Vaccine Discussion Master Thread

[dudi]

I can see it now, a rabbi with black hat and jacket on sneaking into homes at night with needles and injecting kids with vaccines.

:-)
He made a statement right after that story that this doesn't mean that he will be doing what you just said but more explaining them that according to halachah they must be vaccinated

[IsraelGuy]

He gave a amazing very clear lecture very pro vaccination according to halachah and for moral reason very educational

Nice to see reports of someone doing good for the community.

[thaber]

Nice to see reports of someone doing good for the community.

He's given that speech before.  Gave it in la a few years ago.  Good for him,  and especially good for the people he convinced

[Tzafnas Paneach]

Oy vey my grandma forgot to get a chickenpox shot , call chevra kadisha ASAP

We are living longer due to vaccines .Grandpa born in 1915 years said he lived longer because in 1955 his grand kids got the polio shot

What's wrong with delaying shots  only till age 120?

I cannot believe you made a ddf account in order to post this as your first post?!?

[thaber]

I cannot believe you made a ddf account in order to post this as your first post?!?

doesn't even count as a first post.My guess this is an undercover DDF'er

[aygart]

I can barely figure out what he is trying to say. How does someone live longer because his grandchildren got the polio shot. I guess because they may have caught it and transmitted it to him.

[aygart]

I agree with you,but the Doc claims we live longer due to vaccines,this was the only way i could explain it

Either you find a better one, or Doc is a Duck

My dear friend Rabbi Tzafnas Paneach,is this the only mystery, you can't solve?

It is a good answer

[Tzafnas Paneach]

It is a good answer

You'll have to translate for me. Still completely lost. On the bright side apparently I have smecha now.

[aygart]

You'll have to translate for me. Still completely lost. On the bright side apparently I have smecha now.

sorry I can only explain what I wrote. Not sure what language he is using.

[zh cohen]

You'll have to translate for me. Still completely lost. On the bright side apparently I have smecha now.

If I understood correctly, he is saying that since his grandfather didn't die of polio, obviously vacines are worthless...

Also, his grandfather had grandchildren at the age of 40...

[aygart]

No vaccines work so well, that all non vaccinated seniors are living longer because their kids where vaccinated, beginning with polio 60 years ago

That makes sense.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

That makes sense.

[aygart]

how many fewer die each year from the flu? How many seniors caught diseases which are now mostly eradicated and are now reaping the benefits of vaccines given to those younger than them?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

how many fewer die each year from the flu? How many seniors caught diseases which are now mostly eradicated and are now reaping the benefits of vaccines given to those younger than them?

What statistics you want use? 

Sort of OT but why do they put fluoride in water?

[Tzafnas Paneach]

What statistics you want use? 

Sort of OT but why do they put fluoride in water?

To make it look blue. Obviously.

[aygart]

What statistics you want use? 

Sort of OT but why do they put fluoride in water?

not Paul Krugman

[username]

http://matzav.com/letter-rabbonim-schools-must-accept-non-vaccinated-children/

[noturbizniss]

but they won't sign a letter (albeit meaningless) standing up to abuse?  In addition the second point of the letter is blatantly wrong. ("The supreme court stated that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe"
http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

First, the Supreme Court has said no such thing. Second, in the law’s eyes, an unavoidably unsafe product is not a “super-dangerous” product.  Quite the opposite, an unavoidably unsafe product is a product whose tremendous benefits justify the reasonable risks it poses."

Unavoidably unsafe products: There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected. Since the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the marketing and the use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.

Saying a product is “unavoidably unsafe” makes it sound like the product is a bad one, when what the drafters meant was precisely the opposite: the comment was meant to apply only to ethical drugs or vaccines, i.e. where the benefits outweigh the risks.
In other words,  “unavoidably unsafe” is the opposite of “unreasonably dangerous” in the Restatement’s categorization. It justifies a more favorable treatment because of those products’ extraordinary benefits.

[henche]

but they won't sign a letter (albeit meaningless) standing up to abuse?  In addition the second point of the letter is blatantly wrong. ("The supreme court stated that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe"
http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html
Saying a product is “unavoidably unsafe” makes it sound like the product is a bad one, when what the drafters meant was precisely the opposite: the comment was meant to apply only to ethical drugs or vaccines, i.e. where the benefits outweigh the risks.
In other words,  “unavoidably unsafe” is the opposite of “unreasonably dangerous” in the Restatement’s categorization. It justifies a more favorable treatment because of those products’ extraordinary benefits.

What did the supreme court say?

Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

And here's a Forbes article about the decision. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2011/03/01/supreme-court-saves-childhood-vaccines-and-public-health/

Lemme point out something. All sorts of other products have side effects or risks and are sued all the time, but don't need a special exemption from lawsuits to be viable products. 

[noturbizniss]

What did the supreme court say?

Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

"The majority opinion in Bruesewitz expressly rejected the idea that by using the word “unavoidably” Congress meant to invoke comment k:

“… there is no reason to believe that [the Act] was invoking [comment k]. The comment creates a special category of ‘unavoidably unsafe products,’ while the statute refers to ‘side effects that were unavoidable.’ That the latter uses the adjective ‘unavoidable’ and the former the adverb ‘unavoidably’ does not establish that Congress had comment k in mind. ‘Unavoidable’ is hardly a rarely used word. Even the cases petitioners cite as putting a definitive gloss on comment k use the precise phrase ‘unavoidably unsafe product’; none attaches special significance to the term ‘unavoidable’ standing alone.”

The court is very clear: it’s rejecting the application of the term “unavoidably unsafe” to the Act.  Neither Congress nor the Court thinks vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” in the way vaccine critics mean to suggest.
... If the Supreme Court had applied this term to vaccines, it would have reaffirmed what most scientists and doctors know: the benefits of vaccines far, far outweigh their small risks.