Canada vaccine awareness programs

[DogmaHunter]

This is how it should be. It sounds as if people are trusted to make their own health decisions there, and I'm sure many have chosen both ways. That said, haven't heard of any massive outbreaks in Belgium so that must be working for them.

I just told you that nobody is asked and thus nobody is actually really given a choice.
They just tell you "today, shots against bla and bla" and then they vaccinate. At no point is it being asked.

And again, I'm not actually sure if it is mandatory or not.
I think the bigger point is how this is received in our culture. The fact that I don't even know if it is mandatory should speak volumes already... It shows how the vast majority doesn't even consider the option of NOT vaccinating. People understand that it would be extremely irresponsible to not have your children vaccinated.

In fact, they daycare center where my son went to before starting school, literally had as a rule that the child MUST be vaccinated against <insert list of deseases>, or (s)he wasn't allowed to attend.

Nobody notices that in the contract, because everybody considers it a given that children are in fact vaccinated against everything they are adviced to be vaccinated against.


I wouldn't have a problem at all with it being a law to make it mandatory. None at all. In fact, I think it would likely be a good thing, to protect some children against the wacky beliefs of their parents.

 

[USincognito]

Sorry. Somehow I responded to you instead of the proper person. This site is not easy to navigate well in terms of response to others. Well, perhaps the person will read the thread. Not picking back through it now, but the response I got was a non-sequitur.

Straw men ARE popular here, by the way.

Cool. That's what I was thinking.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh, I see. Lol. If a "real doctor" like the neurologist who testified here supports the case that a vaccine might have damaged someone, then that doctor is to be dismissed, because he must be emotional, not logical.

Goodness. The neurologist - AND Hannah's legit Doctor/nurse parents must be rejected as illogical if they step outside the party line. That's truly ridiculous.

Yes, I am fully aware that there was a rush by the Offit crowd to limit this decision to thread-width narrow grounds due to the financial implications involved.

Come on. At least admit that you aren't willing to even examine the other side. I am willing to examine all sides of an issue.

But hey, Canada....do what you want. So long as the right to bodily integrity is retained, I'm good with whatever one chooses to do in an effort to preserve his own health.

You're projecting the behavior of anti-vaxxers on to the pro vaccine people in efforts to make it seem like we're the illogical ones and and unwilling to consider the other side.

Fact of the matter is, the anti-vaxxer side doesn't have much to consider. There's no respected research indicating that there's any causal link between vaccines and autism. The evidence is almost exclusively anecdotal, or misrepresentation of various court case rulings.

For the record, yes, if a doctor says something that's completely at odds with established medical science, and doesn't have any proof other than anecdotes, the they should be dismissed.

There are certain times that a doctor might "step outside the lines" and be right. For instance, the doctor who discovered that ulcers were actually caused by a particular strain of bacteria (and not stress) was going completely against the grain. However, the major difference is, he formed a hypothesis, tested it, submitted it for peer review, and was able to consistently recreate it under controlled settings in order to convince the medical community. (The way things should be done, via the scientific method)

If the anti-vaccine crowd has an "outside the box" theory about this, then why haven't the done the same? The initial Wakefield paper was written in 1998...it's been 20 years...what's the hold up? Why haven't they reproduced this under controlled lab settings to prove their hypothesis? To date, the only thing that's been produced are anecdotes.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I just told you that nobody is asked and thus nobody is actually really given a choice.
They just tell you "today, shots against bla and bla" and then they vaccinate. At no point is it being asked.

And again, I'm not actually sure if it is mandatory or not.
I think the bigger point is how this is received in our culture. The fact that I don't even know if it is mandatory should speak volumes already... It shows how the vast majority doesn't even consider the option of NOT vaccinating. People understand that it would be extremely irresponsible to not have your children vaccinated.

In fact, they daycare center where my son went to before starting school, literally had as a rule that the child MUST be vaccinated against <insert list of deseases>, or (s)he wasn't allowed to attend.

Nobody notices that in the contract, because everybody considers it a given that children are in fact vaccinated against everything they are adviced to be vaccinated against.


I wouldn't have a problem at all with it being a law to make it mandatory. None at all. In fact, I think it would likely be a good thing, to protect some children against the wacky beliefs of their parents.

Apologies....I misunderstood you from the first two sentences, and must not have absorbed the last one. Sorry.

The schedule changes frequently, adding more and more in greater combinations, and that is a reasonable concern for parents, I think.

My mother got one vaccine. Today, it's about 40, and children have many health problems and allergies that just weren't prevalent before. I wonder what connection exists, if any.

 

[loveofourlord]

Apologies....I misunderstood you from the first two sentences, and must not have absorbed the last one. Sorry.

The schedule changes frequently, adding more and more in greater combinations, and that is a reasonable concern for parents, I think.

My mother got one vaccine. Today, it's about 40, and children have many health problems and allergies that just weren't prevalent before. I wonder what connection exists, if any.

why would it be a concern? Children get many times the ingredients of a vaccine just in their daily lives. A kid playing in the background will get more bacteria and germs in his body then all the vaccines combined. The vaccine schedule is based upon when the child is most susceptable to it and most likly to encounter, changing the schudule puts the child at risk for the very diseases the vaccine is supposed to prevent.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

You're projecting the behavior of anti-vaxxers on to the pro vaccine people in efforts to make it seem like we're the illogical ones and and unwilling to consider the other side.

Fact of the matter is, the anti-vaxxer side doesn't have much to consider. There's no respected research indicating that there's any causal link between vaccines and autism. The evidence is almost exclusively anecdotal, or misrepresentation of various court case rulings.

For the record, yes, if a doctor says something that's completely at odds with established medical science, and doesn't have any proof other than anecdotes, the they should be dismissed.

There are certain times that a doctor might "step outside the lines" and be right. For instance, the doctor who discovered that ulcers were actually caused by a particular strain of bacteria (and not stress) was going completely against the grain. However, the major difference is, he formed a hypothesis, tested it, submitted it for peer review, and was able to consistently recreate it under controlled settings in order to convince the medical community. (The way things should be done, via the scientific method)

If the anti-vaccine crowd has an "outside the box" theory about this, then why haven't the done the same? The initial Wakefield paper was written in 1998...it's been 20 years...what's the hold up? Why haven't they reproduced this under controlled lab settings to prove their hypothesis? To date, the only thing that's been produced are anecdotes.

No, I am stating what is occurring here.

If you want to call the decision to compensate damaged children "a misrepresentation of various court rulings", then go ahead, but understand that this is your spin on it. Not fact. I'm only interested in what is actually happening, not "sides". I don't care about labels and I don't care about sides or "crowds". I care about truth.

Numerous cases have now been paid out. "Anecdotal evidence" seems to abound. One or two is an anomaly. Hundreds or thousands of nearly identical factual situations occurring are a pattern.

We pull lettuce or Tylenol, or a variety of products immediately from the market at the first sign someone might have been sickened or it is even a remote possibility.

With HUMAN CHILDREN, we just shrug and say it's really too bad about the collateral damage, but hey, it wasn't my kid. There is something wrong with this.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, I am stating what is occurring here.

If you want to call the decision to compensate damaged children "a misrepresentation of various court rulings", then go ahead, but understand that this is your spin on it. Not fact.

Not, this is not my "spin", this is what the ruling court, itself, released for clarification.

These are their words, not mine:
Per my previous post->
I am well aware, of course, that during the years since the “test cases” were decided, in two cases involving vaccinees suffering from ASDs, Vaccine Act compensation was granted.
But in neither of those cases did the Respondent concede, nor did a special master find, that there was any “causation-in-fact” connection between a vaccination and the vaccinee’s ASD. Instead, in both cases it was conceded or found that the vaccinee displayed the symptoms of a Table Injury within the Table time frame after vaccination. (See Section I above).

In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury–not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD. See Poling v. HHS, No. 02-1466V, 2011 WL 678559

The compensation of these two cases, thus does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism. In setting up the Vaccine Act
compensation system, Congress forthrightly acknowledged that the Table Injury presumptions would result in compensation for some injuries that were not, in fact, truly vaccine-caused. H.R. Rept. No. 99-908, 18, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6359.


Again, me saying that people are misrepresenting what court rulings actually mean isn't my spin, the ruling court, itself, released that statement to clarify...precisely because anti-vaxxers were misrepresenting what the ruling actually meant.

Unless you're claiming to know the intent of the court, better than the court itself, you're going to have to concede on that particular point.

Numerous cases have now been paid out. "Anecdotal evidence" seems to abound. One or two is an anomaly. Hundreds or thousands of nearly identical factual situations occurring are a pattern.

Again, please read the statement released by the court that made the rulings...

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, I am stating what is occurring here.

If you want to call the decision to compensate damaged children "a misrepresentation of various court rulings", then go ahead, but understand that this is your spin on it. Not fact. I'm only interested in what is actually happening, not "sides". I don't care about labels and I don't care about sides or "crowds". I care about truth.

Numerous cases have now been paid out. "Anecdotal evidence" seems to abound. One or two is an anomaly. Hundreds or thousands of nearly identical factual situations occurring are a pattern.

We pull lettuce or Tylenol, or a variety of products immediately from the market at the first sign someone might have been sickened or it is even a remote possibility.

With HUMAN CHILDREN, we just shrug and say it's really too bad about the collateral damage, but hey, it wasn't my kid. There is something wrong with this.

Here's where you post evidence showing that "hundreds of thousands of children" have been "damaged" as the result of vaccination.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

That's a false portrayal of the situation.

Look at the amount that any large business pays out in settlements every year to people making bogus claims. It's a significant amount...

In many cases, settling out of court is far cheaper than the costs associated with a full blown trial, whether you're actually in the wrong or not. The auto insurance industry pays out millions per year (maybe more) in settlements for cases they could technically win if they actually took it to court. Why?, because it's cheaper to just cut a $5k check to an ambulance chaser than pay several times that in court & legal costs trying to fight it in many cases.

The automotive industry doesn't have legislation protecting it from the legal process, but we still have an automotive industry. Why? Because the ones left in business are legitimate vendors of vehicles - not selling products that have undisclosed dangers.

If vaccine manufacturers did not have special legislation protecting them from the legal process, this would be a significant step in reducing the suspicion with which they are viewed by anti-vaxxers. In my view, this protection will never be taken away, because if it is, vaccine manufacturers will be sued out of existence for selling drugs that cause significant harm to the users - more harm than any good such drugs are claimed to provide.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The automotive industry doesn't have legislation protecting it from the legal process, but we still have an automotive industry. Why? Because the ones left in business are legitimate vendors of vehicles - not selling products that have undisclosed dangers.

If vaccine manufacturers did not have special legislation protecting them from the legal process, this would be a significant step in reducing the suspicion with which they are viewed by anti-vaxxers. In my view, this protection will never be taken away, because if it is, vaccine manufacturers will be sued out of existence for selling drugs that cause significant harm to the users - more harm than any good such drugs are claimed to provide.

Please post the scientific studies that demonstrate that vaccines cause "more harm then good".

 

[Paidiske]

In my view, this protection will never be taken away, because if it is, vaccine manufacturers will be sued out of existence for selling drugs that cause significant harm to the users - more harm than any good such drugs are claimed to provide.

If that were true, vaccine manufacturers would not be able to function effectively in countries without such legislation, but in fact, they do. I suspect that the need for this legislation is driven more by Americans having a culture of unnecessary litigation than the level of harm caused by vaccines.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

If that were true, vaccine manufacturers would not be able to function effectively in countries without such legislation, but in fact, they do. I suspect that the need for this legislation is driven more by Americans having a culture of unnecessary litigation than the level of harm caused by vaccines.

Or that the American legal system actually places a high value on human life, and therefore, on penalties for persons found culpable for the killing, damaging or disabling thereof.

Perhaps pro-vaxxers don't have a high regard for human life, so are prepared to sacrifice the IQ of most, the health of some, and the lives of others, for 'the greater good'. But even if the claims about vaccine benefits were true, which I dispute, I hold that the sacrificing a few for the good of the many is no different to the days of sacrificing virgins to the druids, in hopes that the many will receive a good harvest, or not be plagued by demons of sickness, or other bizarre and useless superstitions.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh good grief.

 

[Sam91]

Oh....

That is a minced oath and offensive. It is concealed blasphemy. I know you must be unaware of that or wouldn't say it.

Edit. I had to unquote the blasphemous part or I'm also doing it.

 

[Paidiske]

That is a minced oath and offensive. It is concealed blasphemy. I know you must be unaware of that or wouldn't say it.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I am not aware of it being offensive or blasphemous.

 

[Sam91]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I am not aware of it being offensive or blasphemous.

Yh I know. Most people don't realise. I'll pm you an explanation instead of derailing the thread.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Here's where you post evidence showing that "hundreds of thousands of children" have been "damaged" as the result of vaccination.

What I said was this: Numerous cases have now been paid out. "Anecdotal evidence" seems to abound. One or two is an anomaly. Hundreds or thousands of nearly identical factual situations occurring are a pattern. These are just the ones that are officially on record, not the multitude of other nearly identical stories that parents are relating in various media.

VAERS - Data Sets

The June 15, 2018 report states that 263 petitions were filed during the 3-month time period between 2/16/18 – 5/15/18, with 147 cases being adjudicated and 113 cases compensated.

The March 8, 2018 report states that 181 cases were adjudicated during the 3-month time period between 11/16/17 –2/15/18, with 142 compensated.

85 cases were listed in the December 2017 report (see below), specifying the vaccine, the injury, and the amount of time the case was pending before settlement.

More to see in the tables. That's just less than one year and what has been officially filed.

Vaccine Injuries and Deaths Compensated through Vaccine Court

https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667136.pdf
Begins:
Most of more than 9,800 claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (VICP) since fiscal year 1999 have taken multiple years
to adjudicate.

Since fiscal year 1999, HHS has added six vaccines to the vaccine injury table,
but it has not added covered injuries associated with these vaccines to the table.
This means that while individuals may file VICP claims for these vaccines, each
petitioner must demonstrate that the vaccine that was administered caused the
alleged injury. HHS is considering adding covered injuries associated with these
vaccines; but as of September 2014, it had not published any final rules to do so

Those are just those that were filed where the petitioners thought they had any reasonable chance at producing enough evidence. I think it's enough to take a serious look at vaccines, age, and combinations instead of the "nothing to see here folks, move along" attitude that is prevalent today.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I suspect that the need for this legislation is driven more by Americans having a culture of unnecessary litigation than the level of harm caused by vaccines.

Correct...and I as I posted numerous times to another poster. The ruling court (that ruled on the case that all of the anti-vaxxers prop up as their "proof", the Hannah Poling case), released a special statement to clarify things precisely because the anti-vaxxers were using that court ruling and misrepresenting what that ruling actually meant.

Here was the court's actual released statement on the matter (as an attempt to clarify things):
I am well aware, of course, that during the years since the “test cases” were decided, in two cases involving vaccinees suffering from ASDs, Vaccine Act compensation was granted.
But in neither of those cases did the Respondent concede, nor did a special master find, that there was any “causation-in-fact” connection between a vaccination and the vaccinee’s ASD. Instead, in both cases it was conceded or found that the vaccinee displayed the symptoms of a Table Injury within the Table time frame after vaccination. (See Section I above).

In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury–not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD. See Poling v. HHS, No. 02-1466V, 2011 WL 678559

The compensation of these two cases, thus does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism. In setting up the Vaccine Act
compensation system, Congress forthrightly acknowledged that the Table Injury presumptions would result in compensation for some injuries that were not, in fact, truly vaccine-caused. H.R. Rept. No. 99-908, 18, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6359.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps pro-vaxxers don't have a high regard for human life, so are prepared to sacrifice the IQ of most, the health of some, and the lives of others, for 'the greater good'.

...as I've already covered, even if we operate on the false premise that every single claim of "the bad thing happened because of the vaccine" is 100% valid beyond a shadow of a doubt, the numbers of people who die and are hospitalized every year by the flu still dwarf that number.

Even if you wanted to 100% believe every parent truly knows what caused their child's issue (which they don't, there's an abundance of evidence and cases that prove that...but none the less), the numbers are still not in your favor.

A one in a million chance of getting autism is still a preferable risk to the odds of dying from the flu, and is certainly preferable to the odds of contracting polio based on the numbers we saw pre-polio vaccine.


...but that still bring us back to a square one issue, that's a glaring flaw in the camp of the anti-vaxxers. That being, they consistently fail to hold their own side's study and research to the same level of that of the pro-vaxxer side. No matter which study you present, they've always got a reason why it's wrong or can't be trusted. They haven't this impossible standard for what would be acceptable for studies concluding that vaccines are safe. Yet, not a single study or piece of research they cite even comes remotely close to meeting that impossible standard they set for their opposition.

We've seen it in this thread...no matter how well the study is conducted, it's always "well, big pharma this" and "well, we think there was a government cover up", etc... etc...

Yet, for their own side (in this thread), they've provided literally nothing but anecdotes, one very biased report where the cited "doctor" wasn't actually a doctor, but rather a chiropractor, a study that was so bad that even anti-vaxxer websites retracted it, and a gross misrepresentation of a court ruling that the court even clarified later that it didn't mean what the anti-vaxxers are claiming it meant.


Like with most conspiracies, people will weave this "n-th degree of bacon" logic to try to somehow prove that it's corrupt. "Well, the CEO of this drug company once took his car to a mechanic who was married to the cousin of a person who once was in a bowling league with someone who was a clerk at the FDA...so see, it's an inside job!"

...but when it's time to review the validity of their own claims, they're 100% convinced by a few Dr. Mercola articles & anti-vax blogs, and some anecdotes of parents claiming they're convinced their child's condition is the result of the vaccine.


I'll approach this from a different angle... provide me with one piece of evidence/research/study that meets the lofty standards you've set in this thread for "shooting down" the pro-vaccine research.

- Which means no links to any sites or sources that have affiliate sites that sell "natural supplements". If you can disqualify pro-vaccine research out of concerns of influence of "Big Pharma", then we can disqualify research based on concern of the influence of "Big AltSupplement" or as I call them "Big Placebo" (that disqualifies two links provided in this thread already)
- Nothing by any researcher who's already established an anti-vaccine bias or stance prior to their research project
- No court cases that have been specifically stated by the court to not confirm an ASD/Vaccine link (meaning the cases provided as examples that were paid out under the injury program don't count, as the court and congress already acknowledged with the way the law was written, it would end up paying out to several cases even if the issue wasn't caused by a vaccine)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Correct...and I as I posted numerous times to another poster. The ruling court (that ruled on the case that all of the anti-vaxxers prop up as their "proof", the Hannah Poling case), released a special statement to clarify things precisely because the anti-vaxxers were using that court ruling and misrepresenting what that ruling actually meant.

Here was the court's actual released statement on the matter (as an attempt to clarify things):
I am well aware, of course, that during the years since the “test cases” were decided, in two cases involving vaccinees suffering from ASDs, Vaccine Act compensation was granted.
But in neither of those cases did the Respondent concede, nor did a special master find, that there was any “causation-in-fact” connection between a vaccination and the vaccinee’s ASD. Instead, in both cases it was conceded or found that the vaccinee displayed the symptoms of a Table Injury within the Table time frame after vaccination. (See Section I above).

In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury–not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD. See Poling v. HHS, No. 02-1466V, 2011 WL 678559

The compensation of these two cases, thus does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism. In setting up the Vaccine Act
compensation system, Congress forthrightly acknowledged that the Table Injury presumptions would result in compensation for some injuries that were not, in fact, truly vaccine-caused. H.R. Rept. No. 99-908, 18, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6359.

You are using propaganda terms (anti-vaxxers here) and it muddies your argument. It's the same as calling people who consider abortions a decision made between the doctor and his patient "baby-killers". Or calling those who think that God ordained and established the meaning of marriage as "homophobes". Or those who believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms as gun-toting (add more perjoratives) instead of people who believe the Founding Fathers intended to protect people from an encroaching government (their position).

For example, if you are pro-life and wish to seriously engage with people who are pro-choice, you need to use their term, and not call them "baby-killers" or "pro-death".

Here, similarly if you want to engage with people who have legitimate concerns about the safety of the vaccine schedule, you need to refer to them appropriately.

Most are actually really not "anti-vaccine" at all. There are a few, of course, but many, many people are merely simply selective vaccine proponents, or spaced vaccine proponents, choosing to space them out and not abide by the demanded schedule, cramming them all in. They believe it is safer, and that is ok. Labeling them all "anti-vaxxers" is inaccurate and pejorative.