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.
That is not what the Merck insert for the vaccine says: It says "Women of childbearing age should be advised not to become pregnant for 3 months after vaccination. The CDC website you've sited is different than the actual insert.
and should be informed of the reasons for this precaution. Do not give M-M-R II to pregnant females; the possible effects of the vaccine on fetal development
are unknown at this time. If vaccination of postpubertal females is undertaken, pregnancy should be
avoided for three months following vaccination
It is not known whether measles or mumps vaccine virus is secreted in human milk. Recent studies
have shown that lactating postpartum women immunized with live attenuated rubella vaccine may secrete
the virus in breast milk and transmit it to breast-fed infants.{53} In the infants with serological evidence of
rubella infection, none exhibited severe disease; however, one exhibited mild clinical illness typical of
acquired rubella.{54,55} Caution should be exercised when M-M-R II is administered to a nursing
woman." https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi.../mmr_ii_pi.pdf
Could be this a different MMR than the one used now?
I don't think people want to throw away vaccines, and the problem is they usually don't. They use them anyway. I'm concerned with a mandate on this large scale this will happen. Leaving gaps in the herd.
An investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General (HHS OIG) found that many providers of immunizations meant for low-income children don't store the vaccines at proper temperatures, potentially rendering them ineffective and placing children at risk for contracting serious diseases. Government Report Finds Many Doctors May Be Storing Vaccines Improperly - ABC News
Deep sequencing reveals viral vaccine contaminants
Also, mandating is a method of forced vaccination, what if there are contaminants that go un noticed in a batch. Mandates carry a different responsibility than a parental decision. Use of the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix in the US was temporarily suspended because the vaccine was found to be contaminated with porcine circovirus 1 DNA. Now, that might not or might have been an issue, but it shows that the potential is there.
Who will claim responsibility when something happens with a forced vaccine? The climate is very different. You are making someone do this for access to schools. Unless you shoot up you are prevented from public education and private education. What happens if there is an increase in vaccine injury? If vaccines were 100% effective and safe it would still be weird to force it but they aren't. Don't you think there are better ways of encouraging this then mandates?
Poppy, again what this boils down to is that the risks that you describe here are largely hypothetical and the diseases they prevent are not.
If the ten percent of children who are not getting immunizations experience a side effect, they too, can go to the VCF and seek compensation for their injuries. Last year, just about 500 people (out of millions given vaccines) did that. The system can handle that.
The bottom line is that--in terms of relative risk--its safer to get vaccines than it is to drive to Walgreen's to get the shot. If you don't believe me, I'll work the numbers right here for you. Its really pretty easy. I don't see you out here suggesting its unsafe for parents to drive their kids around in automobiles. Perhaps, your next argument will be that parents ought to have a choice to put their kids on mass transit instead of driving them to school because that's safer. Yes, let's make it so mass transit stops at the door of every single family residence and apartment in this country. We can probably come up with all kinds of hypothetical "choices" to give parents.
If parents want like Johnny or little Jane to go to public school than they can haul their snowflakes down to a pediatrician and get them vaccinated like the other 90% of the kids are doing. If 90% can do it, the others can as well.
You seem to have great fears about a "forced vaccine". I have an idea. Let's implement the California law and see how it goes. We can always revisit the issue in a few years and make changes if we have too. Makes perfect sense to me.
Poppy, again what this boils down to is that the risks that you describe here are largely hypothetical and the diseases they prevent are not.
If the ten percent of children who are not getting immunizations experience a side effect, they too, can go to the VCF and seek compensation for their injuries. Last year, just about 500 people (out of millions given vaccines) did that. The system can handle that.
The bottom line is that--in terms of relative risk--its safer to get vaccines than it is to drive to Walgreen's to get the shot. If you don't believe me, I'll work the numbers right here for you. Its really pretty easy. I don't see you out here suggesting its unsafe for parents to drive their kids around in automobiles. Perhaps, your next argument will be that parents ought to have a choice to put their kids on mass transit instead of driving them to school because that's safer. Yes, let's make it so mass transit stops at the door of every single family residence and apartment in this country. We can probably come up with all kinds of hypothetical "choices" to give parents.
If parents want like Johnny or little Jane to go to public school than they can haul their snowflakes down to a pediatrician and get them like the other 90% of the kids are doing. If 90% can do it, the others can as well.
You seem to have great fears about a "forced vaccine". I have an idea. Let's implement the California law and see how it goes. We can always revisit the issue in a few years and make changes if we have too. Makes perfect sense to me.
If these parents (besides they themselves) choose not to send their "snowflakes" to public school, that will not protect you and your vaccinated children from coming into contact with them in society. Disney proves that one. Is Disney a Public School?
Your Final Solution to 100% compliance? Note, I use those words on purpose which I want you to think about.
Mangos are foods. Sure, some have food allergies. Antibacterial cleansers are chemicals, not food.
My son has a terrible allergy to detergent like Tide, I can't let him sit on other people's beds or anything they've washed without a prompt shower. The first 3 doctors gave him steroids and said it was just a terrible case of eczema he'd have to live with, finally a good doctor looked at him and said it was a detergent allergy. A week later rewashing his clothing in water only it was completely gone.
This is my problem with forcing parents to get vaccines. Our medical professionals and drug companies don't exactly have a good record for knowing what they're talking about. They kill so many people a year trust is the last thought on your mind. Most of us just hope for the best, and hope we aren't a victim.
I realize most are trying their best but some are just careless.
If these parents (besides they themselves) choose not to send their "snowflakes" to public school, that will not protect you and your vaccinated children from coming into contact with them in society. Disney proves that one. Is Disney a Public School?
Your Final Solution to 100% compliance? Note, I use those words on purpose which I want you to think about.
Poppy, again what this boils down to is that the risks that you describe here are largely hypothetical and the diseases they prevent are not.
If the ten percent of children who are not getting immunizations experience a side effect, they too, can go to the VCF and seek compensation for their injuries. Last year, just about 500 people (out of millions given vaccines) did that. The system can handle that.
The bottom line is that--in terms of relative risk--its safer to get vaccines than it is to drive to Walgreen's to get the shot. If you don't believe me, I'll work the numbers right here for you. Its really pretty easy. I don't see you out here suggesting its unsafe for parents to drive their kids around in automobiles. Perhaps, your next argument will be that parents ought to have a choice to put their kids on mass transit instead of driving them to school because that's safer. Yes, let's make it so mass transit stops at the door of every single family residence and apartment in this country. We can probably come up with all kinds of hypothetical "choices" to give parents.
If parents want like Johnny or little Jane to go to public school than they can haul their snowflakes down to a pediatrician and get them vaccinated like the other 90% of the kids are doing. If 90% can do it, the others can as well.
You seem to have great fears about a "forced vaccine". I have an idea. Let's implement the California law and see how it goes. We can always revisit the issue in a few years and make changes if we have too. Makes perfect sense to me.
The average is about 10 years before one gets any compensation.
The GAO wrote a scathing report on the VCF.
Instead of suing big pharma you are suing the USG for compensation.
The VCF took over all risk from big pharma and it's not in their interest to pay out money.
Poppy, again what this boils down to is that the risks that you describe here are largely hypothetical and the diseases they prevent are not.
If the ten percent of children who are not getting immunizations experience a side effect, they too, can go to the VCF and seek compensation for their injuries. Last year, just about 500 people (out of millions given vaccines) did that. The system can handle that.
The bottom line is that--in terms of relative risk--its safer to get vaccines than it is to drive to Walgreen's to get the shot. If you don't believe me, I'll work the numbers right here for you. Its really pretty easy. I don't see you out here suggesting its unsafe for parents to drive their kids around in automobiles. Perhaps, your next argument will be that parents ought to have a choice to put their kids on mass transit instead of driving them to school because that's safer. Yes, let's make it so mass transit stops at the door of every single family residence and apartment in this country. We can probably come up with all kinds of hypothetical "choices" to give parents.
If parents want like Johnny or little Jane to go to public school than they can haul their snowflakes down to a pediatrician and get them vaccinated like the other 90% of the kids are doing. If 90% can do it, the others can as well.
You seem to have great fears about a "forced vaccine". I have an idea. Let's implement the California law and see how it goes. We can always revisit the issue in a few years and make changes if we have too. Makes perfect sense to me.
I'm surprised you give parents a choice to drive, they could kill you child. Isn't that your reasoning, not mine? I'm waiting for that one down the road from your gang.
BTW, a snowflake is a frozen water particle not a child. You're so scientific.
The average is about 10 years before one gets any compensation.
The GAO wrote a scathing report on the VCF.
Instead of suing big pharma you are suing the USG for compensation.
The VCF took over all risk from big pharma and it's not in their interest to pay out money.
Right, we are agreeing to mandate something you have little recourse in if an injury occurs, not to mention your complaint will fall on deaf ears and shuffled into a coincidence pile 90 percent of the time.
Thanks to the Vaccinations Act, it takes hell and high water to sue a drug company, none of which a regular parent will have access to. You pretty much take your chances, now their forcing the chance like Russian Roulette.
Last edited by PoppySead; 06-04-2015 at 12:07 PM..
The bottom line is that--in terms of relative risk--its safer to get vaccines than it is to drive to Walgreen's to get the shot. If you don't believe me, I'll work the numbers right here for you. Its really pretty easy. I don't see you out here suggesting its unsafe for parents to drive their kids around in automobiles. Perhaps, your next argument will be that parents ought to have a choice to put their kids on mass transit instead of driving them to school because that's safer. Yes, let's make it so mass transit stops at the door of every single family residence and apartment in this country. We can probably come up with all kinds of hypothetical "choices" to give parents.
I'm sure one mandate success with lead to more markg, I won't be thrilled about those either. You're the one at the hyperbole party not me. I would never mandate vaccination over the fear of a pandemic. I think it's obserd, and you and your friends have spent 1/2 the thread telling me how wrong I am. You will have a difficult time turning the tables here, I'm not the one forcing kids to get vaccinated by denying them access to an education. That would be YOU.
I'm surprised you give parents a choice to drive, they could kill you child. Isn't that your reasoning, not mine? I'm waiting for that one down the road from your gang.
BTW, a snowflake is a frozen water particle not a child. You're so scientific.
What will happen to the snowflakes when they go to college ?
College is not K-12 and they don't all require proof.
K-12 is but a very small facet of living in society, especially one where many foreigners come here to live and work, legally and illegally.
It's like the online 2015 version of Groundhog's Day. I hate the smugness of the people trying to take away my right to choose what goes into my body and the bodies of my children. It irks me like nothing else. But I do agree, this thread is pointless and just a repeat of the same old same old. Going nowhere.
Well, here's the thing. Vaccines are basically holistic medicine. ( using the body's own resources to fight disease) They are also the only medical treatment to have wiped out a scourge of a disease- smallpox.
Modern medicine can't "cure" cancer, a common cold, or herpes. But it turns out that maybe our own immune systems can fight them off, given the right environment.
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.
I hate the smugness of the people trying to take away my right to choose what goes into my body and the bodies of my children. It irks me like nothing else. But I do agree, this thread is pointless and just a repeat of the same old same old. Going nowhere.