• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vaccinia Immunization-Pros and Cons

SteveGrenard said:
Everybody has their own version of the truth.........
Click to expand...


No, you have your own version of fantasy compared to the rest of the posters who actually have facts and truth.

Truth hurts your position.
 
"Steve, with nearly any medication, the list of contraindications always exceeds the list of indications." That this appears to be news to someone in health care is beyond sad.
 
Hoyt would have us believe that the advisories re smallpox vaccine are no more trivial than the long list of contraindications, side effects or
adverse effects found for many but not all medications on their statutary package insert sheets. The CDC does not publish such data for all drugs. Their page on smallpox is unprecedented in the history of any vaccine where this information is concerned. You cannot compare it to risking the side effects of some antibiotic or bronchodilator or polio shot or MMR shot. None of these say DO NOT take the vaccine if.......and unless there is an exposure. It is clear as day. There is no other vaccine with this kind of caveat.

As I said, everybody has their own version of the truth, I will go with the CDC on this.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/index.asp

And what drug or medication carries with it a special, specific public law to deal with injuries? That limits recipients qualified for such compensation? What medication has the following in its package brochure (and this is from the US Government so it is in the public domain):

Smallpox Vaccine Recipient, defined as:

a health care worker, law enforcement officer, firefighter, security personnel, emergency medical personnel, other public safety personnel, or support personnel for such occupational specialties who has volunteered and been selected to be a member of a smallpox emergency response plan prior to the time at which the Secretary publicly announces that an active case of smallpox has been identified within or outside of the United States;
Click to expand...

Hoyt - I just noticed. If you volunteer to be in a smallpox response team you are covered as security personnel. I thought so.



excerpted from here and do read this, especially the table of covered conditions that can result of this vaccination:

http://www.hrsa.gov/smallpoxinjury/
 
SteveGrenard said:
Hoyt would have us believe that the advisories re smallpox vaccine are no more trivial than the long list of contraindications, side effects or
adverse effects found for many but not all medications on their statutary package insert sheets. The CDC does not publish such data for all drugs. Their page on smallpox is unprecedented in the history of any vaccine where this information is concerned. You cannot compare it to risking the side effects of some antibiotic or bronchodilator or polio shot or MMR shot. None of these say DO NOT take the vaccine if.......and unless there is an exposure. It is clear as day. There is no other vaccine with this kind of caveat.

As I said, everybody has their own version of the truth, I will go with the CDC on this.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/index.asp

And what drug or medication carries with it a special, specific public law to deal with injuries? That limits recipients qualified for such compensation? What medication has the following in its package brochure (and this is from the US Government so it is in the public domain):





excerpted from here:

http://www.hrsa.gov/smallpoxinjury/
Click to expand...
Steve,

Good to hear you've changed your tune about compensation for adverse reactions. Of course, when you claimed none was available, that was presented as a bad thing. Now that you've done a 180, and realize compensation is availabe, that, too, is presented as a bad thing. Good work, Steve.

Steve, I never said CDC publishes contraindications for all drugs. I said all drugs have contraindications lists longer than the indications list. If you think a rational decision means to print out the lists, put the paper on opposing balance pans and see which weighs more, then you certainly don't belong in a healthcare profession. The logic that eludes you, sir, is dirt simple. The indication for vaccination is generally "the disease is out there." The contraindications are necessarily much longer. Get it? Similarly, with the notable exception of fanciful nostrums such as the pure water sold as "homeopathy," nearly every drug that gets FDA approval has an incredibly short indications list ("you got condition x") and a much, much longer list of contraindications. But go ahead and use your printer, scissors and dust off that old pan balance.

Now as to your assertion " None of these say DO NOT take the vaccine if.......and unless there is an exposure." Codswollop.

"A vaccine will not be administered when a contraindication is present."

This very important footnote appears at the bottom of a lengthy childhood contraindications guide It is from the CDC, and available on the CDC site. But my, read on:

"Under normal circumstances, vaccinations should be deferred when a precaution is present. However, a vaccination might be indicated in the presence of a precaution because the benefit of protection from the vaccine outweighs the risk for an adverse reaction."

Now this page is directed at doctors, and I know that means the language is well beyond your ken, so I will translate for you "DO NOT take the vaccine if... and unless there is an exposure."

If you wish to continue debating me on this topic, then learn to research your assertions before you make monumentally stupid ones like that.
 
The compensation law was passed on December 11th, 2003, a little less than a month ago. It only just appeared on this website and did not pass earlier. Instead HHS said givers of the vaccine and its makers (e.g. Wyeth 1970s) was shielded from liability. In fact they still are. And what's a million or two or more today for a loss of life or a permanent disability? The entire fund is $42 million dollars btw but I suppose that can be upped if necessary.
 
Hoyt: Now this page is directed at doctors, and I know that means the language is well beyond your ken, so I will translate for you "DO NOT take the vaccine if... and unless there is an exposure."
Click to expand...


Why are you a doctor? An infectious disease expert? A zoonotic disease expert? Geez, the only thing you ever said was that you did security work in a strip club.

And you say I am doing a turnabout. You think we are idiots? This is what I have been saying since page 1. This is too funny.
 
Hoyt: Now as to your assertion " None of these say DO NOT take the vaccine if.......and unless there is an exposure." Codswollop.

"A vaccine will not be administered when a contraindication is present."
Click to expand...


Okay, please name vaccines that carry the admonition not to give unless there is an exposure. Is MMR given only if there is exposure? Is polio only given if or unless there is an exposure? Is the annual flu vaccine given only if there is an exposure? Is Hep-B given only after there has been an exposure? Please, tell us which vaccine carries this besides smallpox. If a child is scheduled for MMR and has a contraindication is it delayed? Yup. But where does it say it should only be given if there is an exposure? Nowhere.

The only codswallop is your inability to comprehend what I said.
 
SteveGrenard said:
The compensation law was passed on December 11th, 2003, a little less than a month ago. It only just appeared on this website and did not pass earlier. Instead HHS said givers of the vaccine and its makers (e.g. Wyeth 1970s) was shielded from liability. In fact they still are. And what's a million or two or more today for a loss of life or a permanent disability? The entire fund is $42 million dollars btw but I suppose that can be upped if necessary.
Click to expand...
Steve,

It was on the website before you posted about the issue. I checked. Now I'm chuckling. You really prefer ranting to the hard work of research.
:dl:
 
This legislation has been tossed back and forth all year. What was on the website was a law shielding the makers and health care workers who give the shot from any liability. So you can't sue Wyeth if you die from a bad vial of their 14 million stored, watered down vaccine. And you still can't.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Okay, please name vaccines that carry the admonition not to give unless there is an exposure.
Click to expand...

Recorded for posterity, before you realize what a nitwit you are. You started this thread to debate prophylactic use of the vaccine, remember?
 
We're done here, folks. Move along, nothing to see. Steve has now turned himself around so many times he is arguing against himself for creating the thread. Nothing to do now but laugh.

Laughingstock. Absolute laughinstock. Starts a thread against the prophylactic use of the vaccine and then starts ranting about an imagined admonition to only use the vaccine on exposure. No wonder Randi says "go away" to these cranks.

Hey, Steve, go away.
 
BillHoyt said:


Recorded for posterity, before you realize what a nitwit you are. You started this thread to debate prophylactic use of the vaccine, remember?
Click to expand...

Definitely. And I agreed with the CDC all along that it should not be given premptively (prophylactically) and that it should not be given even to the public unless or until there is a credible threat of exposure or a documented exposure. You said otherwise. No other vaccine carries this warning. You can't name one can you?

You on the other hand said millions of hcws, the CDC and just about everyone besides yourself are either quacks or idiots for not taking the vaccine pre-emptively or prophlactically. How does it feel to be the sole non-quack, non-nitwit, non-idiot in the entire world right now? Must make you feel good, eh? Did you get your shot yet? Your recent one. As a security officer you can go right now and sign up to be on he sp respose team on your block.
 
SteveGrenard said:



Okay, please name vaccines that carry the admonition not to give unless there is an exposure. Is MMR given only if there is exposure? Is polio only given if or unless there is an exposure? Is the annual flu vaccine given only if there is an exposure? Is Hep-B given only after there has been an exposure? Please, tell us which vaccine carries this besides smallpox. If a child is scheduled for MMR and has a contraindication is it delayed? Yup. But where does it say it should only be given if there is an exposure? Nowhere.

The only codswallop is your inability to comprehend what I said.
Click to expand...

Pre-emptive strike against the bewitching (and tweaking) hour.
 
BillHoyt said:
We're done here, folks. Move along, nothing to see. Steve has now turned himself around so many times he is arguing against himself for creating the thread. Nothing to do now but laugh.

Laughingstock. Absolute laughinstock. Starts a thread against the prophylactic use of the vaccine and then starts ranting about an imagined admonition to only use the vaccine on exposure. No wonder Randi says "go away" to these cranks.

Hey, Steve, go away.
Click to expand...


The above is a prime example of why it is not against the rules here to baldfacedly lie and that is what Hoyt is doing above. When all else fails, turn the argument upside down, ignore the facts, disregard the truth and just lie.
If it makes ya feel better go for it. Like I could care less.

As a protected member of this forum he enjoys the support of the moderators who will favor him regardless of how much he harasses people (geez, I think they eliminated the anti-harassment rule just for him and Larsen). Are you Randi's illegitimate son? A true JREF kid?
 
As a protected member of this forum he enjoys the support of the moderators who will favor him regardless of how much he harasses people (geez, I think they eliminated the anti-harassment rule just for him and Larsen). Are you Randi's illegitimate son? A true JREF kid?
Click to expand...


Putting the conspiracy shirt on only makes you look like a nut. Sounds like you could use a real psychiatrist.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Everybody has their own version of the truth.........
Click to expand...

Really? Even for those whose "trVth" is fantasy?

Steve, just because you believe it doesn't mean it's trVth.
 
SteveGrenard said:
The compensation law was passed on December 11th, 2003, a little less than a month ago. It only just appeared on this website and did not pass earlier. Instead HHS said givers of the vaccine and its makers (e.g. Wyeth 1970s) was shielded from liability. In fact they still are. And what's a million or two or more today for a loss of life or a permanent disability? The entire fund is $42 million dollars btw but I suppose that can be upped if necessary.
Click to expand...

Steve, you appear to be upset because Bill was more up to date. A simple "oops, you were right as usual, Bill" would have been more gracious.
 
BillHoyt said:


Recorded for posterity, before you realize what a nitwit you are. You started this thread to debate prophylactic use of the vaccine, remember?
Click to expand...

Steve Grenard speaks up.
Confusion suddenly strikes!
What did he mean first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom