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.
My daughter is convinced it's caused by pesticide and GMO...she's really fanatical about feeding her son non-processed organic foods and only uses "natural" detergents and cleaning products in her house. He's had all his vaccinations, but their ped'ian staggered them over several months.
Before conceiving him, she ate organic herself for months...what a health food nut she was. Actually, she owns a health food store, so gets stuff at cost.
As far as Jim Carrey, he's about as relevant in middle age as Jerry Lewis.
Last edited by Mrs. Skeffington; 07-02-2015 at 08:15 AM..
Let's see now; perhaps doctors are now better able to recognize the various types of autism? Perhaps the record keeping is now catching up to the incident rate? The incident rate in other countries is the same but records are lagging? Doctors are, heaven forbid, diagnosing autism whereas it might instead be a case of ADD, asperger's or some other nefarious problem? Other countries have an even higher rate of immunization than the U.S. but fewer cases of autism?
Can you explain why, throughout numerous decades when the bulk of us were getting vaccinated, the incident rate for autism wasn't of concern?
Let's all rush to blame ALL the vaccines because, after all, we don't have a freak'n clue as to what's ACTUALLY causing autism...... Seems wise. eh?
Next up........some quack says lower I/Q's caused by cutting of the umbilical cord so now placenta must come out attached and must be allowed to rot off naturally.
the word Autism is 100 years old but wasnt used as much as it is today... It seems to have been linked more with schizophrenia.and why most of us didnt hear the word Autism until the late forties.. I myself didnt know of it till the 60s..
Autism and schizophrenia remained linked in many researchers’ minds until the 1960s. It was only then that medical professionals began to have a separate understanding of autism in children.
From the 1960s through the 1970s, research into treatments for autism focused on medications such as LSD, electric shock, and behavioral change techniques. The latter relied on pain and punishment.
I don't know, when you consider the flood of immigrants coming from Mexico, Central and South America that land in California and few of them have been vaccinated against anything I think a parent would be foolish not to immunize their kid against a disease.
Of course making it law will upset people just like Obama care did. No one likes to be told what to do.
Does anyone take Jim Carrey seriously? He seems like he is "out there".
I don't have a dog in the fight since I am an old guy with no kids. However I think childhood vaccinations should be left strictly to the parents. I think vaccinations are important and if schools want to provide low cost vaccination programs that is fine but these vaccinations should NOT be mandatory. Who will suffer if the schools back off? Not the kids that have been vaccinated (unless it really is a fascist conspiracy).
On a broader not....it appears more than a few on this thread take all of this a little too personal. Guessing some of you work in the biz/that's how you make your living or you just feel strongly about it and have a hard time seeing another view/outside of the "vaccine good/good decision by gov" and if anything is mentioned to even question such a decision that could lead to more gov control that some parents feel gov should have no say. How dare one even question it all. More power to you. Gov knows best about everything is the answer I'm getting in a roundabout way from more than a few people here and parents just have to sit back and take what's handed out to them. I ask where does it end, where does gov control trump parental decisions, and some get confused and dance around the point. I suppose that alone answers volumes.
A broader "not" indeed. I do NOT work in healthcare, I make a living challenging poorly conceived logic in the court room (it's challenging here because at least in court there has to be a modicum of evidence to make a statement).
There is NO confusion from those that support vaccines.
The legislation exists because lazy or confused parents are not vaccinating and many diseases that have been largely eradicated by vaccination are on the rise. Public health is just that - a mechanism to protect society's most vulnerable. This legislation goes a long way toward that - it draws the line clearly in favour of public health, even limiting parental choice. If parents don't want to vaccinate then their kids won't be allowed to put other kids at risk in the public school system.
Not confusing. Crystal clear.
Where will the next line be drawn? I'm not sure - but confusing this issue by tossing every other issue not included in the legislation is a distraction from the clear and unequivocal science.
If everything now is off topic as you say, then the whole thread has been off topic.
tlvancouver, if this is indeed your thread, I believe you need to at least switch back to your jabber_wocky account to have any hope of having it closed.
It even has the beloved Dr Offit, and others who make a very convincing case for vaccination.
I ask why no one has studied Autism. The criticism was made by a learned and respected pro-vaccination professional in the report. Even she recognises the value of studying the condition would have to the vaccine debate/conflict - to dispell the myth that vaccines cause autism.
People tell me that it has, but none offers the reason for Autism, nor any links to research that has studied Autism in and of itself. I never met a child or adult with autism, nor did I hear of it, until the 1990s. Cerebral Palsy, sure - Autism, nope.
Its no wonder people dont trust this when thats the best they offer as an answer. There is no vaccine war?
the word Autism is 100 years old but wasnt used as much as it is today... It seems to have been linked more with schizophrenia.and why most of us didnt hear the word Autism until the late forties.. I myself didnt know of it till the 60s..
Autism and schizophrenia remained linked in many researchers’ minds until the 1960s. It was only then that medical professionals began to have a separate understanding of autism in children.
From the 1960s through the 1970s, research into treatments for autism focused on medications such as LSD, electric shock, and behavioral change techniques. The latter relied on pain and punishment.
So it is "opined" by a few other than the majority of the scientific community, that an affliction recognized as being over 100 years old is 'exacerbated' through modern vaccinations programs? Should that compute, to any degree of applied linear logic, to refusing any and all vaccinations for all other afflicitions?
The most convincing white paper I've read on the subject of autism links it to the overstimulation in the brain caused by being flopped down in front of the tv.
Remember when we used to build forts, climb trees, ring and run?
Now we have 24/7 cartoons. It ain't like the old days when you went out to play when Soul Train came on. Vaccinations, my pink ass.
Jim Carrey has an autistic daughter and happens to have been taken in by the vaccine scare. It DOES look like it causes autism when a wrongly-wired infant starts showing symptoms after getting her MMP shot or her polio drops or whatever. But kids that age are constantly getting vaccinated and the surfacing of symptoms is just a coincidence.
The TV thing -- and the video games thing, oy vay -- does make it far worse, though. The kids are interacting only with the screen instead of learning social skills and how to solve problems. I wonder if we'd have this epidemic if kids were forced to play together again.
So it is "opined" by a few other than the majority of the scientific community, that an affliction recognized as being over 100 years old is 'exacerbated' through modern vaccinations programs? Should that compute, to any degree of applied linear logic, to refusing any and all vaccinations for all other afflicitions?
I never said modern vaccinations.. theyve been around since the late 1800s, never mentioned that......and autism is the main one mentioned about side effects of vaccines...and what do you mean by vaccinations for all other afflictions.. is that not what were talking about.. The illness was named one hundred years ago.. I didnt say when autism started, as we dont know.
It's common sense that a poor/compromised immune system is more open to viruses like the flu, cold, etc. And as I detailed in my post, flu was one of the serious issues that I referenced. You might want to go back to my post and read my details/point as you appear to have missed what I was saying based on the questions your asking, or perhaps deflecting the point I'm making/the question I'm asking.
My post didn't say anything about opposing CPS or their duties. My question/analogy was simply this: how far should gov go above and beyond what some feel should be strictly a parental decision. I know it's a crazy question to even bring up but some people like myself think it's a valid question. And as I stated in a previous post, "I'm a jaded individual when medicine/politics/money are all in the mix together."
The way I would describe you is deliberately obtuse. You make this abstract point which is that if we are going to mandate vaccinations, the next step is to regulate the diet that parents feed their children. Inevitably, this "slippery slope" will than lead to the loss of all parental freedom or autonomy.
Only in Fairycastleland would anyone seriously entertain that sort of conjecture. You make a parallel between two things that no one else does. Vaccinations are given to prevent a series of contagious childhood diseases. Those specific diseases have implications for the community at large. That is why compulsory vaccination laws exist. Show me that this crop of overweight and badly nourished kids are spreading polio, measles, mumps, and chickenpox in the schools. I need more than your "logic" to prove that. Actually, due to the dearth of all these diseases since we've been vaccinating, I know that you can't prove that.
You have asked several times: How far shall we go in terms of interfering with parental rights? I may not be able to describe a precise boundary. However, I will say that the broad consensus of the community is that we should go so far as to require use of vaccines that are effective in preventing childhood diseases. That's what is important. The community, by an overwhelming margin, supports this limitation on parental rights or autonomy.
There are a couple of people here who keep saying they don't oppose vaccination, they just think it ought to be voluntary. If you believe it ought to be voluntary its just like saying you don't support it. Vaccination only works when you can get 90% to 95% of the public vaccinate and you can create herd immunity. Some issues don't permit much compromise and this is one of them. If everybody chooses to "go their own way" when it comes to vaccination, we may lose the ability to stop the spread of epidemic disease in the community.
Quote:
This is 100% incorrect. I stated in posts I see lots of gray in this, see both sides of the vaccine issue so I have no idea why you pulled this out of the air.
Many issues involve gray and require difficult choices. Vaccination is not one of those issues. It has been proven to be safe and effective. It is much more black and white than gray.
Quote:
I'm simply making a point, asking a question, and let's throw out my analogy as it appears to be confusing a few and ask straight out.... how far should gov go over the heads of parents in making health decisions for their kids? I'm not talking abuse situations, but simple decisions many might feel parents should be making, not the government.
Government should go far enough to mandate vaccines for school children. After we do that, we can than debate how far it can go in other areas. We are here to discuss vaccination--not parental rights in general. Parental rights are not an absolute in society. An attempt to turn this into a broader debate over the limits of parental autonomy is unnecessary and off topic.
Quote:
On a broader not....it appears more than a few on this thread take all of this a little too personal. Guessing some of you work in the biz/that's how you make your living or you just feel strongly about it and have a hard time seeing another view/outside of the "vaccine good/good decision by gov" and if anything is mentioned to even question such a decision that could lead to more gov control that some parents feel gov should have no say. How dare one even question it all. More power to you. Gov knows best about everything is the answer I'm getting in a roundabout way from more than a few people here and parents just have to sit back and take what's handed out to them. I ask where does it end, where does gov control trump parental decisions, and some get confused and dance around the point. I suppose that alone answers volumes.
I don't know long you have been following and reading this 150 page thread. The reality is that most of us who support vaccination are damn tired of hearing the same arguments over and over again. The anti-vaccine people know they can't win individual arguments because virtually all science is against them. So, they "hit and run". They make an argument and when you reply to that one, they make another argument. You reply to that argument and they make another. This goes on until they run out of arguments and than they start over again with the very same points. I think they believe that if they repeat falsehoods often enough that people will believe them anyway. What you are hearing from us is simply frustration trying to talk to people who cannot or will not comprehend.
The effectiveness of vaccination has been documented over and over again. There really isn't another side to this issue. Government does not know best about everything, but you will find democrats, republicans, liberals, and conservatives on the side of vaccination. I have found libertarians who generally oppose government regulation, but make an exception for vaccination simply because its been shown to work.
Government control should trump parental rights when it comes to vaccination. Other actions by government should be debated one at a time.
Last edited by markg91359; 07-02-2015 at 09:31 AM..
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.
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.
My question/analogy was simply this: how far should gov go above and beyond what some feel should be strictly a parental decision. I know it's a crazy question to even bring up but some people like myself think it's a valid question. And as I stated in a previous post, "I'm a jaded individual when medicine/politics/money are all in the mix together."
