[cinquemb]

And putting oneself in a fit because someone is sharing their viewpoint (as opinion or fact) isn't asinine?

There is also a decrease in "herd immunity" when a population has been flooded with a drug to the point where such immunizations have no effect à la "superbugs".

[JamisonM]

Your comment seems to misunderstand the difference between vaccinations and antibiotic treatments. Herd immunity disallows an organism a foothold in a population, it is not present to become immune - it is something entirely separate from the emergence of superbugs immune to all or most known antibiotic treatments.

[cinquemb]

How is the emergence of superbugs immunity to antibiotic treatments entirely separate when they are different strands of organisms that were previously treated?

[JamisonM]

Vaccinations and treatment are completely different things and vaccines and antibiotics are also completely different things. There are plenty of resources on the Internet that explain these matters - if you can get past the anti-vaccine psuedoscience search engine spam. For example you can find plenty of people trying to blame resistant Whooping Cough on vaccines when the most likely cause is the reduction of vaccination rates, not the presence of vaccinations in the first place.

I'd be the first to admit I am no expert so if you have real interest in the topic I would go looking for someone better qualified to talk to than me.

[cinquemb]

"When antibiotics are used in an attempt to kill certain bacteria, a few may survive because they happen to have the appropriate genes; thus they will become the predominant strain. For instance, if the antibiotic kills a million bacteria but doesn’t kill five that are resistant, at their incredible multiplication rate—bacteria divide every 20 to 30 minutes—after 15 hours there will be 5 million descendants of those five, all of them resistant to the antibiotic.Some bacteria carry antibiotic resistance genes that can be passed to other species of bacteria.

These transferable genes often carry resistance to many antibiotics.

Staphylococcus aureus is a common germ that normally lives on your skin, but can gain entry to the body and cause abscesses, bone infections, pneumonia or infection of the heart valves. In the 1940s virtually all strains of S. aureus were susceptible to penicillin. Today, more than 90% of S. aureus strains are resistant to penicillin and many other antibiotics that were once effective against these bacteria."[0]

"One alternative, at least for some types of bacteria, is vaccination. Since Hib vaccines were introduced, the number of new cases of invasive Hib infections—both drug-sensitive and resistant—in infants and children in the U.S. has decreased by 99%."[0]

So yes, vaccines and antibiotics are different, but are meant to address the same things. From this most of the what we have seen so far has come from resistance to antibiotics, where vacancies have helping to address that void in some cases that didn't turn out to be accidental inoculation.

No vaccine is 100% effective; no vaccine is 100% safe. As with any drug, there are risks and side effects with vaccines, although serious side effects are mostly rare. However, there is a much higher standard of safety expected of preventive vaccines than for drugs because:

Vaccines are generally given to many people most of whom are healthy. People tolerate far less risk from Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines than the antibiotics used to treat the diseases it causes, for example.

Many vaccines are given to children at the ages when developmental and other problems are being recognized for the first time. Because something happened at about the same time does not mean that one caused the other. (See Cause or Coincidence) Some vaccines are mandated by state legislatures in order to protect the health and welfare of the public. Some people think that this violates their civil rights, however."[1]

"Perception of risk depends on people’s experiences and knowledge. A person who experienced an adverse event after vaccination—or thinks that they know someone who did—will perceive vaccines as riskier than a person who has not. Conversely, one who has survived a vaccine-preventable disease—or a physician who has treated that disease—will likely be an advocate for vaccines.

Although concerns about vaccine safety are valid—and necessary—we must carefully examine each claim about the risks of immunizations"[1]

Taking the middle road on these issues is more productive than outright dismissal and becoming enraged, because it acknowledges some truth the individuals experiences/opinions or w/e that might be contrary to someone elses.

[0]: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/general/vaccines-and-...

[1]: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/general/vaccine-misin...

[JamisonM]

I am not the poster who becomes enraged about vaccine-deniers, in case you've got that mixed up. Though I generally find that vaccine-deniers are people such that they have little interest in becoming better informed or having their opinion changed so discussion is fruitless. (Though I hope to meet some that are otherwise one day!)

Not vaccinating people and thus allowing a disease to run rampant in the population, drive up infant mortality, and be present and breeding and thus mutating is not in any way shape or form the same thing as the over-use, mis-use, or inevitable decline in effectiveness of antibiotics. The moral and scientific issues are very, very different. That was what I was taking issue with in my original response.

I find nothing of what you wrote and quoted in the above comment to disagree with.