohio. We got the call when we got home that she was in the hospital and they didn't expect her to live through the night. The Salk vaccine was just in the experimental stage then, but our doctor was able to get hold of some, and we went in the middle of the night to get shots.

(As it turned out, my aunt made what was called a "miraculous" recovery -- her hometown newspaper did a multipage article about her ordeal -- and she lived to an old age. Neither I nor my brothers got sick at all.)

[DearAbby]

4. I am alive today after being given the SWINE FLU vaccination

instead of being the gorgeous woman in a floral dress and big white handbag, I was a real Swine!

[HuckleB]

5. .

I'm not sure whether your post is interesting or the usual Internet anecdotal goofiness, but...

:hi:

[customerserviceguy]

6. Same here

I believe in vaccination, but that doesn't mean that I want to rubberstamp Rick Perry's crony capitalism with the folks who make Gardasil.

[HuckleB]

8. Thanks for the red herring.

[customerserviceguy]

9. You're the one who started this discussion from nowhere on vaccination

The only time I recall it being in the news recently was because of the Repuke debates, because of Perry's taking money from Merck. I get called an anti-vaccine type because I regard the whole business as messy.

Perhaps there is another reason you brought up this topic on a political board?

[HuckleB]

10. In other words, you're not paying attention to the news.

For example, the WHO is very concerned about measles in Europe. The HPV vaccine was just recommended for boys. The anti-vaxers have made several ridiculous PR moves in the past month. I could go on and on, but your red herring remains pointless.

[customerserviceguy]

11. You're right

I haven't been paying attention to measles in Europe. I don't seem to recall it crowding out the election or the economic news. My bad.

But the push to get Gardasil to boys is just a continuation of the crony capitalism that I decry, and since you mention this expensive treatment, you take my comments out of the irrelevancy status you tried to put it in.

[HuckleB]

18. It's called saving lives.

I'm sorry that bothers you.

In other vaccine news: http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20111127/chickenpox-vaccination-of-children-helps-protect-infants-too

And you do realize this is the health forum, right?

[customerserviceguy]

22. Ooops, my bad, again

You're right, I didn't see that I was on the health forum, I guess I need to cede it to people who want to see Big Pharma use government power to get rich. Sorry.

[uppityperson]

13. This IS the health forum. "started this discussion from nowhere on vx"?

Maybe you've missed influenza and the vx for it that is happening/being talked about now. Maybe you don't understand that this is the health forum, for matters relating to health?

[handmade34]

7. I'm alive today

because I chose to wear a motorcycle helmet :hi:

[CanSocDem]

12. I'm alive today...

...because my small community believed in the body's ability to develop its own immune system. Consequently when outbreaks of measles, chicken pox or mumps came around, nobody hid or rushed off to the local doctor for protection. We willingly contracted the disease and made ourselves immune for ever after.

Sorry to piss on your theory but sometimes your bizzaro beliefs get to me.

.

[trotsky]

14. Bizarro beliefs indeed.

I wonder what your "naturally"-developed immune system would do if you got infected with smallpox.

[CanSocDem]

15. Yeh...I wonder.

Probably I wouldn't get "infected".


.

[trotsky]

16. *SNORT*

:rofl:

[CanSocDem]

19. Oh sorry....

I forgot....in your world EVERYBODY gets sick.

.

[trotsky]

20. As opposed to your world...

where you only get sick when you don't wish hard enough for health.

[CanSocDem]

21. It has nothing to do with "wishing"....

But since this isn't the first time you have misrepresented my beliefs about staying healthy, I'll take a little time to respond. Usually I ignore your snide references to my faith in my body's ability to heal itself and the simple techniques required to affect this goal.

It's less of a mystery today than it was 35 years ago. More and more evidence is coming out proving that established medical practice isn't the all powerful tool that you grew up believing. Doctors and medical scientists acknowledge the efficacy of the placebo effect for one thing and natural foods appear to be more healthy than industrial processed food.

Instead of mocking these facts you should take a closer look and ask what are the consequences of these revelations. You should, logically, consider what you eat and what you use for medicine. If you get past this, consider what you think of yourself.

If you think well of yourself, eat the proper foods and have faith in your body's abilities you won't need the medical industry. If you choose to have medical issues that is how you'll spend your time and energy. It's your choice and you have reasons of your own for doing it this way.

Personally, I choose health because I have had medical issues and I prefer health over illness. That's how I spend my time and energy. If you haven't yet felt the power of your own beliefs, you will be susceptible to the endless messaging that is such a key component of the free-market. The free-market doesn't want you thinking for yourself or believing that you can manage without them. Mercy sakes, these days you and your fellow citizens are being brutalized by the free-market in so many areas that it is almost incomprehensible that you still cling to the myths.


.

[LeftishBrit]

25. 'If you think well of yourself, eat the proper foods, and have faith in your body's abilities then

you won't need the medical industry'.

'If you have self-respect, work hard and have faith in your own ability to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, then you won't need the welfare industry.'

How are the two sayings different?

'The free-market doesn't want you thinking for yourself or believing that you can manage without them'

What free market is doing this? The free market is not a single entity. The whole point of the free market is that it involves unregulated competition between different groups - and the weakest go to the wall. Do you mean that medical care is governed by the free market? In the USA it is, and that is disastrous. In the UK where I live, and in Canada where presumably you live, it is not. Your statement sounds much more like the typical free-marketeer, right-libertarian statement, 'The government doesn't want you thinking for yourself or believing that you can manage without them' - and indeed in our countries vaccines are promoted and provided by governments.

I agree that the second of your proposed actions - eating the right foods - *is* a very important aspect of health, though not the only one; and that healthy eating can reduce the amount of medical care you are likely to need. But 'thinking well of yourself and having faith in your body's abilities'? Thoughts and faith do not make you well or ill, except insofar as they may influence actions. If someone is blind, or physically disabled, will 'having faith in their body's abilities' make them see or walk? Why do you think so many people died young before modern medicine? Of course, a lot was due to poverty; but even kings and queens often died young from various diseases.

[CanSocDem]

28. How are the two sayings different?

Well...aside from them having different words, different meanings and wildly different intentions, not that much.

"the free market"/capitalism/corporatism all have one thing in common. They elevate private interests over the public interest. Is that too hard for you to understand?

" Do you mean that medical care is governed by the free market? In the USA it is, and that is disastrous. In the UK where I live, and in Canada where presumably you live, it is not."

Of course I was addressing the problems faced by the medical system in the USA until you attempted to bolster your POV by suggesting your own national health service and ours in Canada is free from the influence of the 'market place'. Services are being bought and sold. Over here, we call that a market place or "free market" if you prefer.

"Your statement sounds much more like the typical free-marketeer, right-libertarian statement, 'The government doesn't want you thinking for yourself or believing that you can manage without them' - and indeed in our countries vaccines are promoted and provided by governments."

Providing 'vaccinations' is a market place service. Just to be clear. 'Promoting' that service is a marketing tool. Do you think because you get it for free, nobody is making a profit...???

Do you feel all progressive and egalitarian because your government picks up the tab?? You seem to be suggesting that cost is the only concern; talk about free-market envy....!?!? Like your American cousins, the concept of QUALITY is lost on you.

The reason for this, I contend, is because the market place assumes that once the NEED is established, all that is left to discuss is the "cost" and who is picking up the tab. Since you're already convinced that there are outside forces creating "needs", I can see how you are unconvinced of your own self worth.

"Thoughts and faith do not make you well or ill, except insofar as they may influence actions. If someone is blind, or physically disabled, will 'having faith in their body's abilities' make them see or walk?"

Ever see a blind person walk down the street? Or a double amputee run a race? We could both take a lesson from these people in "having faith in their body's abilities"....These people clearly think well enough of themselves to keep moving...as opposed to, what you seem to be suggesting, sitting at home or in a care home, blaming their bad luck or looking to some institution to alleviate their percieved deficiencies.

Just so you know, I'm in favour of open access to institutional help. If, however, that help serves only to make the individual dependant on the institution, then I think the "help" is counter-productive. The institution of medicine is a case in point. The frantic, hysterical defense of its' methodology isn't about promoting health, it is about promoting the institution. Like how 'the church' reserves the right to spend your offering on who it deems most needy or worthy. They decide' as you put it, on who is "undeserving".

In my experience, I have concluded that each individual has the right to decide whether or not they are deserving of the abundance they seek. You apparently, do not.

The first step to becoming empowered enough to live a healthy life is to acknowledge that you deserve to be healthy. If you feel you are not worthy, chances are, good fortune will elude you. Liberating yourself from the constant messaging of the institute that makes a living selling ill health, is a good place to start. If, on the other hand, you are convinced that there are outside forces that stand between you and your good intentions, you might as well 'drink the Kool-aid' and accept whatever the 'outside forces' allow. That seems to be the general theme of this thread.

The "free-market" is, to many, an 'outside force'. Clearly the USA is most victimized by this belief. However, simply removing the market place doesn't solve the problem of ill health or lack of abundance. Social and commercial institutions will still be promoting their neccesity.

Schools that fail to deliver an education, food that lacks nutrition, tax systems and governments that subvert the public interest, and technology that serves only the 1%.....If this is your idea of a progressive society, I would suggest, again, that you re-consider your screen name.


.

[LeftishBrit]

29. I don't know where you get the idea that I would ever say or think that..

'schools that fail to deliver an education, food that lacks nutrition, tax systems and governments that subvert the public interest, and technology that serves only the 1%...' makes a progressive society.

However:

Ill-health is NOT a personal choice!

People who suffer ill-health are (except in very rare cases) NOT the architects of their own health problems. They are ill because they have the MISFORTUNE to be, and NOT because they have chosen to be!

While there are certainly things that one can do to increase one's chances of staying healthy (eat a balanced and healthy diet; don't smoke; etc.), health is NOT solely or even primarily a matter of personal responsibility!!!

'Ever see a blind person walk down the street? Or a double amputee run a race? We could both take a lesson from these people in "having faith in their body's abilities"....These people clearly think well enough of themselves to keep moving...as opposed to, what you seem to be suggesting, sitting at home or in a care home, blaming their bad luck or looking to some institution to alleviate their percieved deficiencies.'

What rubbish. I have NEVER recommended that people with disabilities should 'sit at home or in a care home' instead of being active. However, I would suggest that schools, colleges, workplaces, etc. should provide accessible buildings and other accommodations to people's special needs. I think that society has a duty to accept that there are some people (all people if you get old enough) who are not physical supermen, and who need help from OTHERS, whether individuals or social institutions, so that they are able to function and to contribute to society. E.g.: The British government has provided the 'disability living allowance' to allow for the fact that people with disabilities are likely to be put to greater expense in running their lives effectively; e.g. they're more likely to need to own a car or to take taxis. The government is currently seeking to cut this - which means that many people may indeed end up 'sitting at home or in a care home', NOT because they're incapable of doing more, and NOT because they have chosen not to do more, but because they're not given the resources that they need!


'If, on the other hand, you are convinced that there are outside forces that stand between you and your good intentions,'

Sorry, but the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between a liberal/left-winger and a right-winger of the Thatcher/ Reagan variety is that the former DOES believe that there are outside forces that can stand between people and their good intentions, whereas a right-winger thinks that anyone can succeed if they put their mind to it; that outside forces are just an excuse; and that outside help just serves to make people dependent and creates a 'dependency culture'. Left-wingers, for instance, believe in a welfare state that prevents or ameliorates poverty. Right-wingers believe that most poor people could lift themselves out of poverty if they made themselves work, stopped making excuses, and had the right attitude; and that welfare and 'coddling' just encourage weakness. And they usually think that the institutions of the 'bloated public sector' encourage such dependency because it keeps them business - just as you seem to think with regard to health providers.

Maybe you don't have this attitude to poverty, but you do to health; and despite your claim that the two are different, it's fundamentally the same: basically that misfortunes are due to individual choices rather than outside forces, and that people should take personal responsibility for them and not seek help from other individuals or institutions. And this is as far as I'm concerned one of the most cruel, dangerous and harmful attitudes in the world!

The real point is THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO GENUINELY CAN'T HELP HAVING PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO POVERTY OR ILL-HEALTH OR OTHER MISFORTUNES! And such people deserve help from society, rather than a demand to change their attitude or to make different 'choices'.

[CanSocDem]

34. Just guessing....

'schools that fail to deliver an education, food that lacks nutrition, tax systems and governments that subvert the public interest, and technology that serves only the 1%...'

...that you would see the relationship between institutional objectives that miss the mark despite noble intentions.

"Sorry, but the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between a liberal/left-winger and a right-winger of the Thatcher/ Reagan variety is that the former DOES believe that there are outside forces that can stand between people and their good intentions, whereas a right-winger thinks that anyone can succeed if they put their mind to it; that outside forces are just an excuse; and that outside help just serves to make people dependent and creates a 'dependency culture'. Left-wingers, for instance, believe in a welfare state that prevents or ameliorates poverty. Right-wingers believe that most poor people could lift themselves out of poverty if they made themselves work, stopped making excuses, and had the right attitude; and that welfare and 'coddling' just encourage weakness. And they usually think that the institutions of the 'bloated public sector' encourage such dependency because it keeps them business - just as you seem to think with regard to health providers."

I agree that there are social conditions that adversely affect an individuals existence. I make every effort to help individuals who want to change their life experience. Most don't really want to change despite their endless moaning about their present condition. If they did they would do something other than finding a sympathetic ear or a political philosophy that justifies their condition. They would focus on what they have, like the double amputee who runs on prosthetic legs,
but still wants physical competition and the psychological satisfaction of playing the game.

I'm a card carrying anti-war activist and I would do everything I could to dissuade an individual from going to war for any political or corporatist ideology, but I am deeply moved with admiration for those that go and return with broken bodies, yet have enough personal spirit to keep living with as much enthusiasm as they do. Clearly, not going to war would have been preferable from my point of view, but I fully accept the individuals choices. Same with those who are experiencing ill health. From my point of view, I would like everybody to have access to the tools that bring about good health. In my opinion, those tools aren't available from the medical industry. As long as you believe that they are, then you have my blessing to continue as you see fit.

I support your right to choose whatever path gives you the most satisfaction in your life. I hardly think that gives you the moral authority to condemn those on adjacent paths who are having different experiences, but still heading in the same general direction. This forum is about HEALTH; not a medium to celebrate the relative success of your every step. If you believe that YOUR particular road to wellness is the only one, then you haven't had enough experience or you lack respect for other people, and arrogantly mock their choices in life.

"The real point is THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO GENUINELY CAN'T HELP HAVING PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO POVERTY OR ILL-HEALTH OR OTHER MISFORTUNES! And such people deserve help from society, rather than a demand to change their attitude or to make different 'choices'."

I'm a tireless advocate of COMMUNITY. I emphatically agree that the community should take care of its weakest members and strive to elevate all members of the community. That's a far cry from allowing the medical industry or the fast food industry to come in and pretend to do my work with their sure-cure wonder drugs and low nutrition 'happy meals'.

Despite your self assurance that you're on the side of liberal progressives, this idea that large corporations can serve the needs of a "community" is right-wing corporatist nonsense. It does, however, free you up to promote their ideology on the internet.


(edit for spelling)

.

[trotsky]

27. What you just said confirms exactly what I did.

Wishing.

And this is just nauseating and anti-human:

"If you choose to have medical issues that is how you'll spend your time and energy. It's your choice and you have reasons of your own for doing it this way."

Yeah, right. Ted Kennedy CHOSE to get a brain tumor. This is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than the right-wing bullshit puke dreck about how the poor CHOOSE to be poor.

Foul, putrid, disgusting, rotten GARBAGE. Good day to you and YOUR myth. Very glad to expose it to the light of day once again so others can see the stomach-churning victim-blaming nonsense that you and lots of your anti-science brethren embrace.

[HuckleB]

36. +1,000,000,000,000

[LeftishBrit]

26. Whereas in yours, only the undeserving do.

[HuckleB]

17. Oh my.

:wow:

[Odin2005]

31. No use arguing with that one, she's a True Believer.

[LeftishBrit]

24. You wouldn't now, because vaccination has made it extinct

But if you really think that you have made yourself into some sort of Superman because of your reliance on your own immune system, and that others should do the same, then I don't see much difference between you and those who think that people succeed through *economic* self-reliance and that welfare only encourages poverty! You sound like a right-libertarian on health, just as Republicans are right-libertarians on money.

[LeftishBrit]

23. And lots of people AREN'T alive today because they got the diseases

You sound like the people who say, 'In MY community we stood on our own two feet and never asked for handouts from the government, and it made me the man I am today, and no else should get any help or welfare either!'

But maybe your living in a small community is in fact relevant. In a small community, there is generally a more limited set of diseases to which one needs immunity, than if one is meeting up with a wide variety of new people and their germs all the time.

[Odin2005]

30. What a load of horseshit.

Your views are disgusting and revolting, little different than the blame-the-victim "Secret" BS.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

33. That is one of the vilest, most fundamentally right-wing remarks that I've EVER seen on DU

Sneering at 'victimhood' is the essence of the harsh attitudes that epitomize the Right.

[CanSocDem]

35. Take a deep breath....and a step back.

Nobody was "sneering". It was an appropriate question and on topic. I do realize though that despite the vulgar bravado of some posters, they aren't really capable of looking in the mirror, when it comes to their personal motivations.

Are you...???

.

[trotsky]

37. Clearly it was not appropriate.

DU's mods have spoken.

Take a good long look in that mirror yourself.

[CanSocDem]

38. Coming from you....

"...just nauseating and anti-human:

.....right-wing bullshit puke dreck

.....Foul, putrid, disgusting, rotten GARBAGE

You can see why I'm not impressed.

.

[trotsky]

39. Yeah, I'm sure it's no fun seeing your words exposed for what they are.

I despise right-wing blame-the-victim filth and I call it as I see it.