There was a thread on the regular board recently, which started out as an attempt to mock some members of a political party that the OP does not like at all, but I have some questions of those in the medical field or otherwise about all this publicity.

Ok...I know what is occuring and I even know why, ie. the study that said do not get shots because it may cause autism. I got all that. I have tried to do my due diligence and read a bit on this.

1. Last year in an Amish community there were over 300 cases reported which accounted for over half of ALL cases last year. It was reported by not so mucn.

2. We have many news stories now about the vaccination process, etc. and I understand how it began, etc.

3. We are at a point where such grief is being spread through the media about schools not allowing children to come to school unless vaccinated. EVERY state in the union says you must get vaccinated, HOWEVER, 48 of the 50 allow for exceptions based on religion, etc.

4. Political folks are being asked about it and it is reported nationwide what they say, including the President of the US. In 2008 during the campaign it was a small issue but then, the study linking measles to autism had not been debunked as of yet.

5. Studies show that a formula is used to determine the percentage required to be vaccinated to call a disease non exsistant or not a threat.

Ok....questions....

If those children not allowed in school do not have vaccinations, who are the schools protecting if that means everyone else in the school was vaccinated ?

I read that the vaccine is 95% accurate thus who are we protecting or alarming with all this media discussion ?

WHY was this headlines news when a few political folks responded to questions about it ?

Not downplaying anything but just not getting how this fits in anyway into the political arena.

Children under one year old cannot be vaccinated - so those children not vaccinated put them at risk along with anyone that might have a weak immune system. These infants can be exposed to these children in any number of surroundings, it is not just an issue in school; however requiring vaccination as part of entering school is a good way to track this and hopefully immunize as many as possible.

Originally Posted by Guest

There was a thread on the regular board recently, which started out as an attempt to mock some members of a political party that the OP does not like at all, but I have some questions of those in the medical field or otherwise about all this publicity.

Ok...I know what is occuring and I even know why, ie. the study that said do not get shots because it may cause autism. I got all that. I have tried to do my due diligence and read a bit on this.

1. Last year in an Amish community there were over 300 cases reported which accounted for over half of ALL cases last year. It was reported by not so mucn.

2. We have many news stories now about the vaccination process, etc. and I understand how it began, etc.

3. We are at a point where such grief is being spread through the media about schools not allowing children to come to school unless vaccinated. EVERY state in the union says you must get vaccinated, HOWEVER, 48 of the 50 allow for exceptions based on religion, etc.

4. Political folks are being asked about it and it is reported nationwide what they say, including the President of the US. In 2008 during the campaign it was a small issue but then, the study linking measles to autism had not been debunked as of yet.

5. Studies show that a formula is used to determine the percentage required to be vaccinated to call a disease non exsistant or not a threat.

Ok....questions....

If those children not allowed in school do not have vaccinations, who are the schools protecting if that means everyone else in the school was vaccinated ?

I read that the vaccine is 95% accurate thus who are we protecting or alarming with all this media discussion ?

WHY was this headlines news when a few political folks responded to questions about it ?

Not downplaying anything but just not getting how this fits in anyway into the political arena.

You'd know how it became political if you acknowledged the recent absurd Measles comments made by Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz.

Originally Posted by Guest

You'd know how it became political if you acknowledged the recent absurd Measles comments made by Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz.

That is why I posted the original.....

WHY WERE THEY ASKED AND IT REPORTED SO LOUDLY ?

There have been several different accounts reported.

Rand Pauls remarks bothered me. Christie actually only restated existing policy in 48 of our 50 states. Cruz said and this is an excerpt...

"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told reporters Tuesday that the vaccination issue "is largely silliness stirred up by the media. Nobody reasonably thinks Chris Christie is opposed to vaccinating kids other than a bunch of reporters who want to write headlines." CBS News' John Nolen reports that Cruz went on to say, "This question has historically been decided at the state level. And most states choose to do what the state of Texas does which is to mandate vaccines for children to prevent the outbreak of infectious diseases." A statement he released noted that most states make exceptions for good-faith religious convictions, "But on the question of whether kids should be vaccinated, the answer is obvious, and there's widespread agreement: of course they should."

Election 2016: Potential candidates Rand Paul, Chris Christie weigh in on measles vaccine - CBS News

I find no fault with this statement at all.

Not sure I understand our media or headline writers...wow...

Anyway, my questions revolved around my questions which I posted here because someone tried to make it political on the normal thread so I thought I would save him the time of going right after the political aspect, WHICH I STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR SEE.

Anyone who is a member of the Armed Services is required to be immunized.
A child going into a public school has to be immunized regardless of citizenship status.
Maybe, Charter schools are exempt.
On a political note (I guess) I haven't seen such an uproar since flouride was added to the public water supply in the 50's.

politically speaking, i notice that the major networks never show the clip of robt kennedy junior talking about the dangers of the measles vaccine....selective outrage.

Originally Posted by Guest

politically speaking, i notice that the major networks never show the clip of robt kennedy junior talking about the dangers of the measles vaccine....selective outrage.

That is a great point. I find the "selective outrage" to be stunning recently.. All parties do and have done this same thing but in the last years, it is so without regard for what is best for our country.

There was a post on the regular board, prior to the new political, that was so sneaky and underhandedly political, I was in awe of the creativity to create an issue where none exists.

The reason this is political, and people running for office need to asked for their approach is because of the guidance it gives the voters with how a politician uses science in establishing policy. Freedom is such a buzzword on the right that it needs to asked where does Freedom end and the public good begin. When does well established science trump demagoguery from both extremes? Consider the Ebola issue we went thru just before the last election. One side screamed about lock them up, shut all the borders, no travel to or from Africa. The scientists and epidemiologists attempted to infuse some facts into the discussion about the real risks of spread, the virology, the lack of need for isolation of exposed but well persons. But many, including Christie, and others mentioned above decided to ignore the science.

Evolution is proven, Global climate change with a significant contribution by humans is proven, vaccines are important and do not cause autism is proven.

Robert Kennedy Jr has been roundly criticized by those on the left for his conspiracy theories and his belief in the dangers of vaccines when he was making those statements.

Originally Posted by Guest

The reason this is political, and people running for office need to asked for their approach is because of the guidance it gives the voters with how a politician uses science in establishing policy. Freedom is such a buzzword on the right that it needs to asked where does Freedom end and the public good begin. When does well established science trump demagoguery from both extremes? Consider the Ebola issue we went thru just before the last election. One side screamed about lock them up, shut all the borders, no travel to or from Africa. The scientists and epidemiologists attempted to infuse some facts into the discussion about the real risks of spread, the virology, the lack of need for isolation of exposed but well persons. But many, including Christie, and others mentioned above decided to ignore the science.

Evolution is proven, Global climate change with a significant contribution by humans is proven, vaccines are important and do not cause autism is proven.

Robert Kennedy Jr has been roundly criticized by those on the left for his conspiracy theories and his belief in the dangers of vaccines when he was making those statements.

HOWEVER.....ALL 50 states mandate vaccines and 48 allow exceptions

Do you expect politicians of any ilk to say it is not the LAW !!!

HOWEVER.....ALL 50 states mandate vaccines and 48 allow exceptions

Do you expect politicians of any ilk to say it is not the LAW !!!

I expect politicians to be able to explain the value of vaccines, to be somewhat conversant with the science behind the recommendations, to be able to clearly state that there is no relationship of vaccines to autism, and not to try to make everyone happy by saying nothing at all. I do not accept the "I am not a scientist" answer to answers about science when the politician has every reason to know that the issue is important and that science has a well established unilateral position on the matter. I am bewildered by your reply about politicians saying it is not the LAW. No politician has suggested anything about the law in the recent discourse. The question being directed at the potential 2016 candidates is about the wisdom of not vaccinating children. Dr. Paul has admitted he did not follow the recommended vaccine schedule with his own children although he did vaccinate.

I appreciate that Doctor Ben Carson was the only one that had the guts to mention the illegal immigrants coming into the country not being screened properly for this disease.
One of the things I appreciate the most about Dr. Carson is he calls it like he sees it without regards to being PC; however, always in a respectful manner.

Originally Posted by Guest

I expect politicians to be able to explain the value of vaccines, to be somewhat conversant with the science behind the recommendations, to be able to clearly state that there is no relationship of vaccines to autism, and not to try to make everyone happy by saying nothing at all. I do not accept the "I am not a scientist" answer to answers about science when the politician has every reason to know that the issue is important and that science has a well established unilateral position on the matter. I am bewildered by your reply about politicians saying it is not the LAW. No politician has suggested anything about the law in the recent discourse. The question being directed at the potential 2016 candidates is about the wisdom of not vaccinating children. Dr. Paul has admitted he did not follow the recommended vaccine schedule with his own children although he did vaccinate.

Does not matter what you expect !!!

The situation is pretty clear. IT IS A STATE LAW IN 50 STATES THAT YOU MUST GET VACCINATED, AND IN 48 OF THEM THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.

To change anything, EACH STATE legislature must propose a change or tighten up the law. No many Presidential candidates or Senators get involved in STATE LAW.

Originally Posted by Guest

I appreciate that Doctor Ben Carson was the only one that had the guts to mention the illegal immigrants coming into the country not being screened properly for this disease.
One of the things I appreciate the most about Dr. Carson is he calls it like he sees it without regards to being PC; however, always in a respectful manner.

I agree with you 100% on this. The more I read and hear about him, the more I'm impressed.

How would Dr Carson suggest we screen illegal immigrants for measles? Is he aware that Measles is not a problem in Central America? In fact as he should know, measles is much more likely to be imported from Asia and Europe. So the fact if your representation is true that Dr Carson chose to mention illegal immigration and measles in the same sentence is not courage but wrong on the facts. I cannot find Carson's words and perhaps you can post a link. The only thing I find is that he said this is not a political issue. If it is not then why did he feel the need to mention immigration, a highly political flashpoint, in his discussion of vaccines?

Dr. Carson suggested there was a possible link - he did not say they were the cause. And you can been tested to determine if you have been vaccinated for measles and many other contagious disease.