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.
Aluminum adjuvant in vaccines is not new. It's been used since 1926. Aluminum is the third most abundant element after oxygen and silicon. There is aluminum everywhere, including in breast milk. You might find this helpful. http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs...ients/aluminum
I never looked into getting the exemptions because the only one I was interested in turning down that was mandatory was the varicella, and in NY you can't "opt out" of only one. The justification seems to be that if you can get one vaccine, you have no ground to not get them all.
I'll have to look for the link to the new studies. It shows that the body processes aluminum ingested orally differently than the adjutant. One of the most interesting finds is that a larger dose of aluminum actually ends up being less likely to enter the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier than a smaller dose, though that's not the gist of the study.
well then, lets just eliminate the constitution entirely, by your command, and just become robots to what ever dictator ends up taking over the world and do everything they say when ever they say it.
we can make the human race complete automatons who only do something when told to do it. if we are going to accept abortion as legal, and moral, because its a womans body and she has the right to choose, then why should we require people to take vaccines? the same argument applies here, its my body and i have the right to choose, and you cannot discriminate against me based on my decision not to get a vaccine.
The US Supreme Court interpreted the constitution several times to mean that vaccine mandates are constitutional. Vaccines have no connection to abortion. See the links I posted. As far as "discrimination", the unvaccinated by choice are not a protected category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
In extreme circumstances where people are dropping dead from VPD that might be true but not when we are talking about things like measles, HPV vaccine, rotavirus, chicken pox, etc. in a first world country.
School exemptions remain in place for most states. If people don't like those exemptions and want more government control, they can move to West Virginia, Mississippi and California where they only allow medical exemptions.
I never looked into getting the exemptions because the only one I was interested in turning down that was mandatory was the varicella, and in NY you can't "opt out" of only one. The justification seems to be that if you can get one vaccine, you have no ground to not get them all.
I'll have to look for the link to the new studies. It shows that the body processes aluminum ingested orally differently than the adjutant. One of the most interesting finds is that a larger dose of aluminum actually ends up being less likely to enter the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier than a smaller dose, though that's not the gist of the study.
For me this comes down to the answers to three questions.
Can my child still get >insert illness/disease here< IF they get vaccinated for >insert illness/disease here<?
Can my child still carry/transmit >insert illness/disease here< IF they get vaccinated for >insert illness/disease here<?
Is there any chance my child can be harmed IF they get vaccinated for >insert illness/disease here<?
For me, IF the answer to any of these questions is yes, then my response is people are Free To Choose for themselves and their children. Of course, the answer to all three of these questions is, "Yes".
No drug/vaccination manufacturer will go on the record guaranteeing that a person cannot get nor carry/transmit >insert illness/disease here< IF they get vaccinated for >insert illness/disease here<. Nor will they guarantee a child or adult for that matter cannot be harmed IF they get vaccinated for >insert illness/disease here<.
To me this is a no brainer. Without a guarantee of no disease/illness, carry/transmit nor possible harm, everyone should be Free To Choose for themselves and their children.
So for me, this all boils down to morality. We each hold differing degrees of morality, so what is right for one may not be right for another. This is why I am a firm believer that morality is something for each of us to impose upon ourselves, NOT others.
There's a big problem when they're spreading disease. There is no right to infect people; not in the US. The courts have already decided.
The courts have not decided that you have any right to not be infected with a disease or other illnesses by upholding compulsory vaccine requirements for school entrance, sometimes with exemptions and sometimes not depending on what state you live in. The courts have not decided that you have the right to be free from contracting a VPD.
The courts have not decided that you have any right to not be infected with a disease or other illnesses by upholding compulsory vaccine requirements for school entrance, sometimes with exemptions and sometimes not depending on what state you live in. The courts have not decided that you have the right to be free from contracting a VPD.
Re: Jacobson- The argument was whether Pastor Jacobson could refuse to be vaccinated. He's the one who brought the suit. He said the law (for vaccination against smallpox) was an "invasion of his liberty". The court ruled his liberty could so be "invaded", that he did not have the right to go around infecting people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
"Zucht v. King.
There, the Supreme Court upheld an ordinance that set vaccination as a prerequisite for school attendance without regard to the actual or imminent presence of an epidemic.
Protect the public health, as in, keeping people from being exposed to disease.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...-statutes.aspx "Quarantine: Compulsory separation, including restriction of movement, of people who have potentially been exposed to a contagious disease, until it can be determined whether they have become sick or no longer pose a risk to others, for example, based on time elapsed from their potential exposure.
Isolation: Separation of people known or suspected (via signs, symptoms, or laboratory criteria) to be infected with a contagious disease from those who are not sick to prevent them from transmitting disease to others."
So yes, the government does have the right to protect people from exposure to disease.
Re: Jacobson- The argument was whether Pastor Jacobson could refuse to be vaccinated. He's the one who brought the suit. He said the law (for vaccination against smallpox) was an "invasion of his liberty". The court ruled his liberty could so be "invaded", that he did not have the right to go around infecting people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
"Zucht v. King.
There, the Supreme Court upheld an ordinance that set vaccination as a prerequisite for school attendance without regard to the actual or imminent presence of an epidemic.
Protect the public health, as in, keeping people from being exposed to disease.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...-statutes.aspx "Quarantine: Compulsory separation, including restriction of movement, of people who have potentially been exposed to a contagious disease, until it can be determined whether they have become sick or no longer pose a risk to others, for example, based on time elapsed from their potential exposure.
Isolation: Separation of people known or suspected (via signs, symptoms, or laboratory criteria) to be infected with a contagious disease from those who are not sick to prevent them from transmitting disease to others."
So yes, the government does have the right to protect people from exposure to disease.
Chicken pox, HPV, measles, etc. in our modern world are not quite the same threat as smallpox was back in the early 1900's. It would have to be pretty dire circumstances in order for the government to mandate that people get vaccinated in the case of an outbreak today. It's a reach to use that ruling to make the claim that that: "There is no right to infect people; not in the US. The courts have already decided."
Of note:
"The view that the injected adjuvant remains extra-cellular has been challenged by muscle biopsy findings in immunized patients (4). "
"In spite of their long usage, the literature has pointed out that the adjuvanticity mechanisms of aluminum salts remain basically unknown despite most active investigation in the field in recent years (21, 22). "
"The imbalance between the huge number of vaccinated individuals and the relatively low number of MMF cases suggests crucial involvement of individual susceptibility factors in intolerance to alum. Genetically driven MCP-1/CCL2 production might represent one of these factors (5)."
really? read the post i quoted below, and then tell me no one in the US is forced to get a vaccine. or you can ask me since in 1976 i was FORCED to get a vaccine, or i would not be allowed to attend school. in other words your statement i quoted is a baldfaced lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
The US Supreme Court interpreted the constitution several times to mean that vaccine mandates are constitutional. Vaccines have no connection to abortion. See the links I posted. As far as "discrimination", the unvaccinated by choice are not a protected category.
i never said vaccines had a connection to abortion, only that in many cases one can chose to or not to have an abortion, but as you have noted there are times when one cannot chose to avoid being vaccinated against their will.
In the UK the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) which has been in existence since 1979, and by 2005 it was revealed that there had been 917 succesful pay outs in the UK, although the authorities have refused to realease further figures, despite numerous Freedom of Information requests.
That was 917 payouts over how many million doses of vaccine?
DNA altering vaccines. Don't want GMO Foods? GMO Mosquitoes? How about GMO Children and Grandkids? After all if a parent's genes are altered, won't they pass it on to future generations? I wonder if these test subjects are being told this? What could possibly go WRONG with DNA Vaccines? Eradicate a disease by manipulating human genes? Dr. Frankenstein, I presume?
If you think there are too many anti-vaxxers today, wait until the public hears about this. I know a certain poster works for the Pharm Corp that is leading in the research for this Zika vaccine. Have all the human test subject been told they are getting a DNA Zika vaccine?
Gene alternation is bad enough on animals and plants, but now on Human Beings? Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. Where are your ethics?
Oh no! DNA! Run for the hills!
Uh oh. No human DNA is being manipulated by such a vaccine. Whatever is in the vaccine will be scarfed up by - wait for it - the immune system.
Before you rant about science you might want to at least make some attempt to understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokinouta
LMAO, um, you may not be alert enough to make sure you discipline your nurse or doctor while in the hospital. Medical Errors - Ten Most Common Medical Errors in the U.S
250,000 people die a year and twenty times that suffer life long consequences. That's huge. I repeat, this is our current problem. Not a few people who don't vaccinate. That's just your personal battle. When the medical community is our 3rd largest killer, it's hard to take their advice. Given that, the amount that vaccinate is actually a lot. Chill!
Before the Measles vaccine only about 150 people died a year. Compare that to medical errors. What a joke. Why fight such a stupid battle? More people are crippled or have life long injuries from medical errors or drug reactions than were crippled from polio before the vaccine.
Sometimes you have to prioritize your battles. The pro vaccine/anti vaccine thing is so stupid. What a waste of time. Meanwhile the doctors and nurses on the pro vaccine kick are killing us more than everything else but Cancer and heart disease, and those diseases get tons of attention. Vaccines already get tons of attention, but medical mistakes get very little. Why not switch paths and do something that will actually make a difference?
Let's face facts, some people have just lost faith in the medical community. We make huge profits from our healthcare and can't even manage to get a good healthcare program going in this country, and we still make tons of mistakes. Yet most people still take their chances. Go figure. We have very little choice. We pray we make it. Yes, pray.
In our country our presidents thank GOD after they give a speech or go to war,we call other countries EVIL and pray for a GOD to bless America on almost a daily basis. In GOD we trust, not science. lmao! You are really trying to tell Americans to put science first? > that's hilarious. We do a lot based on our FEELINGS in this country and we are still free to do so. ^ And may God bless you and your quest to get all Americans on board with science. Good luck! A lot of science is killing us.
It would be more convincing if our drug companies didn't take advantage of the American market and our medical community actually took their jobs seriously. Don't you think? Why don't you start there, then people might believe in your science.
If you are so concerned, make sure someone is with you who will stay awake 24 hours per day while you are in the hospital and stand guard over you.
Feelings did not invent the computer you are using. I'll stick with science.
Before the measles vaccine 400 to 500 people a year died from the disease. You continue to ignore those who had permanent disabilities from it. Don't they count?
No, medicine does not cause 250,000 deaths a year.
No matter, though. However many people die from medical errors that is no a reason to not try to reduce deaths from other causes, including vaccine preventable diseases. It's a bit like saying we should do nothing to prevent deaths from drowning because so many more people die in motor vehicle accidents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Personal and Parental Empowerment is both prefential and more succesful than mandatory State enforcement and the individual should be able to make informed decisions with regard to current and future vaccines including possible genetic DNA altering vaccines.
Medicine and Science must be properly balaced with laws, ethics and human rights.
Furthermore the legality of compulsory vaccination is questionable in many countries.
The right to personal autonomy and physical and psychological integrity, i.e. the right not to be physically interfered with; is a basic human right and is part of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the subsequent 1998 British Human Rights Act.
Reposting this multiple times does not help your argument. It just gets tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokinouta
Now they die in large amount due to medical mistakes. I can't wait for a vaccine to come out that makes me immune to my nurse and doctors lack of responsibility. Or maybe a vax that could prevent the next drug they gave me didn't shut down my liver. Oh science, so helpful yet a bit dangerous.
Hey, that pill that stopped all my pain worked pretty good until 1/2 of America became addicts. I guess every gen has it's concerns. Their's were the several hundreds that died from measles, ours is over 250,000 that die from medical mistakes. Bad times.
Why the heck are there so many vaccine threads lately? Is there a new bill about vaccines coming out soon or something? Weird.
Why are there so many threads on any topic?
As shown above, medicine is not killing people by the hundreds of thousands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokinouta
OOOOOOHHHH, wow, sorry, 500 deaths a year. Nobody likes any death, I think that is at the bottom of most peoples favorite things but come on, even disputed medical errors kills that measles number.
Don't you think that all this attention could serve us better else were? Like our actual healthcare? Most people I know get their kids those shots. It's not that big of a deal. Not like you are making it out to be. Why r so many stupid threads on the political forum about it? Go to the health forums or debate forums. I feel forced to contribute because I'm always on the political forum. lol Kidding, but seriously, is it on a political table of some kind right now?
Is this a new Trump thing?
Those 500 deaths do not count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I will add that even in the case of an emergency, I can't see many or any vaccine preventable illness that would warrant forced compliance. Maybe if there was a massive outbreak of something where people were dropping dead from whatever VPD but in most cases, like in an outbreak of measles or mumps or chicken pox, etc. Forced compliance would still be out of line.
If a VPD shows up in a school, any kid who is not vaccinated can't come to school until the outbreak is over. I think that's a pretty reasonable measure that's already in place to stop an outbreak from getting too out of hand.
In the US no one is forced to vaccinate. In some states it means you cannot send your child to school and must make alternative plans for your child's education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Not to mention the fact that if we are dumb enough to open the door to forced vaccinations (some would like to do that with open arms) then we will just be paving the way for other forced medications/procedures, etc. Eventually someone who pushed for forced vaccines will find themselves forced into a medical decision that they disagree with. Informed consent and the freedom to choose remains optimal for many reasons.
The slippery slope argument fails. Mandatory vaccines have been around for a loooong time and no one has been "forced into a medical decision that they disagree with". A decision not to vaccinate which is based on anti-vax rhetoric and pseudoscience is not an informed decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
well then, lets just eliminate the constitution entirely, by your command, and just become robots to what ever dictator ends up taking over the world and do everything they say when ever they say it.
we can make the human race complete automatons who only do something when told to do it. if we are going to accept abortion as legal, and moral, because its a womans body and she has the right to choose, then why should we require people to take vaccines? the same argument applies here, its my body and i have the right to choose, and you cannot discriminate against me based on my decision not to get a vaccine.
An woman's decision to have an abortion does not affect you in any way.
Your decision not to vaccinate can affect other families, sometimes with disastrous consequences for that family.
The constitutionality of mandatory vaccination has already been decided. You can give up on that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
In extreme circumstances where people are dropping dead from VPD that might be true but not when we are talking about things like measles, HPV vaccine, rotavirus, chicken pox, etc. in a first world country.
School exemptions remain in place for most states. If people don't like those exemptions and want more government control, they can move to West Virginia, Mississippi and California where they only allow medical exemptions.
If vaccination rates drop lower, then people will start dropping dead from vaccine preventable diseases again, like they did before there were vaccines. That includes measles, rotavirus, and chicken pox. The deaths from HPV will just take longer to happen. Don't forget that having measles makes you susceptible to other potentially fatal infections for up to three years, too.
The states that allow exemptions probably will not remove them until a large outbreak happens in one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I agree with a lot of this.
The reason why it gets so heated is because there are some who would love to take all choice away. They want to shame, scare, threaten, legislate, etc. everyone into getting every vaccine that comes out. In reality, most people's choices can't be summed up by "pro-vax" or "anti-vax" labels because quite a few people will pick and choose which vaccines to get. For instance, they might be all for the required school vaccine schedule but wish to opt out of Hep B vaccine for their infant, flu vaccines for themselves and HPV vaccines for their pre-teens. This group would be more accurately called, "pro-choice" and fighting for the ability to still have a choice becomes paramount.
It's about much more then just vaccines, it's about a human's ability to have ownership over his or her own body and to make medical decisions for their children without interference from the government. This group gets riled up when people talk about eliminating choice.
No one is forced to vaccinate in the US. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences of your decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
as i have said many times before, i am not anti vaccine, i AM however pro choice when it comes to vaccines. i refuse to get a flu vaccine ever since the time i was forced to get a flu vaccine, and i got the flu. however i have recently gotten a hep-b vaccine, and a number of years ago i got a tetanus vaccine.
The vaccine did not cause you to have the flu. Either you were already infected when you got the vaccine or you got a strain not included in the vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swilliamsny
I've not misunderstood. You can only refuse vaccines that are not on the mandatory list. Chicken pox is mandatory, therefore cannot be refused unless you're claiming a religious exemption for all vaccines. Sure, you can still refuse, but your child won't be allowed in school. HepB is required for school admission as well. We got ours when I started taking the kids to the public playgrounds - around a year old.
The reason for bringing up the Rotateq trials was in response to suzyq's dismissal of anything reported outside of the official channels of the vaccine manufacturer. Maybe the follow up for this particular vaccine was done differently than others, but if not, it's concerning that a parent is only allowed to report on what is on a predetermined list of side effects.
Thank you for the information on Japan's autism rates. I wasn't aware of that. I almost went back and edited my post because it implied that every case of autism is due to vaccines, which I know isn't true. Over the last year, I've read a couple studies that have been done on the aluminum used as an adjutant in vaccines to trigger the immune system, and have discussed them with a friend who is a micro-biologist. You seem pretty reasonable. Are you familiar with this new work, and if so, what's your take on it? (I'm not asking to be confrontational. This is something I'm genuinely curious about.)
There is no evidence that delaying the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine is any safer or better.
Where has Suzy Q dismissed anything "reported outside of the official channels of the vaccine manufacturer"? Much vaccine research is not done by the vaccine maker and I have never said otherwise. For example, testing vaccines in pregnant women is not usually done by the drug company. Most of that information comes postmarketing, usually in university sponsored studies.
No one in a drug study is "only allowed to report on what is on a predetermined list of side effects". If your sister thinks that, she is mistaken.
Aluminum in vaccines is present in tiny, tiny quantities. It is not metabolized differently from other environmental sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swilliamsny
I never looked into getting the exemptions because the only one I was interested in turning down that was mandatory was the varicella, and in NY you can't "opt out" of only one. The justification seems to be that if you can get one vaccine, you have no ground to not get them all.
I'll have to look for the link to the new studies. It shows that the body processes aluminum ingested orally differently than the adjutant. One of the most interesting finds is that a larger dose of aluminum actually ends up being less likely to enter the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier than a smaller dose, though that's not the gist of the study.
Would you please tell us why you do not want your child vaccinated against chicken pox? What danger to you perceive from the vaccine that outweighs preventing the misery that virus can cause - which includes possibly death?
No, injected aluminum is not metabolized differently from orally ingested aluminum.
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.
