and not stressed enough - is the recipient has to be in good health and not have a fever - not even a low grade fever in recent days and not be suffering from herpes simplex virus at the time.

Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 04:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Just a very rare but possible complication.

is that doctors are afraid too many parents wouldn't comply with all the vaccinations if they had to bring their child in for repeated appointments.

offer vaccination clinics in places like schools and shopping centers.

They could certainly make it easier than they do.

that if you do show a negative reaction, it's easier to pinpoint which vaccine was involved, and avoid just that vaccine in the future.

There is no reliable evidence that combining vaccines is itself any more problematic than having them individually, except for the point I just mentioned.

Certainly it's better to have vaccines spread out than not at all.

some countries delay vaccines for the first year after birth. but, unfortunately, children who are not breast fed the first year have less of the mother's immunities and are already vulnerable.

rather than from any of the individual vaccines.

Vaccines are designed to provoke an immune response. Too much immune response can cause autoimmune conditions.

it is harder to know which one caused the reaction.

Sid

They once posted that they consider Andrew Wakefield to be the Carl Sagan of his generation.



Sid

</johnny-carson>

However, since then AMAZON PRIME has featured Rachel Aviv's New Yorker magazine article on Tyrone Hayes in video format where he is acknowledged as a whistleblower. More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026102949#post42

Also since then (just for clarity or something) the name "Wakefield" has been disparagingly invoked by CDC officials and others in the media in practically every statement regarding the subject at hand. It's almost unreasonable until you wonder whether parents or other professionals are more influenced by that remarkable effort.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5532267
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=238426

How does that even happen?!

I know he was a famous astronomer and astrophysicist from Cornell. Created programs and wrote books for the general public on space. Correct? That's about it. Not my interest in the past, sorry, although I definitely might learn more someday.

GREAT relevant quotes from Wikiquotes:

"Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which ones best match the facts. It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom. We need wide appreciation of this kind of thinking. It works. It’s an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change. Our task is not just to train more scientists but also to deepen public understanding of science.
"Why We Need To Understand Science" in The Skeptical Inquirer Vol. 14, Issue 3 (Spring 1990)

"Science is (...) a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.”
Charlie Rose: An Interview with Carl Sagan, May 27, 1996.

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key."
"Wonder and Skepticism", Skeptical Inquirer 19 (1), January-February 1995, ISSN 0194-6730

"That kind of skeptical, questioning, "don't accept what authority tells you" attitude of science — is also nearly identical to the attitude of mind necessary for a functioning democracy. Science and democracy have very consonant values and approaches, and I don't think you can have one without the other."
Talk of the Nation (3 May 1996)

I still don't know how that happened. I remember learning about him when I was in school (granted, this was when the first Cosmos had aired). My child knows about him and said they've discussed him before in classes. Heck, in the past year he's been discussed quite a bit because of Neil Degrasse Tyson updating his classic series Cosmos. Cosmos aired on numerous networks and was considered to be one of the best series of the year by many critics.

Carl Sagan was beloved by many. He was a genius. His work still holds and he inspired many young boys and girls to further their studies in science. What I don't understand is why you would throw out a few random quotes by Sagan without understanding a bit about him or the context.

He was one of my idols growing up.

Neil Degrasse Tyson did a great job with the update and I really enjoyed it though, in the end, it wasn't Carl.

I would have been valedictorian if my small, private high school had had such a thing (or a prom, for that matter )

I would have loved a copy instead of constantly borrowing it from the library.

This poster will surely take back that comment, right?

The only name calling is for dumb shits who don't vaccinate their children.

Anti-Vaxxers are fucking morans. ...no hold on...I mean fucking douchebags.....no no...I mean... mental idiots...nope nope...that's not what I meant.... ok...I think I got it.... they are 21st century assholes.

Unquestionably, time will tell, won't it? Meanwhile, you might wish to temper your intolerance. You're including the vast majority of people from around the world in that "antivaxxer" mischaracterization if not being in 100% compliance with the 2015 US CDC Recommended Schedule is how you define the term.

That's ridiculous.

I see you.

didn't think so.

Thought so.

and she would have flown down to beat my ass if I chose not to vaccinate my child.

I worked for years in a state hospital. (Maybe that makes me a formal medical professional?) I saw patients not vaccinated for one reason or another whom contracted various diseases. It's sad and infuriating to think about what their lives would have been like if only they'd been vaccinated.

Is it a "bad dose"? Or is it just a fluke reaction the body has to a good vaccine?

Or do they not know?

Is there such a thing as a bad dose?

Pro vax here, btw. I just got my first flu shot ever. Figured I'm not getting any younger and now we have little kids in the building. Don't want to make them sick or get sick from those little petrie dishes if I can help it.

It's the same for anything foreign being introduced into the body, be it a regulated drug, a supplement, or even a food product. 100% safety cannot be guaranteed.

It may have been a specific component of one of the vaccines, or her body couldn't handle all of them at once. It's difficult to say.

This is not a case in support of not vaccinating. This was, as described, a very unfortunate accident.

And having two vaccine booklets filled, my guess is it was too much at once. I've had my shots spaced out a bit. Sickest I have ever felt after a vaccine was when I had to get eight all in one day.

which might affect the potency of the vaccine.

I think of things like this in terms of penicillin. When you think how many lives have been saved and put that against those who have died due to anaphylactic shock after taking it, can we say penicillin is a bad thing?

and just tell everyone to take penicillin instead of figuring out what is causing the issues and coming up with alternatives even though it is an exception rather than a rule.

There is no way you are going to make a vaccine or medication 100% safe for everyone 100% of the time.

There comes a point where the cases of bad reactions are so few, there is no justification to go back and say "Since there is a 1 in 10 million chance of serious injury, we should go back to the drawing board until we get this sorted out."

a kitty, and calling it a day is just a little closer to the "cost of doing business" mentality that all too often leads to dangerously detached and amoral recklessness that rolls over the actual human beings.

I said to keep exploring possibilities while continuing to vaccinate and I'm not going to back off or apologize for thinking that way even if it introduces economic inefficiency or complicates the narrative.

In many facets of life, medicine being one, it is important to maintain perspective.

That is why I brought up penicillin. There are approximately 400 deaths in the US annually due to penicillin allergy, but in the larger picture it has been a true wonder drug. It is small comfort to those who are seriously injured by it however.

In these days where information is so prolific, a certain detachment is necessary because we often get bogged down in the anecdotal or rarity.

It doesn't diminish my empathy toward what this couple has gone through.

It was referring to the odds being against having such an extremely bad reaction. She was the one that hit the "bad luck jackpot" I was referring to.

The compensation was irrelevant to point I was making.

That is known to carry more risk of neurological reactions than most vaccines do, and caution is recommended especially for children and people over 60. Obviously, it is more dangerous to get the yellow fever itself!

Do you still think vaccines cause autism?

Check it out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5507853

What are you going to pay to all those who die and suffer disabilities in your fantasy world where vaccines do not exist?

You repeatedly post things with bogus claims, and multiple links, most of which have nothing to do with the claims you make. Your anecdote here does not change the very clear reality that vaccines are safe and effective. You are promoting death and disease. Either stop doing so, or own it.