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 06-10-2015, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,864,142 times
Reputation: 7441

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by infocyde View Post
This isn't a binary either / or issue. The concept and science of vaccines is pretty sound, but sometimes the practice, especially when mixed with corrupt big pharma interest, doesn't always make vaccines as safe as many want you to believe. Take a page from the anti-vaxxers and actually put in more safe guards to make sure vaccines are safe rather than creating a new Reich with the power to force people to do everything the state wants.

Also don't always listen to doctors and scientist about vaccines. They are domain experts in the purity of the science of vaccines, how things work in theory. Many are not domain experts in corporate corruption and human beings making mistakes.

I'm not against vaccines per se, but I do thing that there are big interest trying to get you vaccinated for every possible thing under the sun. And some of the ingredients that big pharma puts in the vaccine cocktails may not be as safe as they claim. How do we know? Because the fringe already complained about some of the ingredients, and those ingredients have been mostly removed. Don't take some sci-nerd's fanatical belief that all science is puritanical and that their aren't still things that could not be dangerous.

Don't let people put this in a "vaccines always good" "vaccines always bad" argument. Instead maybe view vaccines as a general good thing but be a little skeptical of the companies that manufacture vaccines that have already been caught doing things that endanger those who use their products.

One example of many

Baxter selling HIV contaminated blood products
A big concern for parents I hear about it the HRSA Vaccine court not admitting fault of vaccine in correlation to injury even if they reward an amount for a vaccine related injury.
There is a tax on every vaccine to account for the pay outs for injury. ( essentially we are paying for our own injury compensation) When talking about protecting children it's from a disease standpoint, and not from a health standpoint. We aren't trying to protect from injury for example, just from disease and injuries relating to that.

Frequently Asked Questions

Since it's limited in payouts you have to qualify from their list of acceptable injury claims. So, I think some parents feel they aren't being taken seriously. You have to hope your child falls within a category if they are injured or else you are out of luck as far as the Vaccine injury compensation program.

It's a bit confusing to say the least. Plus, those states with heavy mandates without exemptions except medical (and it has to be accepted at that) do not require homeschoolers to vaccinate leaving a hole in the transmission theory.

The government also states it's allowed to rule above parental consent about vaccination under the idea that they have the right to protect ones child against the parent but, not when it comes to vaccine injury. The parent does not have the right to protect against that as a health concern. So the wording is also confusing for parents, it's creating fear which isn't productive in any case.

Not to mention as you note, the vaccine companies being exempt to law suits, and not having to proclaim relation to vaccine injury when they profit from the mandates is a bit disturbing. Not all people are going to trust that. Some will for go vaccination in fear of no recourse and no understanding or accountability regarding vaccine injury.

 
Old 06-10-2015, 10:16 PM
 
9,157 posts, read 9,229,894 times
Reputation: 28672
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post

1. A big concern for parents I hear about it the HRSA Vaccine court not admitting fault of vaccine in correlation to injury even if they reward an amount for a vaccine related injury.
There is a tax on every vaccine to account for the pay outs for injury. ( essentially we are paying for our own injury compensation) When talking about protecting children it's from a disease standpoint, and not from a health standpoint. We aren't trying to protect from injury for example, just from disease and injuries relating to that.

Frequently Asked Questions

2. Since it's limited in payouts you have to qualify from their list of acceptable injury claims. So, I think some parents feel they aren't being taken seriously. You have to hope your child falls within a category if they are injured or else you are out of luck as far as the Vaccine injury compensation program.

3. It's a bit confusing to say the least. Plus, those states with heavy mandates without exemptions except medical (and it has to be accepted at that) do not require homeschoolers to vaccinate leaving a hole in the transmission theory.

4. The government also states it's allowed to rule above parental consent about vaccination under the idea that they have the right to protect ones child against the parent but, not when it comes to vaccine injury. The parent does not have the right to protect against that as a health concern. So the wording is also confusing for parents, it's creating fear which isn't productive in any case.

5. Not to mention as you note, the vaccine companies being exempt to law suits, and not having to proclaim relation to vaccine injury when they profit from the mandates is a bit disturbing. Not all people are going to trust that. Some will for go vaccination in fear of no recourse and no understanding or accountability regarding vaccine injury.
I'm going to try to address your comments about the VCF, paragraph by paragraph. Again, I have chosen to number your paragraphs to make this process a bit easier avoid having to repeat what you have already written.

1. It is true that the VCF operates on "no fault" principles. This is a direct outgrowth of the fact that many lawsuits in the past couldn't produce enough evidence to persuade juries that vaccines were causally related to the harms that were alleged. Plaintiffs lost many suits in this fashion. Even though they prevailed, pharmaceutical companies lost millions of dollars defending some claims. A compromise was finally reached where the need to prove medical causation was eliminated in situations where certain specific injuries could be shown. The VCF doesn't specifically deny "fault" on the part of vaccine manufacturers. It simply makes it irrelevant. If specific injuries that appear on a table are shown to have occurred, an award of compensation is automatic.

An excise tax of 75 cents is imposed on every single vaccination given in the country. This money is given to the VCF to pay the costs of the compensation program which includes payouts, administrative costs, and attorney's fees. It is not as though this money comes out of the general fund. I suppose you could say all non-vaccinators are paying nothing for the program because if they don't get a shot, they pay no money into the compensation fund.

2. Its not exactly true that to receive a "payout" from the VCF that you have to have an injury that appears on the VCT. An alternative is to hire expert witnesses and assert that someone has a new condition or disease that does not appear on the VCT. The VCF will hear this case and if it concludes that the weight of expert testimony supports this conclusion, you can recover from the fund. The evidentiary standards for recovering from for a vaccine injury are less than those in other product liability cases. Actually, those alleging vaccine injuries have an easier time prevailing than they would if the lawsuit were over some other defective product.

3. If all students, including home schoolers were required to vaccinate it wouldn't break my heart. Since the vast majority of students attend public or private schools, I think its safe to say with the law about to be enacted in California that the vast majority of students will be vaccinated.

4. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. The state is saying if kids are going to attend public schools they have to be immunized. Its not a statement about government rights being greater than parental rights.

5. Vaccine injuries and payouts are disclosed by the VCF. You can look it up if you want. Numerous statistics are kept. I want to make a comment generally about vaccination injuries. The most common injury that occurs is anaphylaxis, or an allergic reaction to the vaccine. These reactions are rare, but do occur and are legitimate injuries. They can vary from a sore red arm to a handful of children who experience difficulty breathing. Most injuries are not "exotic" like bizarre claims of connection to autism or other diseases. Its just a simple allergic reaction. No huge "proclamation" that the vaccine is responsible for injury is needed here. Just compensation for a few people unfortunately allergic to the vaccine is appropriate.

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensat...ticsreport.pdf

I agree that the system treats vaccines and vaccination different than other medicines and products. They are a unique product designed to keep epidemic disease not only from the individual, but from the community. They receive special protection because of the public interest in containing infectious disease and because of legitimate concerns that vaccines would not be produced by any company without this protection.

One could argue it was wrong to depart from the tort system when it came to vaccine compensation. However, the realities were severalfold:

1. Few plaintiffs were collecting compensation.
2. Vaccine manufacturers were quitting the business because of legal expenses and the potential of class action suits that lay down the road.
3. Few attorneys could afford to take on a vaccine tort case.
4. The "choice" of vaccination would have been eliminated by the refusal of companies to produce vaccine.

The system we created is not perfect, but is an improvement over what came before it.

In our system parental rights are important, but not an absolute. For that matter, in our system, individual liberty is balanced against the police powers of a state to protect the health , welfare, and safety of citizens.

On reflection, it is not nearly as controversial or extreme as you think it is.

Last edited by markg91359; 06-10-2015 at 10:34 PM..
 
Old 06-10-2015, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,011 posts, read 22,774,659 times
Reputation: 34928
I can guarantee you all that if you learned that your neighbors were waking up to kids who were suddenly paralyzed with Polio, you'd all be running to get your kids vaccinated.

It's easy to be blase when there is no current epidemic.

Let's see how well you stick to your guns when kids are dying and waking up paralyzed in your neighborhoods. Will you still send your kids to school where there might be infected kids?

Unfortunately, it may just take another epidemic to convince some of the people here of what life used to be like before there were vaccines. And that's too bad, because it is usually the innocent children who will suffer.
 
Old 06-10-2015, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,650,074 times
Reputation: 1694
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
I can guarantee you all that if you learned that your neighbors were waking up to kids who were suddenly paralyzed with Polio, you'd all be running to get your kids vaccinated.

It's easy to be blase when there is no current epidemic.

Let's see how well you stick to your guns when kids are dying and waking up paralyzed in your neighborhoods. Will you still send your kids to school where there might be infected kids?

Unfortunately, it may just take another epidemic to convince some of the people here of what life used to be like before there were vaccines. And that's too bad, because it is usually the innocent children who will suffer.
"Most people who get infected with poliovirus (about 72 out of 100) will not have any visible symptoms."
Source CDC

So you are talking about a third of people being affected by polio and an even smaller amount being paralyzed.

Yet according to the CDC the vaccine is also just as harmless... Why have the vaccine then?
 
Old 06-10-2015, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,011 posts, read 22,774,659 times
Reputation: 34928
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
"Most people who get infected with poliovirus (about 72 out of 100) will not have any visible symptoms."
Source CDC

So you are talking about a third of people being affected by polio and an even smaller amount being paralyzed.

Yet according to the CDC the vaccine is also just as harmless... Why have the vaccine then?
Um, so you won't be one of the ones who ends up paralyzed.

You can't be serious.

At any rate, I've said my piece. I grew up when kids were waking up paralyzed. I knew them. I would never take a chance with my child or anyone else's children. Shame on anyone who would.
 
Old 06-10-2015, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,864,142 times
Reputation: 7441
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'm going to try to address your comments about the VCF, paragraph by paragraph. Again, I have chosen to number your paragraphs to make this process a bit easier avoid having to repeat what you have already written.
I'll use color coding to answer so I can show a direct response under each numbered reply.
1. It is true that the VCF operates on "no fault" principles. This is a direct outgrowth of the fact that many lawsuits in the past couldn't produce enough evidence to persuade juries that vaccines were causally related to the harms that were alleged. Plaintiffs lost many suits in this fashion. Even though they prevailed, pharmaceutical companies lost millions of dollars defending some claims. A compromise was finally reached where the need to prove medical causation was eliminated in situations where certain specific injuries could be shown. The VCF doesn't specifically deny "fault" on the part of vaccine manufacturers. It simply makes it irrelevant. If specific injuries that appear on a table are shown to have occurred, an award of compensation is automatic.
Do the drug companies have to report these claims on their vaccine warnings as reported side effects and the amount reported? If they do not, why not? If they do then adding this would be helpful as this is a major complaint I hear from people who are suspicious of the drug companies motives for mandates. They fear no accountability.

An excise tax of 75 cents is imposed on every single vaccination given in the country. This money is given to the VCF to pay the costs of the compensation program which includes payouts, administrative costs, and attorney's fees. It is not as though this money comes out of the general fund. I suppose you could say all non-vaccinators are paying nothing for the program because if they don't get a shot, they pay no money into the compensation fund.
So, again, as far as suspicions go, this essentially raises the questions of why the drug companies making these preventive drugs are not paying for their injuries. People see this as having no incentives to making a drug safe and effective. This puts the consumer paying for future injuries, not the drug company.

2. Its not exactly true that to receive a "payout" from the VCF that you have to have an injury that appears on the VCT. An alternative is to hire expert witnesses and assert that someone has a new condition or disease that does not appear on the VCT. The VCF will hear this case and if it concludes that the weight of expert testimony supports this conclusion, you can recover from the fund. The evidentiary standards for recovering from for a vaccine injury are less than those in other product liability cases. Actually, those alleging vaccine injuries have an easier time prevailing than they would if the lawsuit were over some other defective product.
Most of your information here was explained in my link to the HRSA. It's clear that to receive funds for an injury of non acceptance you have to go through quite a lot. Most injury victims say their attempts were denied. I'd be interested to see the statistics on this if you have them. Making it difficult to report unidentified injuries retards the science of making them safe and effective.

3. If all students, including home schoolers were required to vaccinate it wouldn't break my heart. Since the vast majority of students attend public or private schools, I think its safe to say with the law about to be enacted in California that the vast majority of students will be vaccinated.
Well, if you are mandating to prevent transmission it makes more sense than just avoiding the broken heart you won't have. Leaving homeschool options creates the very group of unvaccinated that could lead to the outbreaks that mandates say they are enacting it for. Again, this doesn't make sense to parents and causes the specific suspicion that mandates are to increase vaccination, not prevent outbreaks. Increasing vaccination of children in school does little to protect against transmission if medical exemptions are allowed and homeschool children are left unvaccinated.
4. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. The state is saying if kids are going to attend public schools they have to be immunized. Its not a statement about government rights being greater than parental rights.
Rights of the Unvaccinated Child: Vaccinating Over the Parents’ Will | Shot of Prevention

http://law.case.edu/journals/LawRevi....5.Note.Lu.pdf

Examination of these issues requires balancing the tension
between constitutional law and public health law—and more
specifically, individual liberty and police power. The Institute of
Medicine (IOM) defines public health as “what we, as a society, do
collectively to assure the conditions for people to be healthy.”12 This
broad definition clearly encompasses mandatory vaccination laws.13
Mandatory vaccination advocates often quote the common law maxim salus populi suprema lex est, “the welfare of the people is the supreme
law,” to uphold a wide scope for the state’s police power.14 But just as
vaccinations have been prevalent for centuries, antivaccinationism is
“as old as vaccination itself.” 15 Compulsory vaccination involves
invasive medical technology that has potential risks. Thus, a more
sophisticated legal framework needs to be established to accommodate
new biomedical developments that are present in vaccination
technology.
This explains what I was referring to as well as other laws we use and write to give prudence to mandates.

5. Vaccine injuries and payouts are disclosed by the VCF. You can look it up if you want. Numerous statistics are kept. I want to make a comment generally about vaccination injuries. The most common injury that occurs is anaphylaxis, or an allergic reaction to the vaccine. These reactions are rare, but do occur and are legitimate injuries. They can vary from a sore red arm to a handful of children who experience difficulty breathing. Most injuries are not "exotic" like bizarre claims of connection to autism or other diseases. Its just a simple allergic reaction. No huge "proclamation" that the vaccine is responsible for injury is needed here. Just compensation for a few people unfortunately allergic to the vaccine is appropriate.
You of course are referring to the reports that were actually accepted and compensated correct? Because I'm pretty sure there have been reports to the contrary that were simply rejected. I understand science has yet to find a connection but parents use correlation with increased vaccine rates and increased spectrum disorders to come to this conclusion. Further research in the rise of spectrum disorders should help reduce this fear.
I agree that the system treats vaccines and vaccination different than other medicines and products. They are a unique product designed to keep epidemic disease not only from the individual, but from the community. They receive special protection because of the public interest in containing infectious disease and because of legitimate concerns that vaccines would not be produced by any company without this protection.
Yes, they are different, and that gives rise to suspicion. If you don't understand that then what I say won't change your mind but it does reflect the reasons some are suspicious about the motives behind vaccines and state mandates.
1. We have a for profit healthcare system, our drug companies bottom line is profit not health concern.
2. Mandates serve as an incentive for drug companies to continue to make vaccines. Without them they have threatened to stop vaccine production because they do not profit as well off of it as they do other drugs. And, profit is the bottom line.
3. Incentives include mandates, clearance of liability, and removal of compensation for injury. To name a few.
4. They won't disclose profits.
5. Drug companies pay incentives to doctors and politicians. Example: ( Merck donated $5,000 to Rick Perry and another $5,000 to eight lawmakers on the same day the chief of staff held a meeting to discuss whether to mandate the HPV vaccine. Merck had also previously made a $6,000 donation to the governor's reelection campaign. Therefore, the financial connection between the Texas government and Merck gave some Texans the idea that the vaccination mandate was not in the interest of safeguarding women's health, but rather for improving Merck's financial situation)This is again, cause for suspicion regarding the validity of government officials conviction for public health.



In our system parental rights are important, but not an absolute. For that matter, in our system, individual liberty is balanced against the police powers of a state to protect the health , welfare, and safety of citizens.
Addressed above with links to legal rights of parents against government officials making these laws.

On reflection, it is not nearly as controversial or extreme as you think it is.
I'm not sure about this last line, I think it's more your personal assumption and opinion rather than something that holds any weight, so I will only state that my references are made in attempt to show how some parents can hold suspicion regarding mandates and coerced vaccination. This regards others claims that they are just concerned for no reason and make these claims based on conspiracy theories which couldn't be further from the actual truth. Hope this helps your frustration with them.

Last edited by PoppySead; 06-10-2015 at 11:49 PM..
 
Old 06-11-2015, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,864,142 times
Reputation: 7441
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Um, so you won't be one of the ones who ends up paralyzed.

You can't be serious.

At any rate, I've said my piece. I grew up when kids were waking up paralyzed. I knew them. I would never take a chance with my child or anyone else's children. Shame on anyone who would.
Then you shouldn't get the polio vaccine because guess what?
http://www.who.int/immunization_stan...sert_mopv3.pdf
SIDE EFFECTS
In the vast majority of cases there are no side effects reported with the trivalent OPV, that
includes the same OPV3 component.
Very rarely, there may be vaccine-associated paralysis. Persons in close contact with a
recently vaccinated child may very rarely be at risk of vaccine-associated paralytic
poliomyelitis.

Paralytic: This is the rarest and most serious form of polio, which produces full or partial paralysis in the patient. There are three types of paralytic polio: spinal polio (affects the spine), bulbar polio (affects the brainstem), and bulbospinal polio (affects the spine and brainstem

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/health...stery-disease/

In that report, which will be presented in April at the American Academy of Neurology's annual meeting, neurologists said they had identified five patients who developed paralysis in one or more of their limbs between August 2012 and July 2013. All five children had been vaccinated against the poliovirus. Treatment did not seem to help the children regain their motor function.
While there is no vaccine to protect you from a non-polio enterovirus, washing your hands frequently and avoiding close contact with others who are sick can help.

Good luck with those chances, real polio hasn't been in America for 35 years. The only polio like illness in America is one the vaccine doesn't protect you from. Other than that the only danger of paralysis is from the vaccine for it. But don't worry, it's rare. So hopefully it won't effect you. Fingers crossed.
 
Old 06-11-2015, 01:50 AM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,864,142 times
Reputation: 7441
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
I'm not sure about this last line, I think it's more your personal assumption and opinion rather than something that holds any weight, so I will only state that my references are made in attempt to show how some parents can hold suspicion regarding mandates and coerced vaccination. This regards others claims that they are just concerned for no reason and make these claims based on conspiracy theories which couldn't be further from the actual truth. Hope this helps your frustration with them.
Sorry, I meant to add this under reply number 3: homeschooling outbreaks.
Parents home-school to avoid vaccinating their kids - USATODAY.com

It illustrates my concerns mentioned earlier.

http://www.richardgage.net/FAQchildInjured.html
Is this what you meant by finding a way to override the list of vaccine injury?
 
Old 06-11-2015, 06:02 AM
 
6,304 posts, read 3,553,681 times
Reputation: 7196
Here is a question for those who support "No shots, no school".

Which vaccinations? I am sure you are aware that vaccination does not end with Kindergarten. You do know that many parents, who have no problem generally vaccinating their children, might decline some that the CDC recommends. Two very good examples are HPV and Flu shots. The former is not required for Kindergarten entry, but given in Middle School. CDC recommends a Flu shot every year a child is in school, and for life after.

First of all, who is going to monitor this for kids already in school? Who is going to monitor that every child in the school (staff too) is getting a flu shot every single year? Same for pre-teen girls getting the HPV.

Would you kick out of public school any child for isn't getting a Flu Shot every year? Spreading disease? There are a LOT of young adults, parents or not, who do not believe in Flu Shots. You can add Gardasil to that one also.

If the LAW says all children must be vaccinated to BE in public school, then you would also have to expel these kids too; not just the ones who are not vaccinated for MMR, polio, etc., which you consider dangerous. Only for Kindergarten entry, but not during their entire school years?

Have you ever considered this? Or do you think if a parent believes in vaccinations, they will willingly vaccinate for everything/anything the CDC says, or any new vaccination that might come out in the future? That Hep. B vax started to be recommended by the CDC for children when my daughters were in Middle and High School. They WERE vaccinated for all those other diseases, but with that one I said enough is enough for something like that. I myself refused it working in public school. My husband refused it when he was in the hospital. So, you think in an instance like this, my daughters should have been kicked out of school or maybe even that a teacher should be fired for refusing Hep. B vax?

Tell me. How far do you want to go with this?

Last edited by Jo48; 06-11-2015 at 06:23 AM..
 
Old 06-11-2015, 06:51 AM
 
6,304 posts, read 3,553,681 times
Reputation: 7196
Chart comparing 1940 (all I got), 1980 (all my kids got), 2012 (what my grandson expected to get)

.POSTER: COMPARING 1940, 1980 and 2012 children's vaccine schedule - Vaccine Liberation Army

I find the sheer numbers today horrific. I am absolutely certain that if medicine can find more to prevent something, they most certainly will. That 2012 number will get even longer. Man, and I thought in the 90's that Hep. B being added was TOO MUCH? Cradle to Grave Vaccinations, and PAGES of medications throughout life.

No, I do not think this is a good thing for the human body, especially BABIES, to have to withstand. Quite honestly, I am scared to death at what medicine is doing to the human race.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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