SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the (boneheaded) editor: My apologies. I pooched this one in a way that is exceptional, even for me. I humbly beg your forgiveness. The line for torches is on the left, and pitchforks is on the right. Please, move on to the next story and don't waste any further time on this one.
Regards,
cmn32480
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(Score: 5, Informative) by moondrake on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:56AM
Most of the scientific studies at the bottom do not support the statements in this article though.
Several talk about immunodeficient people being at risk. If I would be immunodeficient, I would want me to be quarantined, not vaccinated people...
Others talk about the occurrence of infections under vaccinated people. Although rare, this indeed happens. No vaccine gives 100% protection.
Very few papers mention very few cases of transmission of live vaccine to unvaccinated people. In several papers this resulted in no symptomps (as the vaccine was obviously meant not to make people sick...).
In one case I see mention of a rota-virus that became virulent again. This would be a problem, but it seems an isolated case, and transmission was to an unvaccinated individual.
I think the measles paper is most interesting, as its an example of vaccine failure many years after being infected. Although its unknown how the student became infected (she worked in a theater frequented by tourist), there is no evidence that the vaccine is at fault. Its more likely and discussed in the paper in fact that her immune system responded weakly. Perhaps the quality of the original vaccine was not so good, but we can only speculate. The secondary cases that were immunized all showed a strong immune response (note: if you are vaccinated, you still get infected, that is normal you are just not expected to die from it.), and there were no tertiary cases.
Some papers (e.g. ref 5,7,12 perhaps others) seem also completely irrelevant.
OP: perhaps be a bit more critical. I am sorry but it is simply not true that the recently vaccinated are the main cause of outbreaks. It may happen that vaccines fail, in very rare cases, but again the unvaccinated or immuno-compromised are most at risk. Swallowing lots of vitamins is not going to save you (and are sold anyway to you by the same companies you dislike).
(Score: 5, Funny) by snick on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:03PM
Wait.
Instead of regurgitation tribal talking points you actually read and evaluated the information presented?
Who are you and what are you doing on the internet?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:05PM
Most funnily, transmission of the weakened live vaccines to people no vaccinated actually means they will get the immunity (not as reliably, but with a certain chance). So that case is more "works better than expected".
There were cases of oral live vaccination with polio, where contact with the feces of the people vaccinated could infect you with the real thing.
But that was mostly translated into "oral vaccination is a really bad idea", also because you need so much that it increases the risk of some becoming live again.
(Score: 1) by Dr. Manhattan on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:24PM