Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Gosh Suzy, I'm so flattered at the amount of posts you've felt compelled to reply to . 
You'll have to forgive me,I won't bother wasting my time this go around. I won't play the you might kill my kid game with you, it's childish.
I didn't circumcise my baby boy, and he's pretty happy intact so I obviously don't agree with the CDC. I think it's gross to recommend cutting a boys penis to prevent infections. Yikes! I'll cross that bridge when it comes.  I hope it doesn't follow the path that their vaccine campaign is going on. Seems pretty similar from the starting gate. Since these mandates have started to hit home I must say, I get worried every time the CDC starts recommending things.
Regardless of what you say, there is no way this isn't threatening and coercing parents to vaccinate. It is what it is. I still don't think this is the wise choice, why would I? So many better ways to handle this and I've stated that until I have a big blue face. 
Oh, and go ahead and sue me for selling you food, driving, riding my bike, driving a bus, plane, train, etc, etc. For all those things are more likely to get you ill or injured, or dead as a door nail than the measles. You'll be lucky you can sue, I have no "act" protecting me from it like the drug companies do. Have at it.  |
All the CDC said was that there are medical benefits to circumcision. It did nothing to mandate circumcision. No one will take your son from you and circumcise him. You need not be afraid.
Any person who wishes to refuse to vaccinate will be able to do so. The choice is still there. If a refuser decides to vaccinate in order to take advantage of public school, it will mean that the refuser did not really have a strong reason for refusal.
All of those are also more likely to get you dead than being fully vaccinated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Christian Scientist I think are one organization that's against it.
But, you are correct, most are like this lady....I'll leave a link. These people here will sound alarms and gather people. They feel pretty strongly about it. They also fear that eventually they will make all homeschoolers vaccinate which will be like the Civil War happening to these people. lol
http://www.livingwhole.org/god-does-...port-vaccines/ |
Christian Scientists may vaccinate, so what you "think" is wrong.
Religious exemption for vaccines: Christian Scientists, Catholics, and Dutch Reform Church.
"... Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, as saying, 'Rather than quarrel over vaccination, I recommend, if the law demand, that an individual submit to this process, that he obey the law, and then appeal to the gospel to save him from bad physical results.' ”
Dutch Reformed:
"The Dutch Reformed Church’s objections seemed to start out as fear of adverse effects, but, for some, have morphed into a belief that vaccines interfere with the relationship with God, as they make people less dependent on God. As a result of low vaccination rates in the Dutch 'Bible Belt,' more than 1,200 people came down with measles in a 2013 outbreak. But there is another subset of the denomination that describes vaccinations as a gift from God that should be used with gratitude."
A review of the world's major religions and vaccination:
http://childrenshealthcare.org/wp-co...in-article.pdf
Your livingwhole link contains frank lies concerning cell lines from abortion and vaccines. There are no "ground up baby parts" in vaccines. Abortions are not being continually done to supply "tissue" for vaccines. The cell lines used originated decades ago with exactly two abortions. No more. It is illegal to perform an abortion solely to make vaccines.
The following is from someone who considers abortion to be murder. He explains why your link is lying:
Proslogion-Vaccines: The REAL Story - Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissu
He also reiterates what has previously been said about the stance of the Catholic Church on abortion.
"Because some organizations have tried to mischaracterize this statement, the Catholic News Service (CNS) produced an article that quotes Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau, a medical doctor and official at the Pontifical Academy for Life, as saying, 'If the health of the child or of the whole population [is at risk], the parents should accept having their kid be vaccinated if there is no alternative.' Because some organizations clearly do not like the Roman Catholic church officially saying that the use of these vaccines is morally acceptable, they have asked the Pontifical Academy for Life to change its statement. However, CNS reports that Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau said
the document 'could not be changed' because it accurately reflected church teaching. Despite what you might read, then, even the Vatican supports the use of vaccines that have a tangential relationship to abortion, as long as no alternative vaccines are available."
Thus a Catholic could say he will not use vaccines for which the virus is grown on cells derived from one of those two abortions many years ago because he opposes abortion, but that is a personal belief, not a command of Catholicism. It is not a tenet of Catholicism and the stance of the Church has been clearly stated. The Catholic Church does not oppose vaccination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
You continue to disregard the fact that a Catholic does not necessarily have to agree with how the Catholic church interprets every little detail of the bible.
|
See above. A Catholic cannot claim vaccination is "against my religion". It's not.
Quote:
|
This is completely different. There is no way of knowing if an unvaccinated or a vaccinated child will become contagious and pass on an illness to another and actually cause someone harm. Illness is a part of life. Even with 100% vaccine compliance from every single person, we would still have people getting sick and some of those people getting sick would still be getting sick from VPD. People would still die. This mandate also involves coercing people into injecting things into their body that may do harm tot her bodies or to their immune systems. It goes too far.
|
No one expects vaccines to prevent everyone from getting sick from every possible communicable disease. What they do is reduce the number who get sick from
vaccine preventable diseases and reduce the spread if one does get sick - and without vaccines that would be a lot of sickness. With measles, no one today gets sick unless someone with it travels here from another country. If such a person only had contact with people who were vaccinated, he would give it to virtually no one else. If he comes home to a community where vaccination rates are low, he starts an outbreak.
The risk of vaccines doing "harm to bodies or immune systems" is so tiny compared to the risk of the damage done by the diseases they prevent that it is hard to even calculate. If there
were significant risks to vaccines, my opinion on mandates would be very different. The fact is that vaccines are extremely safe. Vaccines do not harm the immune system. They work with it to prevent infections that can and do make people very sick.
As mentioned up thread, the infections themselves can and do damage the immune system. See the discussion of measles and the harm it does to the immune system, increasing the risk of other infections for two to three years after the original measles infection.
Viral infections such as flu promote bacterial infections.
Viral infection in nose can trigger bacterial infection in the ear - Medical News Today
Quote:
|
Will you hold vaccinated individuals who spread disease accountable?
|
No, because they did what they could to mitigate the risk of spreading disease. The fact is that even if they do get sick, they are less likely to spread the disease to someone else. They usually have fewer symptoms and recover faster.
Two Case Studies of Modified Measles in Vaccinated Physicians Exposed to Primary Measles Cases: High Risk of Infection But Low Risk of Transmission
"In 2009, measles outbreaks in Pennsylvania and Virginia resulted in the exposure and apparent infection of 2 physicians, both of whom had a documented history of vaccination with >2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. These physicians were suspected of having been infected with measles after treating patients who subsequently received a diagnosis of measles. The clinical presentation was nonclassical in regard to progression, duration, and severity. It is hypothesized that the 2 physicians mounted vigorous secondary immune responses typified by high avidity measles immunoglobulin G antibody and remarkably high neutralizing titers in response to intense and prolonged exposure to a primary measles case patient. Both of the physicians continued to see patients, because neither considered that they could have measles. Despite surveillance for cases among contacts, including unvaccinated persons, no additional cases were identified."
Quote:
|
Coercion. Some people will have to choose between putting food on the table and paying their rent (working) or their beliefs about vaccination (homeschooling).
|
Let me google that for you
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52
You say the community favors.
Even if certain people do favor, that does not equal an official mandate of the church. You cannot define what someone, even a Roman Catholic, is using your own perception and glossary of terms. But, I have no doubt you will still try. It seems to be your mandated job.
Once again, hasta la vista. Have a nice day! 
We determined long ago in Roe V Wade that a woman is in charge of her own body. I elect to remain in charge of my own mind body and soul. I would assume you will be doing the same. |
No, I did not say "the community favors."
I said, "The quote I gave you states that
the benefit to your child, public health, and the community
favors vaccination."
The benefit favors vaccination.
One is welcome to one's own beliefs. One cannot say something is against one's religion if it is not against the religion to which he ostensibly belongs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
We are already seeing this. Not only unvaccinated children being denied a public education, but nurses losing their jobs for refusing flu shots or even being allowed an accommodation such as wearing a mask.
This is now spreading by the number of new legislative attempts mandating those in more occupations; day care employees (California) and public school teachers (Vermont). Get all your vaccinations (no non-medical exemptions), or get fired. In legal jargon this is called "opening the door" by setting legal precedence. If some occupations can mandate vaccinations, then all occupations can. Miss Terri, that is coercion, as you said. Live and beg on the streets for food (consequences as some say?), or COMPLY with the vaccination schedule to be able to be employed?
Health Care Professionals if that were ever attempted on adults, you most certainly would see a huge backlash. Adult Americans like their freedoms too much for those kinds of "consequences".
|
If a parent wants a public education for his child all he has to do is follow the conditions set out by the school system.
Healthcare personnel should be vaccinated against influenza, to protect themselves, their patients, and their coworkers. Infected health care personnel cannot work, which affects staffing in hospitals and clinics. I would not want an unvaccinated person taking care of me if I were in the hospital during flu season. I would consider a nurse who refused vaccination for other than medical reasons to be poorly educated and would doubt her competency in any area of nursing practice.
People who have close daily contact with the children of other people should be vaccinated. Not to do so, in the absence of a medical contraindication, is irresponsible.
The legal door for mandates was opened long ago. Mandates are legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
I feel the same. While I was under 2 and don't remember most of them myself (not hospitalized even as an infant), I certainly remember other kids, and my own, with measles, mumps, german measles, scarlet fever, and chicken pox. I even remember a couple of kids who had whooping cough when that vaccine was already available. Flu???? Norovirus????? They must be joking with those. Promoting as much fear as possible among the public for compliance. It drives me totally up the wall at my age when they attempt to compare something like measles, mumps, or chicken pox with small pox, polio, or the PLAGUE.  Children were not put in IRON LUNGS from Measles. Geesch.
I do not want medicine, or government, to take away our rights to refuse medical TREATMENTS, of which vaccinations are just one form of a TREATMENT. |
You may refuse any treatment you wish. No, children were not put in iron lungs for measles. Some ended up blind, deaf, or intellectually impaired from it, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
I actually understand what you're saying, and my reasons for wanting a better approach involving choice is not fueled by my opposition to vaccines, but my concern that this approach will do more harm than good.
|
So you admit you are anti-vaccine. all the talk about choice is just a smokescreen.
Quote:
I'm not alone in this, several doctors have blogged this concern as well. With schools and doctors turning away a segment of the population those turned away won't easily give up their beliefs to join the majority, they will usually fight harder. Those who simply didn't want one or two of the recommended vaccines are already stating they will now get none because they are feeling forced by a for profit system to make choices they don't feel comfortable about.
Not to mention, with these mandates we are making small clusters of unvaccinated into to larger clusters of unvaccinated.
|
That sounds really irrational. You would not give a vaccine that you would have otherwise used just because of a mandate?
West Virginia and Mississippi have high vaccination rates with their current policy of medical exemptions only. So your statement that mandates lead to more unvaccinated kids is not true.
Quote:
|
I'm sure you are aware this mandate will open new cases against the state for vaccine injuries that were in part due to a vaccinated people who felt threatened into accepting it. The governments attachment to this issue will only create new avenues.
|
Vaccine injuries are rare. We are talking about the relatively small percentage of children who are not vaccinated. If more are vaccinated, then there will indeed be more adverse reactions, but that number will still be tiny. A child vaccinated due to a mandate is at no greater risk than a child who would have been vaccinated without a mandate.
Quote:
Having a non profit healthcare system would remove the motive for profit when making public health decisions for the public.
Everyone in our system is well aware that profit is the bottom line for the corporate world. Corporations involved in our healthcare system make millions of dollars. Drug companies make more in America than anywhere else in the world because they are allowed to in a for profit healthcare system. This creates a lack of trust. It's also created many medical mistakes, lawsuits, and public numbers that rival cancer for death rates in this country.
|
The "they're in it for the money" argument is a big flop. Drug companies would make billions more treating vaccine preventable diseases than they do selling vaccines.
Also, what are the countries in the world that you perceive have better health care than the US who do not pay for drugs and do not use vaccines? It seems someone posted about Australia establishing vaccine mandates with some rather draconian financial penalties.
Quote:
|
This fuels a distrust about the true intent of mandates, and trusting the CDC. Especially given the ratio of complaints and death about vaccines to the actual number of injuries and deaths that are rewarded with validity.
|
It appears you think that all that is needed for a determination that a vaccine caused an injury is for a parent to say it had to be the vaccine. Valid claims for injuries are paid. Autism is not caused by vaccines and claims for autism are denied.
Quote:
This also raises suspicion. People don't feel in touch with the very people we ask them to trust, even if they do vaccinate. So, people are out there in large numbers trying to tell the public their story. It causes fear and frustration for parents. Mandating with this climate will cause mini wars, as it has already. Regarding California and it's new exemption refusal many parent groups are having heated debates involving threats. It's a sensitive subject.
Again, incentives and educational programs aimed at encouraging vaccines, and removing the stigma that the CDC covers up injury complaints would be better, IMO of course. If these people are indeed afraid, it makes more sense to work on lessoning the fear that stops them from vaccinating instead of fueling it with mandates to me.
|
The CDC does not cover up injury complaints. It investigates them. If you are talking about VAERS, you really need to go back and read Mark's post that contains examples of some VAERS reports to show how a report is not the same as a documented injury.
Quote:
|
I think we are setting up a scenario that will turn off more people to vaccines, not encourage them. I think a more transparent record of injury and death reports help. If people who are pro vaccination would address the discrepancy in injury reporting and understand how 30,000 a year dwindled down to a few seems like strange odds when you do the math that would also help. It seems like they are being asked to take a momentary risk with no recourse and no understanding if they end up suffering an injury.
|
Those 30,000 reports do not represent 30,000 injuries. That is not the way VAERS works. Very few of those reports are of actual injuries, and most of the injuries are minor problems like sore arms or fainting after getting an injection - which is usually due to getting a shot, not the contents of the shot. Grown men have been know to pass out while getting a simple blood draw. Some people just do not like needles.
There is recourse for those who are truly injured by vaccines. It just involves filing a claim. No lawsuit is necessary. You do not have to hire a lawyer on contingency and hope you get a sympathetic jury.
Quote:
|
Most parents are just concerned for their kids just like the other side. Calling them stupid, baby killers, fear stricken lunatics who need mandates because they are just lazy with no conviction as Suzy stated just adds to the trust issues. It also creates a war like atmosphere that might encourage those on the fence to turn the opposite of what we want.
|
Strange, I do not seem to remember calling anyone a
baby killer. I searched the thread, and the only one to use that phrase is you.
Quote:
|
I am concerned about these mandates at the state level. In all fairness, a state or two could capitalize on peoples freedom of choice being safe in their state which could mean a un proportional amount of unvaccinated people in one state or the other. Arizona does just that regarding gun ownership laws.
|
When the number of unvaccinated people in an area reaches a tipping point, people get sick and legislatures take notice. That's what is happening in California now.
Quote:
|
That could create more of a transmission problem then what we have now. The same with doctors who refuse those who don't vaccinate, there will always be a doctor willing to capitalize on this waiting next door in a for proit system. Then we will have a large amount of unvaccinated in one doctors office just ripe for an outbreak. Large amounts of unvaccinated in homeschool playgroups taking field trips, etc. Unless they will be actually eliminated from our society or the mandates will be done to keep your citizenship here I don't see this as any kind of solution to help stop transmission. I do see it as a way to get a few more vaccines sold.
|
But it does stop transmission. No measles in Mississippi in ten years.
Doctors are declining to take unvaccinated children due to the risk to medically unvaccinated children in their practices, including babies too young to vaccinate. Parents who vaccinate do not want that exposure, either.
Quote:
|
My reasoning is not because I feel vaccines don't work, and I accept they could cause harm (more than is reported by the CDC I might add but less than the majority of reports, I stick with the probability of 30000 and go with that) but still had my kids vaccinated for most childhood diseases. But, I had that choice to make knowing that I would be responsible if my kids got the illnesses. I did not make it based on the premise that a school was threatening me into it.
|
How can you stick with that 30,000 number after having been told that there are reports that are so obviously bogus contained in it that anyone with a grain of sense can tell they are not true?
Quote:
That would have made me more suspicious, not less. I question what the real goal is because there is no pandemic, yet we are using that act to promote mandates which trump the right to an education act. This adds to my suspicion.
The public knowledge that those who make vaccines threatened to stop making vaccines because of the numbers, raises suspicion. In a non profit healthcare this doesn't happen. They don't make a profit selling to England or other non profit healthcare systems in Europe, they come here for the profit. England doesn't have to mandate because people trust a non profit system more(it's called the peoples government for a reason), even still some choose not to vaccinate but herd takes care of it for the most part.
|
The UK has decided not to impose a mandate. Perhaps education efforts there have been more successful than in the US. UK vaccination rates are rising. In the US, they are falling.
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PU...013-14-rep.pdf
Quote:
|
My approach would be working on creating more trust, not creating more fear with mandating. If fear is the issue then we should approach it with a program to eliminate fear, not create more. Every time we make fun of or light of someones real fear of vaccination we just instill more fear and increase their lack of trust. I don't see how this is a good thing, I really don't.
|
How in the world does a mandate "create fear"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
I am OVER 65 years old. You cannot scare me with your propaganda. I AM going to die sooner rather than later, despite what your medicine want to. People need to come to terms with that, and not think that precious medicine will prevent it.
Edit: I also have a Legal Degree, so don't lecture me about saving other people's lives. You are under no legal duty to save another person's life, which you health professionals harp on all the time. NO you don't, not the average citizen in an occupation that does not require; police and firefighters as an example. Don't quote me that 1918 Flu Pandemic either. There is no government powers to enforce vaccinations for the greater good due to a PANDEMIC; measles, mumps, chicken pox, or the flu. Bla, Bla, Bla.
Deadly Chicken Pox is just meant for health care "professionals" to get people to seek their CARE and get vaccinations. That is ABSURD. Make me think medicine is desperate with that statement.
|
Most people do not wish to die sooner rather than later, and I certainly do not want my children or grandchildren to die from an infectious disease that can be prevented with a safe, effective vaccine.
The government can indeed impose compulsory vaccination in the event of a public health emergency. It seems your legal education is deficient in that regard.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
