U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-08-2015, 01:11 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,535 posts, read 26,155,710 times
Reputation: 26537

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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

Last edited by suzy_q2010; 06-08-2015 at 01:59 AM..

 
Old 06-08-2015, 03:32 AM
 
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,367 posts, read 1,525,349 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
No, I did not say "the community favors."
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The Catholic Church clearly supports vaccination. For a Catholic to say vaccination is against his religion is clearly wrong. The quote I gave you states that the benefit to your child, public health, and the community favors vaccination.
Suzy Q,

At this point, with you proving that you dont even know what you yourself said, the best thing you could do in support of people changing their minds, is to stop attempting to define their religion for them, and simply be quiet.

Its just a suggestion, and I doubt you would heed the advice, lol.

People whos logic teeters back and forth depending on the issue do more to harm your stance than it does to benefit it.

You define what church leaders say to mean they MUST vaccinate. You say the age of the aborted fetus negates the religion.

Science and Religion have been warring forever. Both have meaning and value, however, one seems to throw out scare tactics lies and even subTerfuge to make you believe, while the other throws out a state of grace and love. Science has even proved religions value. Genetics proves Eve existed.

My mind body and soul are my responsibility. No one is collateral damage to their families. If I die because of my choice - thats on me. If I die because of your choice for me -woah! Im also part Irish, and dont think for a second I wont come back and haunt your azz.
 
Old 06-08-2015, 05:06 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,535 posts, read 26,155,710 times
Reputation: 26537
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52 View Post
Suzy Q,

At this point, with you proving that you dont even know what you yourself said, the best thing you could do in support of people changing their minds, is to stop attempting to define their religion for them, and simply be quiet.

Its just a suggestion, and I doubt you would heed the advice, lol.

People whos logic teeters back and forth depending on the issue do more to harm your stance than it does to benefit it.

You define what church leaders say to mean they MUST vaccinate. You say the age of the aborted fetus negates the religion.

Science and Religion have been warring forever. Both have meaning and value, however, one seems to throw out scare tactics lies and even subTerfuge to make you believe, while the other throws out a state of grace and love. Science has even proved religions value. Genetics proves Eve existed.
I am sorry you cannot understand a simple declarative English sentence. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I said, "The quote I gave you states that the benefit to your child, public health, and the community favors vaccination." Read the entire sentence, not just the last three words.

" ... that the benefit to your child, public, and the community favors vaccination" is a clause. The subject of the clause is the noun benefit. Favors is a transitive verb. It takes an object. Vaccination is a noun and is the object of the verb favors. The adjectival prepositional phrase to your child, public health, and the community modifies the noun benefit.

I said the benefit favors vaccination, not the community favors vaccination.

The "it's against my religion" claim for vaccine exemption is mostly bogus. It has been subverted by people who are not religious lying and claiming the exemption. The majority of Americans belong to religious denominations, including Catholicism, that do not have objections to vaccination.

In addition, not all denominations have the same stance on abortion as the Catholic Church. For example Methodism:

"We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers. We support parental, guardian, or other responsible adult notification and consent before abortions can be performed on girls who have not yet reached the age of legal adulthood. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics (see Resolution 3184).

We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. This procedure shall be performed only by certified medical providers. Before providing their services, abortion providers should be required to offer women the option of anesthesia."

Social Principles: The Nurturing Community - The United Methodist Church

If the only objection is to vaccines made with cell lines derived from two abortions done decades ago, why reject vaccines that were not made with those cell lines?

By the way, genetic Eve is not the Eve of the Bible. She is just the most recent common female ancestress of every woman alive today. There were probably any number of females contemporary to her who have no living female descendants now.

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered : Discovery News

"These primeval people aren't parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today."

Quote:
My mind body and soul are my responsibility. No one is collateral damage to their families. If I die because of my choice - thats on me. If I die because of your choice for me -woah! Im also part Irish, and dont think for a second I wont come back and haunt your azz.
What if someone in another family dies because of your decision not to vaccinate? It's all right for your choice to have collateral damage?
 
Old 06-08-2015, 06:44 AM
 
5,654 posts, read 3,204,284 times
Reputation: 6636
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...nza-pandemic-0

I assume everyone on here was alive and can remember the 2009 Flu Pandemic. Suzy, there is your "Jacobson". What happened when this pandemic was declared? NOTHING. Door to Door vaccinations?

Why not if government had the power to force flu shots during this pandemic? I guess they dropped the ball on this one.
 
Old 06-08-2015, 07:46 AM
 
8,546 posts, read 5,273,203 times
Reputation: 9115
Suzy thinks that all single parents can homeschool. It's so easy.

Hahahahahaha!
 
Old 06-08-2015, 07:54 AM
 
8,315 posts, read 8,596,327 times
Reputation: 25964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...nza-pandemic-0

I assume everyone on here was alive and can remember the 2009 Flu Pandemic. Suzy, there is your "Jacobson". What happened when this pandemic was declared? NOTHING. Door to Door vaccinations?

Why not if government had the power to force flu shots during this pandemic? I guess they dropped the ball on this one.
I remember that pandemic well. Both of my kids became sick before it was over and before the vaccine for H1N1 became available.

Trying to calculate what strains of flu will become the most threatening is a difficult job. Despite all the progress made in the area of disease surveillance and design of a seasonal influenza vaccine, problems persist. As I have noted, vaccines and all medicines have to pass through a complicated process before they can win approval in the USA. It can be very hard to complete such a process in time, when we are faced with an emergency like a pandemic. Once the vaccine is completed and approval obtained, there remain problems of manufacturing a sufficient quantity and distributing it to everywhere it is needed.

I don't think vaccinating everyone door to door was an option because of lack of availability of the vaccine until it was too late for many. Its hopefully a situation that can be prevented next time. However, the challenge of always correctly calculating what vaccine will be the most effective is a daunting one. The logistical problems in getting the vaccine manufactured and distributed where it is needed are an equal dilemma.

This article from the New England Journal of Medicine talks about lessons we need to learn from the 2009 Flu Pandemic.


MMS: Error
 
Old 06-08-2015, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,020 posts, read 98,892,281 times
Reputation: 31456
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
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.




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.



See above. A Catholic cannot claim vaccination is "against my religion". It's not.



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

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."



Let me google that for you



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.



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.

When I had my hip surgery in December of 2010, the hospital had a rule that those who refused flu shots had to wear a mask. One nurse (male) was running around in a mask. He explained it to me, but I thought he was nuts.

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.

Agreed. And those children should be vaccinated. My daughter worked in a day care center, and got her flu vaccine. However, not all the kids did, and one hung all over her one day before being dx with flu. DD got the flu too, in a similar manner to those doctors who got the measles, IMO.

The legal door for mandates was opened long ago. Mandates are legal.



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.



So you admit you are anti-vaccine. all the talk about choice is just a smokescreen.


My opinion as well!

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.



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.



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.

That would be me!


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.



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.



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.
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.

Re: the lawyer issue-in Vac Court, the court pays the lawyer fees. It's a much better financial deal than civil court.

Re: "baby killer"-there's been a lot of name-calling on this thread.



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.



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.



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?



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




How in the world does a mandate "create fear"?



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
Great post! (Mine in teal!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Suzy thinks that all single parents can homeschool. It's so easy.

Hahahahahaha!
Could we make an agreement to can the mockery?
 
Old 06-08-2015, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,020 posts, read 98,892,281 times
Reputation: 31456
Quote:
Arizona does just that regarding gun ownership laws.
You know, I'm confused! When we were discussing religious vaccine exemptions, and I showed how there are many websites to help Florida parents to obtain one, I was told I didn't understand that the discussion was about California! By the same token, I don't understand what gun ownership in Arizona has to do with immunizations in California. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-08-2015 at 08:46 AM..
 
Old 06-08-2015, 08:36 AM
 
5,654 posts, read 3,204,284 times
Reputation: 6636
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I remember that pandemic well. Both of my kids became sick before it was over and before the vaccine for H1N1 became available.

Trying to calculate what strains of flu will become the most threatening is a difficult job. Despite all the progress made in the area of disease surveillance and design of a seasonal influenza vaccine, problems persist. As I have noted, vaccines and all medicines have to pass through a complicated process before they can win approval in the USA. It can be very hard to complete such a process in time, when we are faced with an emergency like a pandemic. Once the vaccine is completed and approval obtained, there remain problems of manufacturing a sufficient quantity and distributing it to everywhere it is needed.

I don't think vaccinating everyone door to door was an option because of lack of availability of the vaccine until it was too late for many. Its hopefully a situation that can be prevented next time. However, the challenge of always correctly calculating what vaccine will be the most effective is a daunting one. The logistical problems in getting the vaccine manufactured and distributed where it is needed are an equal dilemma.

This article from the New England Journal of Medicine talks about lessons we need to learn from the 2009 Flu Pandemic.


MMS: Error
So you are saying that there wasn't mandatory vaccinations because not enough vaccine for every man, woman, and child in the country? lol

Maybe more like this

:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjMRaNuxpjc

I would have the same reaction as the woman on this. This may have been for children, but I would image adults would have the same, if not worse, reaction to door to door flu shots for themselves.

I don't think you get it.
 
Old 06-08-2015, 08:39 AM
 
8,546 posts, read 5,273,203 times
Reputation: 9115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Great post! (Mine in teal!)



Could we make an agreement to can the mockery?
Did you see the comment that I was responding to? If that wasn't mocking then I don't know what is. "let me google that for you". If you want respectful discourse then I'd suggest you demand it from both sides, not just those who's opinion you do not share.

And I do find it laughable that someone would claim that homeschooling is an option for all single parents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top