Vaccinia Immunization-Pros and Cons

[BillHoyt]

Very recently, Israel conducted a mass vaccination program similar to the U.S. Strategy. 16,000 (15,000 healthcare workers, 1,000 military) were vaccinated. Just 2 severe reactions, neither fatal, were reported.

Source

 

[SteveGrenard]

This link actually works. Try reading the whole thing. Enjoy:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/pdf/smallpox-vis.pdf

 

[BTox]

Nothing new on the CDC link you provided, just a re-hash of what we've been saying.

 

[BillHoyt]

Link to Israeli effort source

 

[BillHoyt]

Steve,

To clarify our understanding of your position, would be so kind as to provide us answers to these questions:

1. Do you agree that CDC estimates 1 or 2 deaths per million vaccinees?

2. Do you agree that the 52 per million figure was actually the upper bound of the range 14-52?

3. Do you agree that the 14-52 per million estimate was for potentially life-threatening reactions?

4. Do you agree that this figure is further qualified as being amongst first-time vaccinees?

5. Do you agree that roughly 80 - 90% of Americans over the age of 35 would not be first-time vaccinees?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Nothing new on the CDC link you provided, just a re-hash of what we've been saying.

I hope many of you don't decide to take the above editorial comment and do read the whole document, all six pages, for yourselves. Its a rehash alright of what has have been said by some of us but now from a source Hoyt et al appeal to ...... in terms of their authority. Especially check out the post exposure part and, oh yes, all extremely prevalent medical conditions which make taking the vaccine routinely NOT recommended.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I already stipulated several times above to the fact that the potentially life threatening side effects of the vaccine occur at a rate of up to 52 per million and that means that you could die from one of these side effects. The CDC document I cite above lists many of the conditions where this would be the case. Define second time vaccinees in terms of how long it has been between their first vaccination and their here and now hypothetical second one. The entire issue of the lst versus second time revolves around the fact that the CDC feels anyone who received it as a healthy baby has nothing to fear from it 50 years later. I think there was a thread around here discussing this but lets face it, we are not 100% the same healthy babies we were fifty or sixty years ago today.

The true incidence of deaths would really depend on how many of the vaccine recipients fall into one of these fairly prevalent risk categories. Harping on this ignores the other good reasons for not pre-emptively getting vaccinated. These too are covered in the above document.

Billy -- I didn't mean the smallpox vaccination you got before 1972, I
meant the one you got within the last year using 1972 or earlier vaccine.

Israel gets suicide bombings on an almost daily basis from its close neighbors and Palestinians living within its own borders. But no smallpox. They are a poor example to compare the U.S. with. You know, on the basis of a % of the total population, Israel has the number of 9/11 fatalities many times over every year for many years now.

When did the Israeli program begin and where did they get the vaccine from?

 

[BillHoyt]

I already stipulated several times above to the fact that the potentially life threatening side effects of the vaccine occur at a rate of up to 52 per million and that means that you could die from one of these side effects. The CDC document I cite above lists many of the conditions where this would be the case. Deine second time vaccinees in terms of how long it has been between their first vaccination and their here and now hypothetical second one. The entire issue of the lst versus second time revolves around the fact that the CDC feels anyone who received it as a healthy baby has nothing to fear from it 50 years later. I think there was a thread around here discussing this but lets face it, we are not 100% the same healthy babies we were fifty or sixty years ago today.

The true incidence of deaths would really depend on how many of the vaccine recipients fall into one of these fairly prevalent risk categories. Harping on this ignores the other good reasons for not pre-emptively getting vaccinated. These too are covered in the above document.

I have no idea what "deine" means in English. I will assume you mean something like "deign," although even that wouldn't be right. More importantly, the entire sentence is not right. The length of time between vaccinations is not relevant. Please read the document you keep harping on.

That you mention age as a factor in susceptibility in terms of vaccine reactions. I notice it is conspicuously absent in your listing all the wonder drugs that will save all the infected in the event of a bioterrorist event.

Billy -- I didn't mean the smallpox vaccination you got before 1972, I meant the one you got within the last year using 1972 or earlier vaccine.

I didn't say when I got it. I did, however, specifically say I have taken nearly every recommended vaccination.

Israel gets suicide bombings on an almost daily basis from its close neighbors and Palestinians living within its own borders. But no smallpox. They are a poor example to compare the U.S. with. You know, on the basis of a % of the total population, Israel has the number of 9/11 fatalities many times over every year for many years now.

When did the Israeli program begin and where did they get the vaccine from?

6. Why is Israel a poor example? 7.Did you not read the document I cited? Your questions are answered there.

But, Steve, you dodged my questions. They were all numbered. Please address them. Please notice the list is growing.

 

[SteveGrenard]

My questions are not answered in that document. Sorry. It only says 15K Israeli citizens were vaccinated, 14K hcws and 1K military. The situation IS different in Israel and if you read your own reference you would know that. Not only because of strategic reasons and geography but because Israel stopped vaccinating the public later than we did, in 1978 and it stopped vaccinating the military in 1996. Since most of the country under a certain age is in or was in the military, one can say the whole country except the very old and the very young have been vaccinated previously . Their experience is meaningless for the U.S. for this reason alone.

The Israeli part of this much larger U.S. account does not only not say when they were vaccinated "recently" but it does not specify if the vaccine came from the CDC's stockpile of 14 million vials stored since 1972 either. That would be important to know as well.
I guess its top secret or neurolinguistic programming caused them to omit this.

The rest of this paper was much more interesting because it discussed the U.S. effort.

I go on the record as agreeing with everything the CDC says in the Q&A link I posted above from their website. It closely mrrors what I know about this and what I have already stated. All the negative consequences are what turned the tide of the hcws in the U.S.
against pre-exposure vaccination and vaccination in the absence of a credible threat. The liability issue as covered in the paper you posted was interesting as well. Nobody is liable if you die from the vaccine if it is given accordng to HLS guidelines. Who wouldnt give it accordingly to avoid major liability? Funny.

People here should spend time reading both the Bartlett et al review as well as the much shorter CDC white paper (website posted just above by me).

So Billy, playing semantic games eh? You were not vaccinated by 1947 vaccine within the last year. Let me know when you will be willing to roll up your sleeve and let someone have a go at you. Check out the CDC doc link. It says most vaccinees are protected for only 10 years.

 

[BillHoyt]

My questions are not answered in that document. Sorry. It only says 15K Israeli citizens were vaccinated, 14K hcws and 1K military. The situation IS different in Israel and if you read your own reference you would know that. Not only because of strategic reasons and geography but because Israel stopped vaccinating the public later than we did, in 1978 and it stopped vaccinating the military in 1996. Since most of the country under a certain age is in or was in the military, one can say the whole country except the very old and the very young have been vaccinated previously . Their experience is meaningless for the U.S. for this reason alone.

Thank you for the correction on the figure; there were 15,000 total, not 16,000. I did read the reference, sir, and know the last vaccination dates in Israel. Our (U.S.) equivalent cessation date is 1972. But your focus on this interesting, in that I have yet to get an answer from you about the importance of having previously been vaccinated vis-a-vis adverse reactions. You have laid out a claim that the length of time since vaccination is important, yet have provided no references to support that.

7. What evidence do you have to support the claim that length of time since last vaccination has a bearing on adverse reactions. Please provide citations.

The Israeli part of this much larger U.S. account does not only not say when they were vaccinated "recently" but it does not specify if the vaccine came from the CDC's stockpile of 14 million vials stored since 1972 either. That would be important to know as well.
I guess its top secret or neurolinguistic programming caused them to omit this.

The article most certainly describes the origins of the Israeli vaccine. It is from the Lister strain. For that reason, and perhaps some others, the "take" rate is quite a bit lower than our own vaccine. See pages 17 & 18 (as seen from your Adobe viewer; 899 & 900 otherwise.)

I go on the record as agreeing with everything the CDC says in the Q&A link I posted above from their website. It closely mrrors what I know about this and what I have already stated. All the negative consequences are what turned the tide of the hcws in the U.S. against pre-exposure vaccination and vaccination in the absence of a credible threat. The liability issue as covered in the paper you posted was interesting as well. Nobody is liable if you die from the vaccine if it is given accordng to HLS guidelines. Who wouldnt give it accordingly to avoid major liability? Funny.

No, Steve, go through the questions I raised, one by one. The reason this is necessary is that you have grossly misrepresented the CDC data. One by one, Steve. Figure by figure, as I posed the questions.

So Billy, playing semantic games eh? You were not vaccinated by 1947 vaccine within the last year. Let me know when you will be willing to roll up your sleeve and let someone have a go at you. Check out the CDC doc link. It says most vaccinees are protected for only 10 years.

Steve, I have told you, twice now. Let me be very specific for you. I have not taken influenza vaccines every year. I also missed the swine flu vaccine because I was unable to get to it when it was offered some time ago. Now let me be abundantly clear. I have taken every single recommended vaccine other than those exceptions. From the time I was born, as far as I know, until today. If the CDC recommended it, I took it.

 

[BTox]

The true incidence of deaths would really depend on how many of the vaccine recipients fall into one of these fairly prevalent risk categories. Harping on this ignores the other good reasons for not pre-emptively getting vaccinated. These too are covered in the above document.

You seem to be suggesting that the plan was to vaccinate all health care professionals regardless of pre-existing conditions which is most definitely NOT the case.

 

[BTox]

Steve, I have told you, twice now. Let me be very specific for you. I have not taken influenza vaccines every year. I also missed the swine flu vaccine because I was unable to get to it when it was offered some time ago. Now let me be abundantly clear. I have taken every single recommended vaccine other than those exceptions. From the time I was born, as far as I know, until today. If the CDC recommended it, I took it.

I would've gotten the smallpox vaccine if I had a job that fit vaccination plan as implemented. I have none of the pre-existing conditions. I also have had all vaccinations as recommended, even had the "dreaded" lyme disease vaccine that many anti-vac kooks yammer about. No problems.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I like how the title of this thread changed

 

[SteveGrenard]

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/pdf/smallpox-vis.pdf

For those of you who took the time to read the ABOVE 6-page large print pdf version of in re: the caveats and issues as well as procedures for taking smallpox vaccination today, you can make your own decisions based on this ...:

whether or not to take the vaccine. A poll might be in order.

Bill, this is not about singular reasons on this list. It doesnt matter if I will predictably have less of a reaction to the vaccine because I had it before in 1945 or 59 years ago (when it was fresh) which I did or that someone had it before in 1965 or 38 years ago. This is not going to protect them from any of the known caveats in the CDC document against taking it pre-exposure today. According to this document people at risk because of these caveats should NOT take it unless or except post (known)exposure. This is what I have been saying since minute one here. It is not a good idea to premptively vaccinate 13 million healthcare workers nationwide in the U.S. due to a non-threat when we have the ability to do so post exposure should that exposure ever materialize. 38K volunteered, a very tiny % of that total. I would feel a whole lot better about it if Lance Gordon came up with a new vaccine and I didn't have to get that DryVax stuff with the label so old it is yellowy and crumbling.

Insofar as your personal vaccination profile, your evasiveness over the issue of whether or not you rolled up your sleeve and allowed a nurse or doctor to give you some 50 year old small pox vaccine to pre-emptively protect you against small pox is duly noted. I take it you have not put your money or your arm where your mouth is and that all along you have agreed with the caveats mitigating against the idea as well as the absurdity of taking a vaccination for a virtually extinct disease (in nature) with a slim to none possibiliy of it being used as a terrorist weapon. I am glad to know sir that you are a true skeptic in every respect, not just arguing for arguing sake.

Thanks also for pointing out another reason why the meager Israeli experience labeled only as "recent" with no real dates given were not relevant to what was proposed in the U.S.: the use of a different strain of (Joseph Lister) the virus, not the NYCBH strain.
The authors were not certain why their low 76% + or - take rate was so low over there. The strain may be part of it.
Thy are not sure. There could be methodological flaws, they dont know if the virus was still active, etc. Maybe some of the vials were handled or stored incorrectly. Maybe some of the persons applying it didn't do it right. There are many anecdotal reasons for a poor take rate.

For a majority of vaccinees in the U.S. example, active protection lasts only ten years. There is no evidence that someone such as myself vaccinated 59 years ago has active immunity to smallpox as a healthy baby. In those ensuing 59 years, however, there is plenty of evidence that I have earned myself a number of the caveats against taking the vaccine in the absence of a known exposure so I will take the CDC's advice and not take the vaccine unless I incur that exposure. I doubt it will happen but ya never know. And I am on the category list of health care workers in the review paper by Bartlett you posted who should be vaccinated but I do not know one single colleague who, after considering all the information available including that put out by the CDC who opted to take the vaccination. Nor do I know a single physician including some of infectious disease specialists who did so. either. Not appealing to popularity or authoruty. Appealing to the fact they read the literature and I trust their judgement and my own which is in agreement.

So Billy are you willing to concede yet that the proper thing to do, save for a small handful of smallpox response team members (young and o/w healthy I would hope), is to emulate the popular and informed decision of literally millions of health care professionals and workers to forgo the vaccination in the absence of a credible threat or no exposure and that it is the right thing to do?

(BTW I ask and answer well informed questions. I don't do "Larsen Lists." He's on ignore. I have answered all your questions many times over and do not play pseudo prosecutor/defendent games...nor do I do depositions. sorry Billy)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm sure steve is then willing to agree that prevention is better than trying to put out undetectable sparks that will start a million raging bushfires.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I'm sure steve is then willing to agree that prevention is better than trying to put out undetectable sparks that will start a million raging bushfires.

You just still don't get it. Prevention in the case of smallpox is not better! Read the l ink to the CDC pdf document I gave you.

Your own country which might as well be part of the US, ..... by your own admission, thinks its a joke and yet you have the gall to criticize the U.S. saying we will obtain our immunities through being herd animals. Didnt you claim Canada had no smallpox vaccine stocks? What if the terrorists in smuggling the smallpox into the U.S. decide to use one of their favorite Canadian transits and there is a spill? I guess we will help you out, post exposure. Oh well.

The prevention in this case is to have plenty of the really old vaccine available if we need it for a life or death post exposure scenario not to prevenatively give a 50 year old live virus vaccine for a disease that don't exist.

 

[BillHoyt]

For those of you who took the time to read the ABOVE 6-page large print pdf version of in re: the caveats and issues as well as procedures for taking smallpox vaccination today, you can make your own decisions based on this ...:

whether or not to take the vaccine. A poll might be in order.

And said poll would again be absolutely fallacious. It is again, an ad populem argument. I don't what is so hard to understand about that.

Bill, this is not about singular reasons on this list. It doesnt matter if I will predictably have less of a reaction to the vaccine because I had it before in 1945 or 59 years ago (when it was fresh) which I did or that someone had it before in 1965 or 38 years ago. This is not going to protect them from any of the known caveats in the CDC document against taking it pre-exposure today. According to this document people at risk because of these caveats should NOT take it unless or except post (known)exposure. This is what I have been saying since minute one here. It is not a good idea to premptively vaccinate 13 million healthcare workers nationwide in the U.S. due to a non-threat when we have the ability to do so post exposure should that exposure ever materialize. 38K volunteered, a very tiny % of that total. I would feel a whole lot better about it if Lance Gordon came up with a new vaccine and I didn't have to get that DryVax stuff with the label so old it is yellowy and crumbling.

I never said anything about "singular reasons." I asked you for specific answers to specific questions about the raw data. You have misrepresented those data and continue to misrepresent them. Now please answer the specific questions about the specific data.

Insofar as your personal vaccination profile, your evasiveness over the issue of whether or not you rolled up your sleeve and allowed a nurse or doctor to give you some 50 year old small pox vaccine to pre-emptively protect you against small pox is duly noted. I take it you have not put your money or your arm where your mouth is and that all along you have agreed with the caveats mitigating against the idea as well as the absurdity of taking a vaccination for a virtually extinct disease (in nature) with a slim to none possibiliy of it being used as a terrorist weapon. I am glad to know sir that you are a true skeptic in every respect, not just arguing for arguing sake.

/b]
No, sir, you are trying to do two things here. 1. Identify my background and 2. Obtain individually identifiable health informationIIHI, something I would think a health professional is fully aware is now illegal under HIPAA. I answered your question completely and truthfully. I have said I have taken nearly every recommended vaccine. I have said specifically that I have been vaccinated against smallpox. I have completely and truthfully specified which recommended vaccines I missed. I have failed to tell you whether or not I am a health professional. Sorry, I have told you and everybody else here that I am simply a bouncer at a local strip club. I will not be coaxed, cajoled, bullied or tricked (especially so stupidly) into revealing any more. You will have to get over falllacious arguments from authority and deal with facts, evidence and reason.

Thanks also for pointing out another reason why the meager Israeli experience labeled only as "recent" with no real dates given were not relevant to what was proposed in the U.S.: the use of a different strain of (Joseph Lister) the virus, not the NYCBH strain.
The authors were not certain why their low 76% + or - take rate was so low over there. The strain may be part of it.
Thy are not sure. There could be methodologicsal flaws, they dont know if the virus was still active, etc. Maybe it wa shandled or store incorrectly. Maybe some of the persons applying it didnt do it right enough. There are many, many anecdotal reasons for a poor take rate.

So? The Israeli take rate is immaterial to the argument. What is this bizarre need of yours to insinuate even when the insinuation is so utterly specious?

For a majority of vaccinees in the U.S. example, active protection lasts only ten years. There is no evidence that someone such as myself vaccinated 59 years ago has active immunity to smallpox. In those ensuing 59 years, however, there is plenty of evidence that I have earned myself a number of the caveats against taking the vaccine
in the absence of a known exposure so I will take the CDC's advice and not take the vaccine unless I incur that exposure. I doubt it will happen but ya never know. And I am on the category list of health care workers in the review paper by Bartlett you posted who should be vaccinated but I do not know one single colleague who, after considering all the information available including that put out by the CDC who
opted to take the vaccination. Nor do I know a single physician including some of infectious disease specialists who did so. either. Not appealing to popularity or authoruty. Appealing to the fact they read the literature and I trust their judgement and my own which is in agreement.

More idiotic hand-waving. How arrogant of you to think others cannot see through you. This entire paragraph attempts to dodge a salient question I posed to you. You previously claimed the adverse reaction probability increased with length of time since exposure. Here, you try to insinuate the same. Where is the evidence? I have called for it before, and now demand it of you.

So Billy are you willing to concede yet that the proper thing to do, save for a small handful of smallpox response team members (young and o/w healthy I would hope), is to emulate the popular and informed decision of literally millions of health care professionals and workers to forgo the vaccination in the absence of a credible threat or no exposure and that it is the right thing to do?

The proper thing to do is to get the vaccination, sir. We could go through the numbers, but you are so busy dancing and prancing, that I will never get you to answer specifics. Going through the numbers is how to make proper decisions. How can you claim to have made a rational decision when you can't even get the raw numbers straight?

(BTW I ask and answer well informed questions. I don't do "Larsen Lists." He's on ignore. I have answered all your questions many times over and do not play prosecutor/defendent games...sorry Billy)

Don't invite me to charaterize your questions, your answers or your deluded and deceptive rhetorical techniques, sir. Stick to the facts, and answer the questions.

The questions stand before you. Answer them.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by BillHoyt And said poll would again be absolutely fallacious. It is again, an ad populem argument. I don't what is so hard to understand about that.

The poll would be prefaced by asking the voter to read the CDC guidance on whether or not to take the vaccination. It would be based on "informed" judgement instead of your rants or, for that matter, mine.

I never said anything about "singular reasons." I asked you for specific answers to specific questions about the raw data. You have misrepresented those data and continue to misrepresent them. Now please answer the specific questions about the specific data.

The only piece of datum we are talking about is the self-evident statement by the CDC that says up to 52 persons per million, as a result of taking this particular vaccination, could develop a life threatening adverse effect. That's means a very serious, life threatening event. It means you can die. That's what life threatening means. You can die tomorrow, next week, next month or five years later. They don't know. We have never given millions of people a 50 year old vaccine before. The whole proposition is problematic and unpredictable in spite of Israeli examples which are irrelevant because they used a fresh vaccine which they only stopped giving in 1996 not a stock of 14 million vials sitting in a CDC wharehouse for thrity to fifty years.

And we dont know the dates of the Israel re-vac program either. This would be important in the context of the certain knowledge that they last stopped mass inocs of military (made up of most of the competent citizenry of the whole country) in 1996.

However, it is only a minor consideration weighing against the decision to take the vaccination. There are more and better ones. I know you like to harp on a single line of argument you think you can win so you neglect all else. Your tactical crap doesn't work here.

No, sir, you are trying to do two things here. 1. Identify my background and 2. Obtain individually identifiable health informationIIHI, something I would think a health professional is fully aware is now illegal under HIPAA.

You can exempt your individually identifiable health information from HIPAA. All you have to do is consent to it. If you don't want to consent to this particular and highly relevant (to this discussion) piece of health care information that's up to you. I can still ask. That is not against HIPAA. Everyday I ask people about their health care information. If they decline
it is so noted.

I answered your question completely and truthfully. I have said I have taken nearly every recommended vaccine. I have said specifically that I have been vaccinated against smallpox. I have completely and truthfully specified which recommended vaccines I missed. I have failed to tell you whether or not I am a health professional. Sorry, I have told you and everybody else here that I am simply a bouncer at a local strip club. I will not be coaxed, cajoled, bullied or tricked (especially so stupidly) into revealing any more. You will have to get over falllacious arguments from authority and deal with facts, evidence and reason.

Bouncers in strip clubs are nominally in contact with large numbers of the public. I asked you if you took the smallpox vaccine within the past year. The new program to give the half century old vaccine. Okay, it doesn't matter if you would or wouldn't so lets make it a hypothetical. Let's say hypothetically your occupation as strip club bouncer appears on "the list." Based on the CDC advisories and your own knowledge of the substance being rubbed into and just under your skin, would you do it? Pre-emptively? In the absence of a threat or an exposure or even a possibility of an exposure?

So? The Israeli take rate is immaterial to the argument. What is this bizarre need of yours to insinuate even when the insinuation is so utterly specious?

You answered my question. It was a different vaccine. That alone can account for the different take rate. I pointed out there are anecdotal reasons as well. You said we should take heed from the Israel re-vac program. I said why, it was a diff vaccine, a diff population and a significantly lower take rate.

More idiotic hand-waving. How arrogant of you to think others cannot see through you. This entire paragraph attempts to dodge a salient question I posed to you. You previously claimed the adverse reaction probability increased with length of time since exposure. Here, you try to insinuate the same. Where is the evidence? I have called for it before, and now demand it of you.

I insinuated nothing of the kind. I questionned this possibility. Israel is a country that has far more people far more recenly vaccinated than the U.S.
My vaccination is 59 years old. I do not know how the length of time between first and second vaccinations impacts either on the %take or the incidence of side effects. I will not, therefore, speculate or stipulate that a prior vaccination, even one a half a century or longer ago, will protect a person against side effects in any way. There is a prediction theory that if you got it once and there were no problems you can get it again w/ no problem. There is also something wrong with that theory: potential vaccinees age, and with that aging they develop other health care conditions, some of which represent contraindications to re-taking the vaccine except in a post exposure scenario where the risk would be worth it. Anyway you look at it, the vaccination is also foreign antigen. Some people have minimal or no problems the first time exposed but their immune system recognizes it a second time and may produce more serious hypersensitivity reactions.

So you can't logically infer that a prior vaccination bodes well for you if you have developed health care problems where it is contraindicated or if you are someone who "has a lot of allergies" type.

The proper thing to do is to get the vaccination, sir. We could go through the numbers, but you are so busy dancing and prancing, that I will never get you to answer specifics. Going through the numbers is how to make proper decisions. How can you claim to have made a rational decision when you can't even get the raw numbers straight?

If the proper thing to do is get he vaccination, I ask you again: did you get it? The new program, within the last year? Not pre-1972. Stop playing word games. The CDC clearly lists all the reasons NOT to take it and the some few reasons to do so. Every person should weigh these from their personal perspective.

Stop causing a panic here Hoyt.

You are pandering to the public's fear of a non-existent threat. Do you do this in the crowded nightclub you work in? For someone who is a bouncer you seem to know nothing about crowd control.

 

[BillHoyt]

You can exempt your individually identifiable health information from HIPAA. All you have to do is consent to it. If you don't want to consent to this particular and highly relevant (to this discussion) piece of health care information that's up to you. I can still ask. That is not against HIPAA. Everyday I ask people about their health care information. If they decline
it is so noted.

Oh, I'm sorry, is this a recognized secure transmission channel, as required by the HIPAA regs? What are all these other people doing here, then? And, BTW, where is that consent form? Jerkl.

Bouncers in strip clubs are nominally in contact with large numbers of the public. I asked you if you took the smallpox vaccine within the past year. The new program to give the half century old vaccine. Okay, it doesn't matter if you would or wouldn't so lets make it a hypothetical. Let's say hypothetically your occupation as strip club bouncer appears on "the list." Based on the CDC advisories and your own knowledge of the substance being rubbed into and just under your skin, would you do it? Pre-emptively? In the absence of a threat or an exposure or even a possibility of an exposure?

I answered your original question. You needed to change it because you assumed an answer in your fishing expedition. I gave you, however, the answer minus personal information about my profession and very personal information about specific medical procedures.

If you assume I am a strip club bouncer, then a smallpox vaccination was not recommended for me in the past year. If you assume I am in the healthcare profession, then a smallpox vaccination was recommended for me in the past year. Either way, my answer is exactly true: I have taken every recommended vaccination except those already noticed and including smallpox.

This offensive, personally invasive and highly irrelevant sidetrack is over.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by BillHoyt Oh, I'm sorry, is this a recognized secure transmission channel, as required by the HIPAA regs? What are all these other people doing here, then? And, BTW, where is that consent form? Jerkl.

Its available on-line. You are free to waive your HIPAA protections anywhere and in any forum you wish. If you do not wish to do so that is your privilege. 21 CFR Part 11 deals with the transmission of information over secure channels which the patient whose information is being transmitted is unaware of that transmission. In that case a secure channel is absolutely necessary. You, however, would be aware of such a transmission as it would be up to you to make it yourself. All I can do is ask, all you can do is refuse if you wish. That's okay.

If you assume I am a strip club bouncer, then a smallpox vaccination was not recommended for me in the past year. If you assume I am in the healthcare profession, then a smallpox vaccination was recommended for me in the past year. Either way, my answer is exactly true: I have taken every recommended vaccination except those already noticed and including smallpox.

The question relates to taking sp vacc within past year, not ever.

If I assume you were a strip-club bouncer, which is another name for a security officer and if I assume that a great many security officers working as bouncers are off-duty police officers, then I am afraid the recommendation "to consider" taking smallpox within the last year did occur and was a possibility in your case. Of course you may be a CPA or an auto mechanic or a waiter in which case it was not recommended within the last year. All you have ever said was that you were a security officer working as a bouncer in a strip club.

This offensive, personally invasive and highly irrelevant sidetrack is over.

Irony.

Notice also folks the total evasion of the information on the CDC guidance as to who should or should not take the vaccination pre-emptively, before exposure and when it should be given post exposure. Notice total disregard for the absence of a threat, the absence of exposure, the extinction of the disease save for two small aliquots in Russia and the U.S., the prior concentration on a single irrelevant and immaterial example (Israel) and a single statistic which says 52 persons per million could die from the vaccination; notice that I quite willingly said I would NOT take the new/old vaccination whereas Hoyt has been evasive, saying oinly that he has been vaccinated (as a child, more than 35 years ago no doubt since he won't specify); notice that he refuses to tell us what he is trained in and does in this life whereas myself and others when asked have never refused to reveal that. And finally notice that after all the personal attacks heaped upon myself by Hoyt and his cronies, he takes offense and in some sort of truly paranoid response, objects to that happening to him.

Please people, don't let Hoyt or anyone who supports him panic you into taking a smallpox vaccination you may not need which could be inherently risky. If that choice befalls you, all I ask is that you read the CDC guidances and make the best decision for yourself that you can. And if you can't decide completely for yourself speak to others you know and trust such as your doctor(s).