Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on August 11, 2007, 07:06:16 PM
-
This is not the most perfect indicator, it has flaws but it also is far from completely meaningless... With so many people and a wide cross section of the people having myspace pages, I like to do searches to see who is talking about who the most. VERY INTERESTING RESULTS!
2,970 mention Tommy Thompson
3,360 mention Fred Thompson
4,260 mention Rudolph Giuliani
5,140 mention Duncan Hunter
7,830 mention Joe Biden
19,300 mention John McCain
16,300 mention Mitt Romney
18,900 mention Dennis-Kucinich
26,600 mention John Edwards
43,000 mention Hillary Clinton
54,800 mention Barack Obama
103,000 mention Ron Paul
-
It's also interesting that the democratic candidates in the myspace searches are not far off from the polling numbers. BUT the republican candidates aren't remotely close to their polling numbers.... Interesting....
-
Polling shows Ron Paul only has 1%
uh huh... all these pages must be saying really negative things about him... ah, nope I just went through the first 40 pages to see how many were negative... ZERO, not ONE...
All he musters is 1% :-\
yea....
-
Online Poll Receives a Staggering 16,371 Individually Validated Ballots
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--FreedomWorks officially closed its Republican Presidential Straw Poll early this morning after 16,371 limited government conservatives cast their votes over 3 days of polling. Texas Representative Ron Paul won by a wide margin with 56 percent of the vote. Senator Fred Thompson snatched the second place position, with Duncan Hunter taking third. The FreedomWorks Straw Poll provides the most complete view of the limited government movement heading into the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th. For complete results, visit http://www.freedomworks.org/strawpoll
-
Ron Paul Demolishes Other Republicans In Online Polls
http://duggmirror.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Demolishes_Other_Republicans_In_Online_Polls/
-
now fellas, this has got to be the most active 1% campaign I've ever seen. If we are to believe the numbers are even close, every last person who likes Ron Paul has to be engaged tipple overtime...
Did someone say democracy ::)
-
ahahaha.... It's called denial bitches... ;)
-
now fellas, this has got to be the most active 1% campaign I've ever seen. If we are to believe the numbers are even close, every last person who likes Ron Paul has to be engaged tipple overtime...
Did someone say democracy ::)
Now "fellas"? Who are you talking to lad? No-one else has commented, have ye a split personality? I heard teh crack does that to a chap.
On the topic of the thread, Ron Paul is revolutionary in the field of republicans I suppose, and I like the guy. He has 2 fronts to fight on tho, against the democrats and his fellow closed neo-con republicans.
MySpace is hardly the place to find a logical group think responce.
-
MySpace is hardly the place to find a logical group think responce.
Neither is the line to the polling booth ;) Yes I know the myspace search not any kind of tell all, as I addressed in my post, but thanks for agreeing with me...
-
i am starting to hate this ron paul douchebag.
-
i am starting to hate this ron paul douchebag.
Why?
-
MySpace is hardly the place to find a logical group think responce.
He has a point there Berserker. If this is just a summary of the number of myspace pages that mention Ron Paul, I would put that in the "meaningless" category as far his political candidacy goes. Thompson was mentioned 3,360 times and Paul 103,000 times, but Thompson is miles ahead of Paul in the polls, despite not even being an official candidate.
-
He has a point there Berserker.
Oh you mean the point I made in the first post, the one you two obviously didn't read ::) It's not meaningless, that goes to far, it is what it is and it has flaws as I pointed out, but it also has some worthy info. One way to look at it is it contains at least as many flaws as the very unscientific straw poll just conducted, that doesn't seem to stop people from pointing to its relevance and importance with frantic excitement it seems ::)
I've also turned up similar numbers for Ron Paul in other areas of the net. Without a doubt he has more people posting on blogs, forums and websites than any of the other candidates. That bubba, has some value... I never attempted to make it more than what it is, which is to say quite obviously any poll numbers putting him at 1 and less than 1 percent are full of complete shit. Like I said, if he's only got 1% interest, it has to be the busiest 1% ever.
-
Oh you mean the point I made in the first post, the one you two obviously didn't read ::) It's not meaningless, that goes to far, it is what it is and it has flaws as I pointed out, but it also has some worthy info. One way to look at it is it contains at least as many flaws as the very unscientific straw poll just conducted, that doesn't seem to stop people from pointing to its relevance and importance with frantic excitement it seems ::)
I've also turned up similar numbers for Ron Paul in other areas of the net. Without a doubt he has more people posting on blogs, forums and websites than any of the other candidates. That bubba, has some value... I never attempted to make it more than what it is, which is to say quite obviously any poll numbers putting him at 1 and less than 1 percent are full of complete shit. Like I said, if he's only got 1% interest, it has to be the busiest 1% ever.
I really don't see any comparison between a poll, particularly a straw poll, where people indicate a preference for a particular candidate for president, and some amorphous reference to a guy on a myspace page with absolutely no frame of reference. How do you know 50,000 of those references aren't calling the guy a nut? How many of those pages belong to minors (i.e., people who aren't old enough to vote)? How many of those people aren't United States citizens? I could probably think of several other reasons why myspace hits aren't relevant to this guy's political candidacy, but those are just off the top of my head.
I think I understand one of the points you're trying to make: Ron Paul has some great positions on a number of issues and should be a major player in the Republican party. I pretty agree many of his positions should be embraced by Republican and Democrat candidates (e.g., never voting for a tax increase--I really like that one. :))
Let's see how the primary votes turn out, assuming he stays in the race that long. It's possible the poll numbers could be way off, but I doubt that's the case where he is concerned.
-
Only a complete fool would see no relevant information in collecting various statistics from various major internet gathering places like myspace... I promise you, your glorious Karl Rove would never make that error and I would bet anything similar statistics from these .coms have crossed his desk more than once. absolute fact.
If people find some value in the Iowa straw poll, which is completely unscientific and very open to manipulation, I have no problem looking for items of interest in sites like myspace, and I by far never claimed these numbers were some kind of absolute tell. right off the bat I said otherwise so end that crap.
If you read what I said, I did a check of how many people were calling him a nut. The search results should be fairly random, that is no order distinction between those who favor him and those who do not. I could not find one page unfavorable to Ron Paul in the first 40 pages, I could extend that out until I find a few negative comments on Ron and ratio that with the whole to receive an approximate number that wouldn't be far off. But if I came up with no negatives in the first 40 pages, that's a lot of pages on myspace mentioning Ron without calling him a nut. There is infomation in doing these searches that has some relevent importance, it's totally foolish to say there is nothing there of interest and it is of interest to have so many talking about a candidate that isn't mustering even 1% in the national polls...
-
Oh and you can control the searches pretty well. Minors were filtered from the search, I have my preferences set to block them out.
-
I didn't say myspace hits are completely irrelevant. I said "If this is just a summary of the number of myspace pages that mention Ron Paul, I would put that in the 'meaningless' category as far his political candidacy goes." In that context, it's relevant to nothing, particularly when you look at the number of hits involving the candidates who actually have a legitimate shot to win the nomination.
On second thought, you might be on to something. I did a Google search for the following names and came up with the following hits:
Ron Paul: 9,400,000
Hillary Clinton: 5,110,000
Scooby Doo: 3,770,000
Barack Obama: 3,260,000
Ronald Reagan: 2,550,000
Homer Simpson: 2,530,000
Rudy Giuliani: 2,160,000
The man who may be the next president of the United States (Rudy) has fewer hits than a dead guy and two cartoon characters, while a guy who will likely not garner more than 2 percent of the vote in the Republican primary (the one or two primaries that he might participate in) is being discussed all over the internet. What that tells me is people might be talking about the guy, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not he is a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. The fact is he's not. At least not at this point.
-
He gets my vote!!:
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
Health Freedom
Americans are justifiably concerned over the government’s escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.
I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.
I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.
I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 746, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.
I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements
I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.
-
He gets my vote!!:
The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.
Smallpox was eliminated from USA due to legislation requiring vaccinations. At one time, smallpox killed 2 million people around the world. A year.
Why would you oppose such a thing?
-
Obviously she does.
Look under her handle: "Man = Parasite of Earth"
She probably thinks diseases and virus' have a right to kill us. Fooking lunatic hippy.
-
Smallpox was eliminated from USA due to legislation requiring vaccinations. At one time, smallpox killed 2 million people around the world. A year.
Why would you oppose such a thing?
You can get vaccinated if you chose too. Nothing that has the potential to harm should be mandatory.
Diseases were already on the decline when vaccinations were introduced, vaccinations take a lot more credit than they should. Sanitation/hygiene and overall health (food, clean water) were/are the MAJOR contributor to disease decline.
You should not force vaccination because of an assumed threat.
If someone choses to get vaccinated fine, if they chose not to, then that should be fine also.
The government is not going to tell me that I have to have something injected into me that will possibly cause me health problems down the line.
-
You can get vaccinated if you chose too. Nothing that has the potential to harm should be mandatory.
Diseases were already on the decline when vaccinations were introduced, vaccinations take a lot more credit than they should. Sanitation/hygiene and overall health (food, clean water) were/are the MAJOR contributor to disease decline.
You should not force vaccination because of an assumed threat.
If someone choses to get vaccinated fine, if they chose not to, then that should be fine also.
The government is not going to tell me that I have to have something injected into me that will possibly cause me health problems down the line.
When it comes to the health and safety of the population at large, government has a very strong power/interest to effectuate certain things. Compulsory innoculations is one of those things.
You're taking your libertarian streak too far.
-
When it comes to the health and safety of the population at large, government has a very strong power/interest to effectuate certain things. Compulsory innoculations is one of those things.
You're taking your libertarian streak too far.
Nope, don't agree. You can not inject people with potentionally harmful substances. The government does not own my body, they can't make a health decision for me or anyone. They can not decide what is the greater risk to someone. If I will be the one affected by possible consequences from either being vaccinated or not being vaccinated then it is MY choice to make. People who feel the disease is the greater risk can get vaccinated, those that don't can chose not to get vaccinated.
Why violate anyone's rights?
-
Nope, don't agree. You can not inject people with potentionally harmful substances. The government does not own my body, they can't make a health decision for me or anyone. They can not decide what is the greater risk to someone. If I will be the one affected by possible consequences from either being vaccinated or not being vaccinated then it is MY choice to make. People who feel the disease is the greater risk can get vaccinated, those that don't can chose not to get vaccinated.
Why violate anyone's rights?
The government can make a health decision for you and everyone inside the jurisdiction of the United States. That is well settled law. The Congress, States and Judiciary use 'cost/benefit' analysis in determining risk/viability all the time.
You may think that your individual liberty in this country is pure license to do as you please. It is not and never has been.
Do you see why the State might have an over-riding interest in compulsory innoculation if someone like you, refusing innoculation, even poses the threat of becoming the next 'typhoid Mary'?
In this instance the welfare of the population at large outweighs any claim you have to freedom from governmental intrusion into your life.
-
No, it doesn't. Look at the government trying to force Gardisil on 6th graders!
You cannot force something into someones body. It is not for the government to decide what I have to accept as the greater risk.
Since I will either have to live with damage from the vaccination or the risk in contracting the disease it is MY decision which I feel is the greater risk.
Add to it the fact that they give the vaccine manufacturers immunity against any lawsuits from people harmed by the vaccines, they really do not have any right to force vaccinations onto people.
You can go along and just blindly allow them to vaccinate you, microchip you or whatever else they decide is "the best interest". :D
-
In this instance the welfare of the population at large outweighs any claim you have to freedom from governmental intrusion into your life.
I agree.
-
No, it doesn't. Look at the government trying to force Gardisil on 6th graders!
You cannot force something into someones body. It is not for the government to decide what I have to accept as the greater risk.
Since I will either have to live with damage from the vaccination or the risk in contracting the disease it is MY decision which I feel is the greater risk.
Add to it the fact that they give the vaccine manufacturers immunity against any lawsuits from people harmed by the vaccines, they really do not have any right to force vaccinations onto people.
You can go along and just blindly allow them to vaccinate you, microchip you or whatever else they decide is "the best interest". :D
Gardisil is not the same thing as a small pox vaccination or the like. An airborn infectious agent responsible for an estimated 500 million deaths in the 20th century is a bit different than cervical cancer contracted via an STD.
The hubris you show in claiming that "MY decision" not to get innoculated is scary. Let me repeat the number: 500 million deaths.
You have no right to create even the slightest probability that you could become a carrier for such destruction.
-
You can choose to get vaccinated and not worry about if I croak from the disease.
:D
-
You can choose to get vaccinated and not worry about if I croak from the disease.
:D
But we do have to worry if you have an infectious disease. TB, for example.
-
You can choose to get vaccinated and not worry about if I croak from the disease.
:D
I have to agree with Beach Bum on this one. What if you carry a mutated strain of the disease?
-
If it's mutated then I guess the vac won't be doing shit anyways!!
Like I said, you can chose to get vaccinated or not, I chose not to.
Since the government is going to tell me to fuck myself if I am injured from the vaccination, they can go fuck themselves in forcing it on me.
:D
-
If it's mutated then I guess the vac won't be doing shit anyways!!
Like I said, you can chose to get vaccinated or not, I chose not to.
Since the government is going to tell me to fuck myself if I am injured from the vaccination, they can go fuck themselves in forcing it on me.
:D
No no. You are engaging in sophistry. You contract the disease b/c you refuse to get innoculated. The disease changes in you and you spread the mutated form like wildfire.
But the integrity of your extreme libertarianism is still intact.
That is wrong.
-
I don't consider myself any political affiliation, I don't even know what most of them mean! ;D
I don't want something forced into my body that may harm me. The government has no right to do that. And since I have mentioned they will do squat if you suffer ill health from the vaccinations then they certainly have no right to force it on anyone.
Remember the threat of WMD's? I should let them inject me because they may think Smallpox is going to be a threat? ::)
Sorry, don't think so.
-
Flower, do u have an husband?
If you say 'yes' I won't believe you.
You seem like one of those self righteous type women. Hard fucking work.
-
I don't consider myself any political affiliation, I don't even know what most of them mean! ;D
I don't want something forced into my body that may harm me. The government has no right to do that. And since I have mentioned they will do squat if you suffer ill health from the vaccinations then they certainly have no right to force it on anyone.
Remember the threat of WMD's? I should let them inject me because they may think Smallpox is going to be a threat? ::)
Sorry, don't think so.
You are engaging in a cost/benefit analysis. You think, for whatever reason, that the innoculation will harm you. You also think that compulsory innoculation violates your personal rights. You don't see a benefit from the innoculation.
You miss entirely the point that you could spread a disease that could kill many people. That just doesn't enter into your thinking.
Yes, the government has the power to force you to get innoculated.
What are you afraid of? Smallpox is a proven killer and once that genie is out of the bottle, millions could die?
And you don't want the innoculation just b/c you think it might be harmful to your body? Where's your proof?
-
The government can't force me.
:)
-
The government can't force me.
:)
You would be surprised what your State government can do to you when a state of emergency is declared. One of those things is forced inoculation
-
The government can't force me.
:)
Flower are you saying you have the right to contract a preventable infectious disease and spread that disease to others?
-
Flower are you saying you have the right to contract a preventable infectious disease and spread that disease to others?
I am saying EVERYONE has the right to accept or refuse a vaccination, not just me. :D
How can the government force something into your body that they will not take any responsibility for if it harms you?
A person can chose to get vaccinated and risk harm from that, or not get vaccinated and take the risk of contracting a disease.
Their are more people than you would think walking amongst you right not that have never been vaccinated for some things, and some people that have never had any vaccinations.
BOO! ;D
-
I am saying EVERYONE has the right to accept or refuse a vaccination, not just me. :D
How can the government force something into your body that they will not take any responsibility for if it harms you?
A person can chose to get vaccinated and risk harm from that, or not get vaccinated and take the risk of contracting a disease.
Their are more people than you would think walking amongst you right not that have never been vaccinated for some things, and some people that have never had any vaccinations.
BOO! ;D
What evidence shows vaccinations that we have been getting for decades are harmful?
I understand your position (bodily integrity, etc.), although I just think the government's interest in preventing the spread of disease is greater than the right not to receive a shot. Besides, most of these vaccinations are given to us as kids. I don't even remember mine.
-
I am saying EVERYONE has the right to accept or refuse a vaccination, not just me. :D
How can the government force something into your body that they will not take any responsibility for if it harms you?
A person can chose to get vaccinated and risk harm from that, or not get vaccinated and take the risk of contracting a disease.
Their are more people than you would think walking amongst you right not that have never been vaccinated for some things, and some people that have never had any vaccinations.
BOO! ;D
Is your stance on vaccinations based on the speculation regarding autism and vaccinations?
-
Flower are you saying you have the right to contract a preventable infectious disease and spread that disease to others?
You state things really well sometimes. My brother is like that too.
-
You state things really well sometimes. My brother is like that too.
Thanks mang. What do they say about a broken clock? :) You're probably the most articulate person on the board. I appreciate your comments.
-
Thanks mang. What do they say about a broken clock? :) You're probably the most articulate person on the board. I appreciate your comments.
Thanks. I wish I would have read this before I mispelled 'inoculation' a hundred times.
-
Is your stance on vaccinations based on the speculation regarding autism and vaccinations?
In part, but I doubt anyone here is going to say that vaccinations CAN NOT harm people. There is a risk, even if you believe it is a small one, there still is one. Who is anyone to tell you what risk is acceptable and that you must take it? In most cases the medical community thinks unless you didn't fall over on the spot after a vaccination, no subsequent health problems have any ties to the vaccine. ::) They were even reluctant to link the Gardisil vaccine with girls passing out. Their have been 5 deaths and numerous major ongoing health problems to girls that rec'd that vaccination. And they wanted (and in some places are still trying) to make it mandatory?!?
They have studied Amish communities that don't vaccinate and there has been NO cases of autism. Why is that? Meanwhile autism and other disorders have been rising, coincidently so has the number of vaccinations given to children also risen. And they want to keep adding more vaccines to the schedule!
Because people have been told that their is no connection between health problems and vaccines, in particular autism, and with the internet making it easy for people to research on their own, people have started to get pissed off at the lies and the sweeping under the rug of adverse affects from vaccinations. Then they add more vaccinations that are "mandatory" and people go the opposite and say "fuck you". Parents who had a healthy child one day, then an autistic child after being vaccinated get another kick in the head when they are told there is no connection. Soldiers that have died after getting a cocktail of vaccinations yet their families are told it had nothing to do with it.
They need to drop the "vaccines do no harm" bullshit and start with some honesty if they want people like me to even consider getting any vaccination. Because if I do not get 100% informed information I won't even consider it.
The DOD knows there is a risk of a health problem and even death from the smallpox vaccine. Yes, they concluded the risk was low, and if you read it they say some events had nothing to do with the vaccine (of course it didn't ::)) but they acknowledge there is a risk. It is relative to each person what is an acceptable risk, the government can't make that decision for me or anyone.
http://www.smallpox.mil/event/SPSafetySum.asp (http://www.smallpox.mil/event/SPSafetySum.asp)
DoD Smallpox Vaccination Program
Safety Summary, 17 May 2007
Background:
On December 13, 2002, the President directed smallpox vaccinations for selected military personnel, government workers, and contracted workers. DoD vaccinations began immediately for emergency response personnel and hospital staff members. Comprehensive training programs in vaccination technique, infection-control safeguards, screening and education methods, adverse event monitoring, and product storage and handling, aggressively launched in October 2002, made immediate vaccinations possible. In early January 2003, DoD began smallpox vaccinations of selected US military forces, and emergency-essential civilians and contractors deployed or deploying in support of U.S. Central Command missions.
Program Status:
DoD operational forces and healthcare workers vaccinated against smallpox: over 1,200,000. Another 116,700 personnel were screened for vaccination, but medically exempted. Details about the DoD program appeared in the June 25, 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).The abstract of that article appears after the following summation of the program’s current status:
In the 53 months between 13 Dec 02 and 17 May 2007, the DoD administered more than 1,200,000 smallpox vaccinations. Most adverse events occurred at rates below historical rates.
• 140 cases of myo-pericarditis developed after smallpox vaccination. These cases have been followed carefully to evaluate their recovery. Detailed follow-up cardiac testing is available in 64 cases: all 64 had normal electrocardiograms (ECGs), echocardiograms (“echos”), and normal treadmill stress test results, suggesting a high rate of recovery. [See Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004 (Jul 7);44(1):201-5.]
• Another 16 cases of "ischemic" heart disease (such as heart attacks, atherosclerosis, or angina) occurred within 6 weeks after smallpox vaccination. This number of cases is similar to what normally occurs among unvaccinated military personnel of similar age.
• In no case was vaccinia (the live virus in the vaccine) transmitted from one person to another in the work place. Among 27,700 smallpox-vaccinated health-care workers, there were no cases of transmission of vaccinia from worker to patient.
• 61 cases (36 lab-confirmed) of contact transfer of vaccinia virus have occurred, principally to spouses and adult intimate contacts. During education, we repeat the warning "Don't let your guard down at home."
• One case of eczema vaccinatum occurred. No cases of progressive vaccinia. This indicates our education and exemption process is working well.
• The total number of treatments with vaccinia immune globulin (VIG) is six: one burn patient, one eczema vaccinatum patient, one contact transmission, two ocular patients, and one unconfirmed contact transmission.
• In the 43 cases of possible generalized vaccinia all were treated primarily as outpatients. This is discussed in detail in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2006;55:23-31. Few of those reported cases meet a strict case definition.
• Eight deaths due to disease after vaccination have been reviewed: one following an acute lupus-like illness may have been caused by vaccination, based on review by two independent panels of civilian physicians. Additional information on this case appears at http://www.smallpox.mil/event/panelreport.asp. Another case involved sudden death in a 26-year-old Soldier given smallpox and influenza vaccines 16 days earlier; in this case, evidence of parvovirus B19 was found in his heart tissue. The other deaths involved the following diagnoses (one each, except as noted): myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease (ASCVD, two), pulmonary embolism, heat injury, and benzodiazepine overdose. These deaths were judged unrelated to vaccination, based on individual factors such as preexisting disease, incidence among unvaccinated people, and lack of physical evidence to implicate a vaccine.
NOTE: All appropriate program information is provided regularly to federal health authorities, including all safety-surveillance data.
The June 25, 2003, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) summarizes the DoD experience with smallpox vaccination to date. Below appears the abstract of this article:
US Military Smallpox Vaccination Program Experience John D. Grabenstein, RPh, PhD William Winkenwerder, Jr., MD, MBA
Context. The United States recently implemented smallpox vaccination of selected military personnel in a national program of preparedness against use of smallpox as a biological weapon. The return of smallpox vaccinations raises important questions regarding implementation and safety.
Objective. To describe the US military smallpox vaccination program.
Design. Descriptive study of the vaccination program from its inception on December 13, 2002, through May 28, 2003.
Setting. US Department of Defense (DoD) fixed and field medical treatment facilities on multiple continents and ships at sea.
Subjects. US service members and DoD civilian workers eligible for smallpox vaccination.
Main Outcome Measures. Numbers of vaccinations and rates of vaccination exemptions, symptoms, and adverse events. Data was collected via reports to headquarters and rigorous surveillance for sentinel events.
Results. In 5.5 months, the DoD administered 450,293 smallpox vaccinations (70.5% primary vaccinees and 29.5% revaccinees). In 2 settings, 0.5% and 3.0% of vaccine recipients needed short-term sick leave. Most adverse events occurred at rates below historical rates. One case of encephalitis and 37 cases of acute myopericarditis developed after vaccination; all cases recovered. Among 19,461 worker-months of clinical contact, there were no cases of transmission of vaccinia from worker to patient, no cases of eczema vaccinatum or progressive vaccinia, and no attributed deaths.
Conclusions. Mass smallpox vaccinations can be conducted safely with very low rates of serious adverse events. Program implementation emphasized human factors: careful staff training, contraindication screening, recipient education, and attention to bandaging. Our experience suggests broad smallpox vaccination programs may be implemented with fewer serious adverse events than previously believed. JAMA. 2003;289:3278-3282 www.jama.com
-
Not to sound like the prince of darkness here, Flower, but those statistics re adverse reactions to vaccination are insignificant compared to the ravages of epidemic disease.