MrShorty

vaccines at the intersection of religious liberty and public health

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mores said:

To state again, I'm not anti-vaccine.  I just want some reasonable standards to determine the proper balance between risk and burden.

The primary one I'm wondering about is the HPV vaccine.  I hear the statistics and probabilities arguments.  They're good numbers, I'm sure.  But on a practical level, does this justify mandating it?  The chaste individual poses no danger to anyone.  Why mandate something for them?

I think this is the main idea that I find so fascinating in this whole thing. In the OP's original news article, a statement was made that -- in the case of vaccinations in general -- public health trumps religious liberty. This is what led me to ask this group about making that kind of judgement. Vort introduced the idea of mandatory seat belt and helmet laws, so this can obviously go beyond just religious liberty and public health. It seems that a lot of legislative effort and political debate get hung up in the tension between personal liberty and some public good. Sometimes "we" (speaking of the voters and legislators as kind of a collective) judge that the public good should trump personal liberty, and other times we judge that personal liberty should trump public good. I am enjoying the discussion around how that kind of judgement should be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is the main idea that I find so fascinating in this whole thing. In the OP's original news article, a statement was made that -- in the case of vaccinations in general -- public health trumps religious liberty. This is what led me to ask this group about making that kind of judgement. Vort introduced the idea of mandatory seat belt and helmet laws, so this can obviously go beyond just religious liberty and public health. It seems that a lot of legislative effort and political debate get hung up in the tension between personal liberty and some public good. Sometimes "we" (speaking of the voters and legislators as kind of a collective) judge that the public good should trump personal liberty, and other times we judge that personal liberty should trump public good. I am enjoying the discussion around how that kind of judgement should be made.

This is EXACTLY the balance between conservative (mores, traditions, culture of a society - you can call it the "public good" I guess - trump individual liberty) and liberal (individual liberty trump mores, traditions, culture).  In the USA, the American mores, traditions, culture is encapsulated into one document - the US Constitution.

That is why it is VERY disingenuous for @mikbone to call what would be a conservative value as "Satan's Plan".  It's a very extremist rhetoric that does nothing but Monster Paint those who do not agree with his stance on the matter.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikbone said:

I follow Jesus Christ.

So I give to Caesar.  But I preach and vote for limited government, and against the Nanny State.  

That would make you a Libertarian.  It does not make non-Libertarians followers of Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikbone said:

I don’t think my comment implied anything else.

I guess it's the "mandatory compliance" thing that rings hollow to me, a vision of trillions of automatons mindlessly doing whatever they're told. This is a popular LDS image or meme, but I don't buy it. It seems to be the imagined outcome of destroying man's agency—everyone turns into mindless robots. But I don't believe that's the implication, and I know of no scriptural teaching that tells us anything about Satan's "plan" of "mandatory compliance".

I'm not picking a fight, just an old scab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Vort introduced the idea of mandatory seat belt and helmet laws

Such mandatory laws do much more than safeguard the foolish operator who otherwise would not protect himself. For instance, seat belt laws keep a person strapped in and in better control of an extreme situation than someone sliding all over the vinyl bench seat, completely unrestrained. And as I mentioned, unless we are willing to stop government "entitlement" or "welfare" donations to the survivors of those too stubborn or stupid to protect themselves, it's not truthful to say that they're "only hurting themselves".

Now, that may or may not be sufficient cause in your mind to institute a mandatory seat belt law. But the point is, the excuse that the person is "only hurting himself" is baloney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Such mandatory laws do much more than safeguard the foolish operator who otherwise would not protect himself. For instance, seat belt laws keep a person strapped in and in better control of an extreme situation than someone sliding all over the vinyl bench seat, completely unrestrained. And as I mentioned, unless we are willing to stop government "entitlement" or "welfare" donations to the survivors of those too stubborn or stupid to protect themselves, it's not truthful to say that they're "only hurting themselves".

Now, that may or may not be sufficient cause in your mind to institute a mandatory seat belt law. But the point is, the excuse that the person is "only hurting himself" is baloney.

When you think about it, mandatory seat belt laws and helmet laws don't stop you from not wearing a seat belt/helmet. They just punish you when you don't. It's the same with all laws, really. From jaywalking to murder.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

When you think about it, mandatory seat belt laws and helmet laws don't stop you from not wearing a seat belt/helmet. They just punish you when you don't. It's the same with all laws, really. From jaywalking to murder.  

I have it on no less an authority than the National Organization for Women that laws against abortion do nothing—nothing, I say!—to prevent actual abortions from taking place. So I suppose it's time to do away with laws prohibiting forcible rape, child molestation, slavery, and public urination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have it on no less an authority than the National Organization for Women that laws against abortion do nothing—nothing, I say!—to prevent actual abortions from taking place. So I suppose it's time to do away with laws prohibiting forcible rape, child molestation, slavery, and public urination.

Chill, I said nothing of the sort.  All I'm saying is that laws don't stop the action. They only punish it once it occurs. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

When you think about it, mandatory seat belt laws and helmet laws don't stop you from not wearing a seat belt/helmet. They just punish you when you don't. It's the same with all laws, really. From jaywalking to murder.  

Which is exactly like agency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is the main idea that I find so fascinating in this whole thing. In the OP's original news article, a statement was made that -- in the case of vaccinations in general -- public health trumps religious liberty. This is what led me to ask this group about making that kind of judgement. Vort introduced the idea of mandatory seat belt and helmet laws, so this can obviously go beyond just religious liberty and public health. It seems that a lot of legislative effort and political debate get hung up in the tension between personal liberty and some public good. Sometimes "we" (speaking of the voters and legislators as kind of a collective) judge that the public good should trump personal liberty, and other times we judge that personal liberty should trump public good. I am enjoying the discussion around how that kind of judgement should be made.

The primary public good ought to be personal freedom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

I guess it's the "mandatory compliance" thing that rings hollow to me, a vision of trillions of automatons mindlessly doing whatever they're told. This is a popular LDS image or meme, but I don't buy it. It seems to be the imagined outcome of destroying man's agency—everyone turns into mindless robots. But I don't believe that's the implication, and I know of no scriptural teaching that tells us anything about Satan's "plan" of "mandatory compliance".

I'm not picking a fight, just an old scab.

I hear ya.

In my mind, I figured that if a third part of God’s spirit children followed Satan, there must have been some fancy talking by Lucifer about how his plan was viable.

And of course his plan was never a possibility.  Lucifer did not know the mind of God. (Moses 4:6)  And it is possible that Lucifer was given instruction from a higher evil power...

Anyways, in order to fool the third part, he must have come up with an explanation that was conceivably possible.  Likely he bribed some of the host but most of them had to be convinced.  Just like modern politicians with their campaign promises...

Lucifer’s ‘plan’ likely required mankind to be simple minded perhaps like the rest of the animal kingdom.  Such that we would act with much less choice and more of instinct.  This would still achieve many purposes of earth life.  Obtaining a body, families, learning....

But Heavenly Father does not want us to follow his exemplary life because of instinct, compulsion, coercion, or sense of duty.  Heavenly Father wants us to follow him because we wisely trust him and genuinely want to be like Him.

It certainly isn’t doctrine.  But the explanation works for me.  I’m not preaching it.  But it is reflective of some of the indoctrination of many dictators on Earth.

Remove choice, remove religion, mandate ‘education’ and destroy prior history.  Promise security at the expense of dependence upon the government.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikbone said:

I hear ya.

In my mind, I figured that if a third part of God’s spirit children followed Satan, there must have been some fancy talking by Lucifer about how his plan was viable.

And of course his plan was never a possibility.  Lucifer did not know the mind of God. (Moses 4:6)  And it is possible that Lucifer was given instruction from a higher evil power...

Anyways, in order to fool the third part, he must have come up with an explanation that was conceivably possible.  Likely he bribed some of the host but most of them had to be convinced.  Just like modern politicians with their campaign promises...

Lucifer’s ‘plan’ likely required mankind to be simple minded perhaps like the rest of the animal kingdom.  Such that we would act with much less choice and more of instinct.  This would still achieve many purposes of earth life.  Obtaining a body, families, learning....

But Heavenly Father does not want us to follow his exemplary life because of instinct, compulsion, coercion, or sense of duty.  Heavenly Father wants us to follow him because we wisely trust him and genuinely want to be like Him.

It certainly isn’t doctrine.  But the explanation works for me.  I’m not preaching it.  But it is reflective of some of the indoctrination of many dictators on Earth.

Remove choice, remove religion, mandate ‘education’ and destroy prior history.  Promise security at the expense of dependence upon the government.

 

Or....

Satan's plan was to destroy the agency of man. There are two primary parts to agency. Choice is the first half. Standing accountable is the second half.

Now if you were trying to convince others that their agency wouldn't be a factor in their salvation, do you think it would be more convincing to tell them they would have no choice -- or that they would have no accountability for their choices?

And which of these two is being promulgated in Satan's ongoing attempt to sway people even now?

I think it possible that Satan's plan was simply this: whatever you do it is no crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Or....

Satan's plan was to destroy the agency of man. There are two primary parts to agency. Choice is the first half. Standing accountable is the second half.

Now if you were trying to convince others that their agency wouldn't be a factor in their salvation, do you think it would be more convincing to tell them they would have no choice -- or that they would have no accountability for their choices?

And which of these two is being promulgated in Satan's ongoing attempt to sway people even now?

I think it possible that Satan's plan was simply this: whatever you do it is no crime.

Possible.  Good thought.  Im sure he offered different vague proposals to different people.

But it seems to me that He recognized that in Father’s plan Jehovah’s role as savior was pivotal.  Because Lucifer thought his contribution would earn him respect and honor I reckon that he proposed that he would fill an similarly important role - perhaps that of warden.

 

A8D2975E-5339-482A-B27A-1D33B9CBF1EE.gif.f9d476afaba94c3efb8e416ca5203ab0.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 11:03 PM, mikbone said:

As a medical professional I can tell you that I am weary of the nanny state requiring immunizations. And I do question their safety and effectiveness.

As a professional what are your recommendations concerning the shingles vaccination(s)?

I am personally not a fan of immunization vaccinations - though I had fill of them.  I was talked into a flu shot some years ago because I am older - I believe the shot made me sick.  I have not had the flu in over 5 years (except for whatever the shot caused which was not flu symptoms - just nausea, a very sore arm.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Traveler said:

As a professional what are your recommendations concerning the shingles vaccination(s)?

I am personally not a fan of immunization vaccinations - though I had fill of them.  I was talked into a flu shot some years ago because I am older - I believe the shot made me sick.  I have not had the flu in over 5 years (except for whatever the shot caused which was not flu symptoms - just nausea, a very sore arm.

 

The Traveler

I freakin hate the flu shot.  As I already related, last year for patients over 50 years of age it was only 24% effective.  And it is usually is less than 50% effective.  That is just plain dumb.  

I wouldn’t take the shingles vaccine personally.  Heck the only medication I take is Ibuprofen.

Shingles is caused by the chicken pox virus that lies dormant in your DRG dorsal root ganglion nerve.  It erupts during stress and is associated with immuno- compromised health states.

My recommendation is to avoid stress or let it roll off you like water off a duck.  Shingles sure is painful but is usually self limited to a couple weeks.

The vaccine has known side effects.  From the website of the manufacturer:

 

Solicited local adverse reactions in subjects aged 50 years and older were pain (78.0%), redness (38.1%), and swelling (25.9%)

Solicited general adverse reactions in subjects aged 50 years and older were myalgia (44.7%), fatigue (44.5%), headache (37.7%), shivering (26.8%), fever (20.5%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (17.3%)

Vaccination with SHINGRIX may not result in protection of all vaccine recipients

And it is like $300 for the 2 shots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

 last year for patients over 50 years of age it was only 24% effective.  And it is usually is less than 50% effective.  That is just plain dumb.  

I think these statistics are misleading.  Flu vaccines are very effective at keeping you from getting influenza from the virus strains TARGETED by each year's vaccine.  There are an unknown number of different, influenza virus bugs.   

As it was explained to me by a physician, it might not have helped THIS year because you got hit by a DIFFERENT strain than was targeted (viruses are always mutating).  BUT by getting the vaccine regularly, you become immune to those strains which may have passed you by this year (and years before) BUT WHICH ARE STILL AROUND will try to get you NEXT year.   As they say in Scouting, "Be Prepared."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Shingles sure is painful but is usually self limited to a couple weeks.

Usually.  But I know a guy who has been suffering coming on a year now.  He is miserable.  It is apparently EXTREMELY painful and can cause postherpetic neuralgia, permanent vision loss, facial paralysis, and hearing and/or balance problems (which my acquaintance has had).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, crap, guys.  I’m just finishing up Week 2 of a case of shingles that blew up half my face—most of the pain has gone, but it’s still very tender.  Even hydrocodone didn’t help the pain at its worst; and the only thing that got me through it was swearing I’d get the vaccine in another month or so and then never have to deal with that kind of pain again.  :( 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, crap, guys.  I’m just finishing up Week 2 of a case of shingles that blew up half my face—most of the pain has gone, but it’s still very tender.  Even hydrocodone didn’t help the pain at its worst; and the only thing that got me through it was swearing I’d get the vaccine in another month or so and then never have to deal with that kind of pain again.  :( 

Sorry man.  That sucks.  Can you pin point anything that might have set it off?

Retrospectively, you should have gotten the vaccine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

39 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

think these statistics are misleading.  Flu vaccines are very effective at keeping you from getting influenza from the virus strains TARGETED by each year's vaccine.  There are an unknown number of different, influenza virus bugs.   

As it was explained to me by a physician, it might not have helped THIS year because you got hit by a DIFFERENT strain than was targeted (viruses are always mutating).  BUT by getting the vaccine regularly, you become immune to those strains which may have passed you by this year (and years before) BUT WHICH ARE STILL AROUND will try to get you NEXT year.   As they say in Scouting, "Be Prepared."

 

Statistics are not misleading.  They are statistics.

The influenza vaccines are not very effective even if the guess is correct that year.  And they are usually wrong with the guess.  Very effective should be what > 90%?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28329167/?i=4&from=/25270645/related

At what % would you gamble your monthly paycheck?

Until the public and PCPs wakes up and refuse to accept and administer an ineffective vaccine they will continue to supply us with this garbage.

 

Would you let me do surgery on your broken tibia if I informed you of a 50% success rate?  At what success rate do you think you would be comfortable?

Edited by mikbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikbone said:

The influenza vaccines are not very effective even if the guess is correct that year.  And they are usually wrong with the guess.  Very effective should be what > 90%?

With the various standards I work with, if it is a guess based on uncertain statistics, it should be 85% effective, or it's not sufficient to be considered dependable.  If, instead, there are known scientific facts, calculations, and evidence towards something, it should be 98% or better to base standards on -- or else it is considered an educated guess, and it should be considered in the 85% category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikbone said:

Sorry man.  That sucks.  Can you pin point anything that might have set it off?

Retrospectively, you should have gotten the vaccine...

I dunno.  Up until I saw your post I had had the impression that the “stress-as-trigger” thing was more of a wives’ tale than scientifically verified fact; but (at the risk of over-simplifying) I’ve basically been dealing with a double workload for a month and a half now.

If I read your post right, the shingles vaccine has a pretty good chance of not being effective; and several of the side effects are nearly as bad as shingles itself.  Or am I misreading you?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I dunno.  Up until I saw your post I had had the impression that the “stress-as-trigger” thing was more of a wives’ tale than scientifically verified fact; but (at the risk of over-simplifying) I’ve basically been dealing with a double workload for a month and a half now.

If I read your post right, the shingles vaccine has a pretty good chance of not being effective; and several of the side effects are nearly as bad as shingles itself.  Or am I misreading you?

https://www.shingrix.com/index.html

This is the site of the new vaccine.  It is 2 shots 2-6 months apart.  And 90% effective (by report...)  But damn, that side effect list looks nasty.

 

0A2D6339-F0D0-4E2A-8717-C5CCAE08CB17.thumb.jpeg.b23a80b659c24eaeb0c6c261f65bb017.jpeg

F1DDAA1F-A9DB-4DE9-A9C4-2D684919125F.jpeg.56b95ca49c29911a06512b90033fad29.jpeg

Shingles are awesome for mapping out the dermatomes.  It usually hits one or two.  Hope it’s not near your eye.

I have never seen it occur without a serious stressor.  And usually its both, stress and immunodeficiency.  And loss of sleep can compromise the immune system.

My advise.  Get rid of that double workload. Serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now