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.
You seem to believe that no adult has done this. YES. I have. I actually talked long & hard with my doctor because I had a life-threatening reaction to my original Pertussis vaccination. It was deemed safe for me to get it as an adult, so I did. So did my parents. And my husband. And my in-laws. And-and-and. YES. Have enough adults done so? Probably not. But that doesn't negate the reasonable requirement the CA public schools have for children and vaccinations.
Here's one of my biggest fears of these highly communicable diseases--I have read many, many, MANY times about how these illnesses are no big deal. Chickenpox? Pffft. What's a little itching, amirite? It's just no big deal to get these totally common, normal, run-of-the-mill childhood diseases that these posters had and were nothing more than a few days of minor discomfort, if that. THEN, I read how it's so not a big deal because if these kids get sick, they'll just stay home. I call BS. I don't believe for a second that the same parent that says "everyone SHOULD be exposed to wild varicella in early childhood for their own good" would see what could possibly, maybe be a chickenpox rash & keep the kid home if he/she was feeling well. Don't buy it. Meanwhile, they've already BEEN contagious and passed it on to others, including those who cannot, due to medical reasons, be vaccinated. Who is giving THOSE kids a choice to not get an illness that could be potentially life-threatening? Look, I don't like the fact that my kid couldn't take a freaking peanut butter sandwich to school last year. But it was in the best interest of a classmate, so we complied. I could just send it anyway, because that kid's parents should know that he/she needs to be careful, and it's their fault anyway for putting that kid in a public school. But it's the right thing to do, because it keeps that child safe. One kid. Out of 28. That one child means that 27 others have to alter their behavior. Is that fair? Maybe not, but it's the RIGHT THING TO DO.
In California, if a child will be attending (physically) a public school, they must be vaccinated. If the PARENT chooses not to vaccinate the child, they cannot physically attend. There are virtual options; there are private options; there are homeschooling options. The child is not denied an education if there are options (including public online schooling) available. There is a choice, it's just that many of you don't like it. We don't live in a country where you can stamp your foot and hold your breath to get your way. This is a decision that MANY feel is necessary for the good of the majority. I cannot evaluate every situation to suit my own desires and expect the world to get used to it. I live in the world, so I need to occasionally make compromises. Is this a big one? YES, no denying it. And I'm sorry it is causing such upset in those who don't want to vaccinate their children.
And to bring in arguments like, "why do this when adults aren't getting boosters?" or "why do this when they aren't requiring the flu shot?" is just baby with the bathwatering it. To say, "Oh, you're right, this other thing that is tangentially related is not being done, so let's not do anything at all!" is ridiculous. Two inactions don't make an action.
This me-me-me idea of society is troubling. I do a lot of things that are for the good of my fellow citizens and do not a lot for me personally. Happily. Because I feel it's the right thing to do.
Should Flu shots be mandatory too? For everyone? Right I get it. Mandating flu shots in public schools will solve the problem. Can catching the flu kill somebody who is immune compromised? Or is it only diseases like measles, etc.? How do you propose to legislate flu shots on everyone every year in the USA?
Thankfully responsible vaccination has largely eliminated these diseases. It's because people have been choosing not to vaccinate that they're on the upswing in North America.
Medical care has advanced significantly - now with sufficient numbers of people getting their vaccines we don't get these diseases.
I'm not talking about vaccines, I'm asking about any advances in treatment since the old days before the vaccines were available. And your statements seem contradictory to me, they are either on the upswing or we don't get them, not sure I know what you are trying to say.
Because vaccinated or not, aren't we all in agreement that some people will still get these diseases?
And if we only are able to ease their symptoms, I'm open to any vitamins/herbs that will help. My doctors have always encouraged lifestyle and nutrition over prescriptions, nothing wrong with that.
I'm not talking about vaccines, I'm asking about any advances in treatment since the old days before the vaccines were available. And your statements seem contradictory to me, they are either on the upswing or we don't get them, not sure I know what you are trying to say.
Because vaccinated or not, aren't we all in agreement that some people will still get these diseases?
And if we only are able to ease their symptoms, I'm open to any vitamins/herbs that will help. My doctors have always encouraged lifestyle and nutrition over prescriptions, nothing wrong with that.
We have one poster who says yes, there are, but refuses to post specifics or sources so take it up with her.
I already said there was no treatment for viruses that would effectively get rid of them, just supportive care that can ease symptoms. Even with this supportive care (including herbs and natural remedies - for me, I believe in the benefits of honey and lemon tea, and I sprinkle cinnamon in there, too), kids can still take a turn for the worse or be one of the unlucky ones that falls into the severe complications or death percentage rate. For pertussis, which is a bacteria, antibiotics can reduce infectiousness if taken early but don't seem to do much else, and there is nothing out there yet, still, that can stop the cough. You just have to wait it out, and it can and will last for months.
Should Flu shots be mandatory too? For everyone? Right I get it. Mandating flu shots in public schools will solve the problem. Can catching the flu kill somebody who is immune compromised? Or is it only diseases like measles, etc.? How do you propose to legislate flu shots on everyone every year in the USA?
Good luck on that one.
I previously suggested a possible reason a mandated flu vaccine would be less effective. The virus, and consequently the vaccine, changes each year, and some years the vaccine is far less effective than others. This could possibly by why flu isn't included. The vaccine is more wishy-washy because the virus is. It mutates so fast and each year you have different strains out, and the scientists who create the vaccine need to predict a year in advance which strains will be predominant the next year. Sometimes, like this year, the virus surprises them and the vaccine winds up being less effective.
I'm not talking about vaccines, I'm asking about any advances in treatment since the old days before the vaccines were available. And your statements seem contradictory to me, they are either on the upswing or we don't get them, not sure I know what you are trying to say.
Because vaccinated or not, aren't we all in agreement that some people will still get these diseases?
And if we only are able to ease their symptoms, I'm open to any vitamins/herbs that will help. My doctors have always encouraged lifestyle and nutrition over prescriptions, nothing wrong with that.
I see that Kara, there are a couple of posts crossing each other - the CDC site has all of the stats on the recurrence of these illnesses due to lower vaccination rates (see below).
Many of these diseases were largely eradicated when people got vaccines as recommended. We didn't see these diseases in areas of high vaccinations.
Those not vaccinating and modifying their schedules created an environment where the diseases are returning. Vaccines work at preventing disease when people get them.
You mention that you adopted a different schedule. The evidence [note: I am linking to evidence] establishes that there is no benefit in not vaccinating or "adapting the schedule". All a different schedule does is increase the time in which a child could contract/spread a preventable illness.
Q: What do you think of delaying some vaccines or following an alternative schedule?
A: Children do not receive any known benefits from following schedules that delay vaccines. Infants and young children who follow immunization schedules that spread out shots–or leave out shots–are at risk of developing diseases during the time that shots are delayed. Some vaccine-preventable diseases remain common in the United States, and children may be exposed to these diseases during the time they are not protected by vaccines, placing them at risk for a serious case of the disease that might cause hospitalization or death.
Vaccinations work when people get them, including doing our part to prevent transmission to those too vulnerable to be vaccinated.
Mandates ensure that public health is protected from people that don't care about others, or are misled by advocates with an agenda. They can choose to vaccinate, or choose to home school. While those kids will still be in public, it won't be in the close confines of a school classroom.
Mandates (and vaccines) are imperfect. But the herd immunity by large scale immunization is certainly better than the thousands that died annually due to the illnesses they prevent.
Now, just as speculated, Pandora's box has been opened. The new bill SB792, ADULT MANDATES VACCINATE OR CRIMINAL ACTION CAN BE USED. The Government can now rule my healthcare choices, not mine, no way. I don't need a mother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6mi...e7qd-B&index=2
I wonder what's next? Anyone who works with the public maybe? Work at Ralph's Market and you have to by law get yearly flu vax, Measles boosters, Tdap, and any one or all of the new vaccines in the pipe line, I hear there are around 300. Here we go.
I've decided to move out of California, even though my children are older and this doesn't effect them, it will effect their children if they chose to have any and it effects others. Yes, I made the chose to vaccinate my children, but, I can't ethically go along with what this state is proposing, and the limited number of medical exemptions the CDC has granted parents.
Even if one of your children die after a vaccine, and it's proven to be attributed to the vaccine, the remainder of your children will still be required to vaccinate regardless of the same genetic issues that might have predisposed your dead child when they were vaccinated. I can't imagine how they would feel, and I would gladly offer my herd immunity to them to spare them that agonizing decision.
Doctors are afraid to go against the CDC, because they are worried about losing their licenses, even if they feel it could harm the child who is their patient, this goes against a doctors proposed ethics and is blackmail by the CDC.
Under the laws, doctors and those who make the vaccines are exempt liability so they cannot be held liable if the child suffers an injury or dies. I think there will be legal issues and conflicts raised for the state, I think this is primarily a funded venture with proof of financial persuasion. As I mentioned before the drug companies paid those responsible for bill SB277, I have posted this previously. Conflicts are everywhere.
And now they are moving on with adult mandates. Who wants to live in a police state? Not me. Thankfully I own a home in Arizona, which I am appreciating more and more. I was born in CA, and always appreciated the freedom to think outside the corporate box but that no longer holds true. I'm not alone, and those of us who are leaving will watch the freedoms being striped from another state while ours stay intact.
Last edited by PoppySead; 07-14-2015 at 10:26 AM..
It's also true that by not allowing under/un vaccinated children in school they will be out in public more often. If the logic is that keeping them out of school will protect those unable to be vaccinated then pushing them out of school will be exposing more of the public all year round.
I chose to modify the schedule for my kids. I wanted to wait until they were ready for school. Then over the years adding to it. If my kids were still young and we lived in Cali, they would be unable to attend school due to under vaccination until they were fully caught up.
As I said in a previous post, vaccination as adults seems (to me) to be a better solution.
I don't understand why a newborn gets a Hep B shot but the CDC recommends an adult get the shot IF they are at risk by job or lifestyle.
Your first paragraph raises an interesting point. Only time will tell if the new law ends up changing only WHERE the disease is spread (stores, libraries, museums, etc instead of school buildings). I assume those who introduced the bill determined (or at least thought) that public school classrooms, where 20-30 kids are in close quarters, 5 days a week, was a place more likely for the disease to spread, compared to other public places.
It's also true that by not allowing under/un vaccinated children in school they will be out in public more often. If the logic is that keeping them out of school will protect those unable to be vaccinated then pushing them out of school will be exposing more of the public all year round.
I chose to modify the schedule for my kids. I wanted to wait until they were ready for school. Then over the years adding to it. If my kids were still young and we lived in Cali, they would be unable to attend school due to under vaccination until they were fully caught up.
As I said in a previous post, vaccination as adults seems (to me) to be a better solution.
I don't understand why a newborn gets a Hep B shot but the CDC recommends an adult get the shot IF they are at risk by job or lifestyle.
How is this the case? They have to be in school, by law. If it's not public school it'll be private or home-schooling. You act as if their only option is public school, otherwise they roam free all day. They have to be in a school, it just doesn't have to be public school.
I wonder what's next? Anyone who works with the public maybe? Work at Ralph's Market and you have to by law get yearly flu vax, Measles boosters, Tdap, and any one or all of the new vaccines in the pipe line, I hear there are around 300. Here we go.
I've decided to move out of California, even though my children are older and this doesn't effect them, it will effect their children if they chose to have any and it effects others. Yes, I made the chose to vaccinate my children, but, I can't ethically go along with what this state is proposing, and the limited number of medical exemptions the CDC has granted parents.
Even if one of your children die after a vaccine, and it's proven to be attributed to the vaccine, the remainder of your children will still be required to vaccinate regardless of the same genetic issues that might have predisposed your dead child when they were vaccinated. I can't imagine how they would feel, and I would gladly offer my herd immunity to them to spare them that agonizing decision.
Doctors are afraid to go against the CDC, because they are worried about losing their licenses, even if they feel it could harm the child who is their patient, this goes against a doctors proposed ethics and is blackmail by the CDC.
Under the laws, doctors and those who make the vaccines are exempt liability so they cannot be held liable if the child suffers an injury or dies. I think there will be legal issues and conflicts raised for the state, I think this is primarily a funded venture with proof of financial persuasion. As I mentioned before the drug companies paid those responsible for bill SB277, I have posted this previously. Conflicts are everywhere.
And now they are moving on with adult mandates. Who wants to live in a police state? Not me. Thankfully I own a home in Arizona, which I am appreciating more and more. I was born in CA, and always appreciated the freedom to think outside the corporate box but that no longer holds true. I'm not alone, and those of us who are leaving will watch the freedoms being striped from another state while ours stay intact.
More "opinion" links with no science.
Speed limits? OMG!!!! The government is going to stop us from driving next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This "slippery slope" is perhaps the lamest of all anti-science views.
The new law in California will increase vaccinations and protect children as they go to school. If the public doesn't want that they can vote differently next time and the law can be changed. If the public health rationale supports other mandates, those would be considered on their merits and supported (or not) by the public based on the evidence weighing the risk/reward.
As I understand it the California law does NOTHING to change the availability of medical exemptions. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What it does is get rid of "spidey sense" exemptions not based on the actual patient, and the actual medical situation. I for one trust that my family doctor (with their years of medical training) will know what's best medically for my child. My child is ENTITLED to that. Although vaccines ARE beneficial so every child who can get them medically should, if I don't want my child to get it (and they are deemed medically able) then I can choose to home school.
Every single reputable immunologist, actual medical doctor (not naturopath) and researcher advocates vaccines. Name one that doesn't who isn't selling a book and who still has their license. Where do you get evidence of all these scared doctors? Medicine and vaccines work.
Stop the fear mongering. If adult vaccinations are proposed to be mandated deal with that issue if and when it occurs - that's no longer an issue with vaccines "per se". Please also refrain from giving legal advice, frankly you know nothing about what you're saying.
Your first paragraph raises an interesting point. Only time will tell if the new law ends up changing only WHERE the disease is spread (stores, libraries, museums, etc instead of school buildings). I assume those who introduced the bill determined (or at least thought) that public school classrooms, where 20-30 kids are in close quarters, 5 days a week, was a place more likely for the disease to spread, compared to other public places.
It would seem to be easier to spread in school given what you state but I can't find any evidence that outbreaks are more prevalent in schools.
Also, infants (who can't be vaccinated) wouldn't be in school either so they would be at more risk - wouldn't they?
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.
How is this the case? They have to be in school, by law. If it's not public school it'll be private or home-schooling. You act as if their only option is public school, otherwise they roam free all day. They have to be in a school, it just doesn't have to be public school.