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 consider your approach to be bullying and blackmail. "If you don't get all of the injections that the state say's you must, you lose your right to a public education.". Sorry if that offends you but I'm just calling it as I see it.
That is why it is important to look at sources from a wide variety and not just say, "oh, no medical journals are the only thing worth reading". All sources can be biased but I'm not going to discount people's personal stories simply because "science" hasn't yet taken the task of truly evaluating reactions. All of the information factors into my decision, not just one documentary or five medical journals. That is why it is entirely possible for two parents who have done their research to ultimately make two different decisions when it comes to vaccines. Neither is right nor wrong. They should retain their right to do so without fear of losing their right o access public schools. That is true informed consent.
I shared this awhile back about manipulation is scientific studies. It's actually more complicated then you are making it out be.
You may manipulate my approach all you want. But you are not right. I am not advocating forcing anyone into anything other than making a choice. You do NOT lose your right, you give up the convenience of attending a public school. You are CHOOSING not to avail yourself of that access. To me, that's a huge difference. I am sorry that you can't understand that. But your continuing effort to paint me as some sort of fascist is just wrong.
The three pieces you want me to see are hardly proof of anything. The first is an editorial. Literally. Commentary by the editor. Is some of it true? Certainly. Messy, lazy work. Bad habits. Greed. All of those dilute the image of actual scientific proof, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in it. But it is hardly an indictment of fact. The second is a book review, which is, again, opinion. Is there good information in there? Yes, of course. But it is not anything more than a review. This line itself should provide troublesome: "No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year." Does that sound substantiated? It doesn't to me. Compelling, perhaps. But not a FACT.
The third piece is interesting, but addresses more about poor study practices, which make data easier to manipulate. Yes, also true. But, again, does not mean all science is bad. It does not mean all studies are bad. It does not mean all interpretations of data are wrong.
You continually accuse others of not reading your links. I do. I often do not comment because I don't find them particularly relevant to the matter at hand. These fall into that category. There's nothing here that makes me stand up and say, "Wow, that's new." Nothing that I haven't thought or read before. Opinion vs. fact. It matters which category they fall into.
You may manipulate my approach all you want. But you are not right. I am not advocating forcing anyone into anything other than making a choice. You do NOT lose your right, you give up the convenience of attending a public school. You are CHOOSING not to avail yourself of that access. To me, that's a huge difference. I am sorry that you can't understand that. But your continuing effort to paint me as some sort of fascist is just wrong.
That is a really weird way to think about it if you ask me. I can't even relate at all. Sorry. People are choosing via informed consent to forgo a vaccine and due to that choice, they are losing access to their right to a public education. That's the reality of it.
Quote:
The three pieces you want me to see are hardly proof of anything. The first is an editorial. Literally. Commentary by the editor. Is some of it true? Certainly. Messy, lazy work. Bad habits. Greed. All of those dilute the image of actual scientific proof, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in it. But it is hardly an indictment of fact. The second is a book review, which is, again, opinion. Is there good information in there? Yes, of course. But it is not anything more than a review. This line itself should provide troublesome: "No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year." Does that sound substantiated? It doesn't to me. Compelling, perhaps. But not a FACT.
The third piece is interesting, but addresses more about poor study practices, which make data easier to manipulate. Yes, also true. But, again, does not mean all science is bad. It does not mean all studies are bad. It does not mean all interpretations of data are wrong.
Of course it doesn't mean that all studies are bad nor does it mean that all interpretation of data are wrong but it does raise questions and shows that these "credible sources" are not always credible and are just as prone to bias, manipulation fraud, etc. as any other source. The articles I shared raise questions that people can ask themselves when looking at funding sources, size of studies, or when they wonder why certain things have not been studied.
Okay, let's say for argument's sake we chalked it up to gender specific reactions to the vaccine. Either way, even if we limited it to just females we should still see a larger distribution of injuries in high-coverage states. There should be a disproportionately high number of claims coming out of Rhode Island, since that is the state state with the highest coverage levels.
Claims? How do you know there aren't more reported injuries and death in high coverage states? You'd have to scan the VAERS reports and see.
Girls sharing their personal stories and doctors weighing in about the pattern they are seeing is not propaganda. I'd say that if you only get your information from just one single source, medical journals, you are being very close minded. I read medical journals but I'm also open to other information as well. As has been shown, the medical journals are not as credible and unbiased as you and others continue to make them out to be. They are prone to fraud, manipulation ,bias, etc.
My post was directed at tlvancouver, not you. She does ignore info that she does not like.
I take issue with people using biased, one sided info to bully parents into getting vaccinated by for profit pharmaceutical companies who not only fund the studies but also line the pockets of the politicians who make the laws which mandate said vaccines for school entry. It's corruption at it's worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Really? Would you say that to the girls parents who died or who now have seizures regularly? How compassionate of you.
Blah blah blah. I am a mother and feel compassion for parents of sick children and find it inexcusable to have those parents and children used as pawns in an anti-vax agenda. Studies that are unfunded by pharma, peer reviewed and replicated are not biased.
An attempt to blame vaccines is preventing research into the actual reasons why these kids are unwell, and the harsh truth is that vaccines are often the fall guy for genetic anomalies even when the science and data proves that incorrect.
Your view is unsupported by science, statistics or common sense. I stopped catering to your irrational views 50 pages ago when you and your ilk clearly indicated that you don't care about evidence just feelings and stories.
Fundamentally irresponsible and patently absurd.
Please feel free to follow up with whatever rehashed theory is on rotation. We haven't seen anything new From the anti science crew in 40 or 50 pages.
Really? Would you say that to the girls parents who died or who now have seizures regularly? How compassionate of you.
That's why they feel compelled to make these videos. They feel as if nobody listens once they have an injury because it's related to vaccines and the army of people pushing vaccines is a tough one plus the money lost to a large company if this vaccine was removed would be huge.
When they were happily vaccinating I'm sure they received a lot of attention, and the doctors liked them, they complied. Once they became a statistic, not so much. This happens a lot across the board. Not just with vaccines. Look at the Vioxx controversy, that causes serious side effects. My mother had a stroke on Vioxx. It was prescribed for her arthritis. It canceled out her blood pressure meds and gave her a stroke. She had no warning of this and has no heart disease. It's very hard to get people to take a real look at why some have a problem. Usually the numbers are small enough for them to ignore or label as coincidence. With my mom it was simple she was to old to consider for legal action. Since people over 50 have strokes anyway. But, most of the doctors agreed it was from the Vioxx. Soon after Vioxx was removed from the market for the same thing.
It takes someone with money or a few people with money to get the injury themselves or care about other, then they can afford to look into it.
With some, like NSADS, it takes time. A lot of people had these suspicions before but were not listened to. Finally after a long term study, and tons of brave people who reported these injuries it's now a new warning. But it's taken years for Tylenol and Advil. I imagine it will be the same with the vaccines.
As with all things, variables make a difference.
One variable that isn't being addressed as much with mass vaccination using the HPV vaccine is that if it's given to a girl already sexually active it can cause an increase in cervical cancer. If she was exposed to HPV, then given it, that would be a side effect that would most likely go undetected. Not many 6 or 7th grade girls are going to be honest about having sex. Or that would be my concern, variables like these. Will they take the time to make sure these aren't over looked.
I'm being honest when I say that my doctor nor the nurse went over anything with us at the time of my sons vaccinations. They only warned of a sore arm or fever, and simply said to call if anything else occurred so they could note it. That's another variable, doctors and nurses don't always do as they should.
Claims? How do you know there aren't more reported injuries and death in high coverage states? You'd have to scan the VAERS reports and see.
Any of the surveillance systems: VAERS, VSD, VAU, CISA. It seems that those who are set on idea of the vaccine causing severe adverse events would be data-mining and looking for a pattern, or some sort of objective evidence demonstrating that the vaccine is as dangerous as they claim it is.
Any of the surveillance systems: VAERS, VSD, VAU, CISA. It seems that those who are set on idea of the vaccine causing severe adverse events would be data-mining and looking for a pattern, or some sort of objective evidence demonstrating that the vaccine is as dangerous as they claim it is.
They have. They're those quacks you won't listen to. But, since you have no proof there isn't, I guess it's safe to say you don't know if they're more reports of injuries in those places.
They have. They're those quacks you won't listen to. But, since you have no proof there isn't, I guess it's safe to say you don't know if they're more reports of injuries in those places.
Repeat post. Wrong. Clearly addressed multiple times.
Are you talking about Matching Gifts? Matching Gifts are for non-profit groups--money matched up to 3X for an eligible group. Matching Gifts from all sorts of corporations are common. Diminishing, but common. But most corporations say right in their matching gift policies that they don't donate to political campaigns. Habitat for Humanity, United Way, American Red Cross, Heifer International, your local public radio & tv stations, Girls Scouts, Boy Scouts--all depend on matching gifts. They've been around for years.
No, I did not work for a Non-Profit. They are now in the top 3 Pharm Groups, and a few years ago bought out smaller coporation.
They still matched any politicial contribution made by an employee.
I had a job once that required me to be fingerprinted, thus putting me "in the system." To refuse would have meant I lost my job. I had another that conducted random drug tests. To refuse if chosen would gave meant I lost my job. I had another that required I submit to a thorough background check. To refuse would have meant I did not get the job. There are choices we make all the time that have consequences. Tough. That isn't coercion. If...then. Cause & effect. Personal responsibility.
But please don't do legalese.
I worked in both public schools and with MR/DD population and had to have fingerprinting, FBI search, and TB tests. NONE are Medical Treatment. They tried in Florida to require random drug testing of civil servants, but that was declared illegal by courts. TOUGH.
Don't quote law? Well, I have a legal degree and WILL relate this to the law; just as YOU can quote your "medical science".
You cannot mandate medical treatment without legal ramifications. Nuremburg Codes decided that one 60 years ago.
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 can't even relate at all. Sorry. People are choosing via informed consent to forgo a vaccine and due to that choice, they are losing access to their right to a public education. That's the reality of it. 
TOUGH.