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 clearly don't have a fraction of the patience of Katarina, Suzy, Juram and others.
Anti-vax Madness
Just in the last few pages (maybe 40 posts?)_ we've had allegations that vaccines make people gay, cause HIV, are the same as the holocaust, that only people who support vaccination can ever be dishonest, that science is irrelevant to choice as it relates to medical decision making, that choosing to vaccinate to go to school is the same as being forcibly held down and vaccinated, that vaccines are made in huts in Africa, that a change in username equates to criminal behavior (oh, ya, "Joking"). Not ONE stitch of evidence for any of it.
I clearly don't have a fraction of the patience of Katarina, Suzy, Juram and others.
Anti-vax Madness
Just in the last few pages (maybe 40 posts?)_ we've had allegations that vaccines make people gay, cause HIV, are the same as the holocaust, that only people who support vaccination can ever be dishonest, that science is irrelevant to choice as it relates to medical decision making, that choosing to vaccinate to go to school is the same as being forcibly held down and vaccinated, that vaccines are made in huts in Africa, that a change in username equates to criminal behavior (oh, ya, "Joking"). Not ONE stitch of evidence for any of it.
Did I miss anything?
They turned one doctor into the Incredible Hulk apparently.
Quote:
James Laidler once tested the system by submitting a report that the influenza vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and duly entered into the database.
I can't believe this is still a controversy at all. Vaccines are the reason we went from under a billion people to more than 6 billion in a couple of generations. Before vaccines, you had to have 11 kids in order to make sure 3 of them would survive to adulthood to support you in your old age. It's now clearly known that vaccines do not, after all, cause autism, and in fact the autistic child's severe reactions to some vaccines can flush out the symptoms sooner so they can get effective autism treatment years earlier. So where's the controversy? Some people get bad batches of vaccine, for sure, and some people have bad reactions to good vaccines. But the trade-off benefits are almost too big to measure.
I agree with what you said for the most part, but "bad batches" of vaccines are pretty much a myth. Quality control with them is monitored very stringently. It's possible an error could be made, but it is very improbable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
She goes on and on and on. I do not think she understands that there are those of us who consider this a freedom and choice issue. She doesn't understand that there are those of us who DID vaccinate our own children, but believe in choice of others to refuse. Science is irrelevant to us, from either side.
To you it is a choice issue. To me it is a public health issue, and the courts concur that public health trumps choice with regard to vaccines.
"CONCLUSION: Pharmacological ascorbate (vitamin C) as a pro-drug eliminates or kills influenza virus, probable by producing steady-state concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) in extracellular fluid."
Test tube results do not always translate to human benefit.
Do you have a source that it is clinically useful in humans?
Quote:
But the first rotavirus vaccine was "extensively studied and found safe and effective," right? Other vaccines have been certified "safe and effective" with "extensive studies" yet been pulled off the market because they are found to be unsafe or ineffective or both. Should we then still trust these studies?
Initial studies may not be large enough to detect rare problems. That is why vaccines are continuously monitored for safety, even after they are approved for general use. It does not mean the original studies were untrustworthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Jacobson v. Ma. 197 U.S. 11 (1905). That is how you cite case law, Mr. Attorney. This was used for the 1918 Flu Pandemic for government to force vaccinations.
It has not been used since because it set very strict criteria. Pandemic needed to be declared before government could force vaccinations (medical treatment) on the public for the public health.
NO Measles, Whooping Cough, etc., PANDEMIC had been declared. There was a Flu Pandemic declared in the US by the White House in 2009, but obviously the government decided NOT to enforce vaccinations on the public then, although under Case Law they could have. Why not? Because they would have met with FIERCE opposition from the public with that. I guess Obama did not want to touch that Hot Potato and force Flu Shots on everyone.
I am interested in how a case from 1905 was used to force vaccination for the 1918 flu epidemic. There were no flu vaccines in 1918. The first was in 1938.
The case you cited concerned smallpox vaccination, not flu.
We do not need a "pandemic" to have compulsory vaccination, only a clear threat to life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
A lot of parents who had healthy children who were developing on target suddenly regress after a round of vaccinations believe that vaccines triggered their children's regression. I believe a lot of these parents are right. If the vaccine industry ever admits that there is a problem a lot of people will be out of jobs and a lot of money will be lost. Unfortunately the industry is heavily controlled from the journals to the studies they fund, etc. The truth will never come out because the gatekeepers won't allow that.
Regression is characteristic of the presentation of autism. There are cases of home movies showing children with clear evidence of autism before they got the vaccines that the parents believe cause the regression.
The piles of evidence against vaccines causing autism are sky high. Adding more studies to them would be an egregious waste of funding better spent elsewhere.
Quote:
Well that's quite a stretch. I keep my kids home when they are sick or if I know they are contagious, I have had many "vaxxers' not do the same with their kids. It's so stupid that you actually go so far as to accuse people who may not vaccinate for everything on the schedule of not being ethical human beings. It's absurdly ridiculous.
They are contagious before you know they are sick. That approach does not work with vaccine preventable diseases.
If some can complain that vaccines manufactured with cells distantly related to abortion are unethical, I claim the right to say that it is unethical not to vaccinate your healthy child. I consider the idea that the only child that matters is your own to be unethical.
Quote:
Your claim was that there wee no toxins in vaccines. That is clearly false. I gave you one example that proved you wrong. Injected aluminum is different then ingested aluminum and while the amount in one does may or may not be harmful but when you take the cumulative dose from many vaccinations that could be different. Not everyone can process and eliminate toxins and heavy metals as efficiently and effectively as everyone else. Some people's bodies do not do a very good job at this and that is when the cumulative effect gets real.
It does not matter whether you ingest aluminum or it is injected (in tiny amounts) with a vaccine. This might help you understand why your information is faulty.
Yes... Please. It's hard to respond to replies to my posts when it's all lumped together like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I'm thinking Suzy likes it that way. It makes it hard for anyone to refute her points when she does that. It's super annoying, that's for sure.
I have been fortunate not to get many infractions here on CD. The very first one was for replying to each poster separately and not multiquoting. That's what the multiquote function is for.
I personally have no problem reading posts that quote more than one person. If you want to respond to only part of a long post, just highlight and cut out the part you are interested in. It's not that hard.
I clearly don't have a fraction of the patience of Katarina, Suzy, Juram and others.
Anti-vax Madness
Just in the last few pages (maybe 40 posts?)_ we've had allegations that vaccines make people gay, cause HIV, are the same as the holocaust, that only people who support vaccination can ever be dishonest, that science is irrelevant to choice as it relates to medical decision making, that choosing to vaccinate to go to school is the same as being forcibly held down and vaccinated, that vaccines are made in huts in Africa, that a change in username equates to criminal behavior (oh, ya, "Joking"). Not ONE stitch of evidence for any of it.
Did I miss anything?
OMG are you serious? It was the other poster that mentioned the criminal behavior... I made a joke out of it. You guys seriously need to lighten up. You are pro-vaccine. You are vaccinated. You have all the proof. Why are you so sensitive to people who want a choice. That does not affect you at all. You are vaccinated.
Any proof shown would be labeled as "debunked," "discredited," "not a reliable source," "crazy," "ignorant," and my favorite... "anti-vax madness" As if speaking out against vaccines is some crime of the conspiracy minded and "anti-science" movement. There is science that says the ingredients used are toxic. There is science that says there are treatments for these infectious diseases.
The more questions people ask, the more answers we can get both those we like and those we don't. NOT asking questions is the problem and why pro-vaxxers are called sheeple.
OMG are you serious? It was the other poster that mentioned the criminal behavior... I made a joke out of it. You guys seriously need to lighten up. You are pro-vaccine. You are vaccinated. You have all the proof. Why are you so sensitive to people who want a choice. That does not affect you at all. You are vaccinated.
Any proof shown would be labeled as "debunked," "discredited," "not a reliable source," "crazy," "ignorant," and my favorite... "anti-vax madness" As if speaking out against vaccines is some crime of the conspiracy minded and "anti-science" movement. There is science that says the ingredients used are toxic. There is science that says there are treatments for these infectious diseases.
The more questions people ask, the more answers we can get both those we like and those we don't. NOT asking questions is the problem and why pro-vaxxers are called sheeple.
OMG are you serious? It was the other poster that mentioned the criminal behavior... I made a joke out of it. You guys seriously need to lighten up. You are pro-vaccine. You are vaccinated. You have all the proof. Why are you so sensitive to people who want a choice. That does not affect you at all. You are vaccinated.
Any proof shown would be labeled as "debunked," "discredited," "not a reliable source," "crazy," "ignorant," and my favorite... "anti-vax madness" As if speaking out against vaccines is some crime of the conspiracy minded and "anti-science" movement. There is science that says the ingredients used are toxic. There is science that says there are treatments for these infectious diseases.
The more questions people ask, the more answers we can get both those we like and those we don't. NOT asking questions is the problem and why pro-vaxxers are called sheeple.
The labels you list are accurate. Really wanting them to be true doesn't make them so. There is no science showing the ingredients are toxic in the vaccine amounts and while there may be treatment for the symptoms of these diseases, vaccines prevent the need for that.
Questions are fine, it's making up the answers and calling them science I object to.
Test tube results do not always translate to human benefit.
Do you have a source that it is clinically useful in humans?
Here is a clinic that researched and uses it as a therapy for cancer and antiviral treatment. You would have to ask them directly about the stats in their clinic but the science they tout is spot on.
Initial studies may not be large enough to detect rare problems. That is why vaccines are continuously monitored for safety, even after they are approved for general use. It does not mean the original studies were untrustworthy.
It means the original study was untrustworthy... Either it is trustworthy or not. If it is pulled from sale then it was not a trustworthy study. Vaccines are not pulled for "rare problems"... notice these rare problems are the case with all vaccines. It takes a pretty major problem to get a vaccine taken off the shelf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
I have been fortunate not to get many infractions here on CD. The very first one was for replying to each poster separately and not multiquoting. That's what the multiquote function is for.
I personally have no problem reading posts that quote more than one person. If you want to respond to only part of a long post, just highlight and cut out the part you are interested in. It's not that hard.
I don't mind a multi-quote when it's just one person's posts. The problem is that you can't see the quote that you are answering in the next quote and I don't know what you are responding to. I want to reply to your thoughts about my posts but when you string them altogether like this, it makes it difficult to respond.
The labels you list are accurate. Really wanting them to be true doesn't make them so. There is no science showing the ingredients are toxic in the vaccine amounts and while there may be treatment for the symptoms of these diseases, vaccines prevent the need for that.
Questions are fine, it's making up the answers and calling them science I object to.
There is no science showing that the ingredients are not toxic in vaccine schedule amounts nor in any relevant combination. No science either way so you cannot claim they are not toxic. They are classified as toxic.
So a blood pressure meds prevent the need for good health and healthy weight. Diet pills prevent the need for exercise. Vaccines prevent the need for a healthy immune system and natural treatment. I get it.
The state wide vaccination rate is not the issue. The concern is that people who refuse to vaccinate like to live near others who refuse to vaccinate. That increases the risks of larger outbreaks.
If other issues need to be addressed, they need to be addressed. That is no reason to ignore the risks that clusters of unvaccinated people present.
Those who refuse to vaccinate know/have chosen to accept the risks. Those who vaccinate are protected from outbreaks and it should be none of their business for this very reason, right from the CDC website:
"But a person who is immune to a disease because she has been vaccinated can’t get that disease and can’t spread it to others. "
Again:
"But a person who is immune to a disease because she has been vaccinated can’t get that disease and can’t spread it to others. "
Yes, the rest in that paragraph on that CDC says those who aren't vaccinated/immune can potentially spread it to others who aren't vaccinated/immune. Got it. Loud and clear. And again, my main point...the vaccinated folks have made their choice. The unvaccinated have also made their choice to take on their own level of risk for reasons they feel are valid for their own situation.
Given this data, I get the feeling 2 things are at play here with some of the pro law/vaccine people"
1.) They aren't at all that confident in how effective these vaccines really are.
2.) They want to control what others do as they are ignoring the science from the CDC, neatly concluded in the line above that I bolded. I base this statement on nothing more than the CDC data that says vaccinated people won't be effected by the choice those who don't want to vaccinate.
And to plug a hole in the excuse that "some can't take vaccines and they will be effected by others who don't vaccinate!". Well, again back to the science that we've listened to over and over again here by some posters on this thread who are pro law/vaccine how well these shots are tolerated, this group is very, very small. And as we were told many times by the vaccine/pro law folks, you can't satisfy/protect everyone and the majority is the most important element. I agree. And may I suggest you follow your own logic on this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Most of the decisions people make affect only themselves. Vaccination is not one of those, and mandates can help increase vaccination rates. Other problems are irrelevant to vaccines. We need to tackle those, too, but their existence does not have anything to do with vaccination.
I strongly disagree. That's one thing I agreed with the poster that I responded too in that each of our decisions do indeed have a ripple effect on others. Many have big ripple effects. Take diet choice/obesity. That's a choice. Eat too much of certain types of food, stay inactive, one gets fat and lots of health issues arise. Those health issues push up all of our health care costs which directly impact the health insurance rates you and I pay. It costs our society in productivity. Those who decide to be alcoholics, the same thing....it affects the stability of family and society. And smokers.....I could go on and on. You get the point.
I don't mind a multi-quote when it's just one person's posts. The problem is that you can't see the quote that you are answering in the next quote and I don't know what you are responding to. I want to reply to your thoughts about my posts but when you string them altogether like this, it makes it difficult to respond.
Yep.
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.
