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 misunderstand the way judicial precedent works. I don't need any new law because its been decided. If the cases had been overruled we'd have a problem. If you contend I have cited the cases incorrectly or left out other precedents, you need to show me case or statutory law that holds differently or explain why I have interpreted the cases incorrectly.
Monetary fines and jail sentences are generally the consequence for breaking laws. I suspect Jacobson was subject to a jail sentence as well, but it was not imposed.
You fail to understand the notion that Constitution doesn't enshrine freedom as much as it strikes a balance between individual rights (freedom) and the power of the authorities to act on behalf of the community to further the interests of health, safety, and welfare. I could cite a hundred cases that did exactly that.
Smallpox in1905 is not rotavirus or HPV or Hep B, chicken pox, etc. in 2017. You can't use that ruling from 1905 to say that the government has the right to force anyone and everyone to get all vaccines that the CDC says they should get or else.
It is protective against when it comes to severity and duration. I never said that it reduces incidence.
So many people don't even go to the doctor for rotavirus. Maybe the reduction in hospitalizations has more to do with better knowledge and practices concerning dealing with dehydration before it becomes a problem. No one knows. If they really wanted to know if deaths had decreased they would have done the same monitoring post vaccine as they did pre-vaccine.
Brazil is not the US. In the US, deaths were already extremely minimal. We don't know if they decreased post vaccination because no one has bothered to keep track. Wouldn't they want to know if they were "saving lives" with their vaccine? Deaths were already at such a low rate and one that didn't warrant the need for routine vaccination before the vaccine was introduced.
FUD, FUD, FUD! Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. "They" again. How do you know this isn't being done? Just because your Google skills can't pull something up, that doesn't mean it's not happening. "They" do follow vaccine uptake, surprise, surprise! And rotavirus deaths are not reportable, as you have been told several times now, not before or after the introduction of the vaccine.
Smallpox in1905 is not rotavirus or HPV or Hep B, chicken pox, etc. in 2017. You can't use that ruling from 1905 to say that the government has the right to force anyone and everyone to get all vaccines that the CDC says they should get or else.
Despite your legal opinion to the contrary, vaccine mandates have never been overturned.
FUD, FUD, FUD! Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. "They" again. How do you know this isn't being done? Just because your Google skills can't pull something up, that doesn't mean it's not happening. "They" do follow vaccine uptake, surprise, surprise! And rotavirus deaths are not reportable, as you have been told several times now, not before or after the introduction of the vaccine.
We have no information at all regarding any decrease in deaths so of course there is doubt. Oddly you don't find anything wrong with doubting vaccine injury stories even when injuries are compensated, something that is hard to do even with ample evidence.
If rotavirus deaths were not reportable prior to the vaccine how did they get the 20 to 60 deaths per year number? Obviously they tracked it for at least a portion of time.
You could be guilty of spreading this "FUD" that you so often refer to when promoting vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Despite your legal opinion to the contrary, vaccine mandates have never been overturned.
Fortunately the vast majority of states allow exemption for personal reasons.
We have no information at all regarding any decrease in deaths so of course there is doubt. Oddly you don't find anything wrong with doubting vaccine injury stories even when injuries are compensated, something that is hard to do even with ample evidence.
If rotavirus deaths were not reportable prior to the vaccine how did they get the 20 to 60 deaths per year number? Obviously they tracked it for at least a portion of time.
You could be guilty of spreading this "FUD" that you so often refer to when promoting vaccines.
Fortunately the vast majority of states allow exemption for personal reasons.
You only think there is doubt because you don't understand the math. The number of deaths was an estimate based on clinical evidence. Please tell me who you think "they" are.
You only think there is doubt because you don't understand the math. The number of deaths was an estimate based on clinical evidence. Please tell me who you think "they" are.
I understand how you think you can claim a number but I also understand that it's based on nothing but a guess.
Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and received a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development.80 Also, he acts as a consultant to Merck.81
Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program.
Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the meeting, “I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.”82
He voted in favor of getting a rotavirus vaccine onto the schedule. It wasn't his vaccine but it did pave the way for his vaccine to make it's way onto the schedule shortly after. The vaccine he helped approve was removed from the market after just a year due to serious safety concerns.
Quote:
A thorough review of the VRBPAC’s and ACIP’s consideration of the Rotavirus vaccine found a flawed process that led to a poor decision:
• Committee members with financial ties to the manufacturer of the vaccine, and producers of competing vaccines, were given waivers to participate in the decision-making process. • Legitimate concerns about serious side effects and a lack of information were swept aside. • The CDC’s advisory committee (ACIP) recommended the “RotaShield” for universal use before it was even approved by the FDA. • The end result was that a product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.
I understand how you think you can claim a number but I also understand that it's based on nothing but a guess.
No, it's not based on "nothing but a guess". Nice try. It's based on rotavirus testing from 25 labs. I had already posted this, but you apparently didn't look at it. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/su...rotavirus.html
No, it's not based on "nothing but a guess". Nice try. It's based on rotavirus testing from 25 labs. I had already posted this, but you apparently didn't look at it. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/su...rotavirus.html
I've read it several times. It doesn't change anything that I've said here. I think we've gone round and round enough about this. Don't you?
He voted in favor of getting a rotavirus vaccine onto the schedule. It wasn't his vaccine but it did pave the way for his vaccine to make it's way onto the schedule shortly after. The vaccine he helped approve was removed from the market after just a year due to serious safety concerns.
Again, like your time travel vaccines, you've got your dates wrong. Offit voted to put the old rotavirus vaccine on the program in 1998. His vaccine was added in 2006. It had not been approved yet in 1998. He recused himself on the vote to pull the old RV vaccine. He was not a member of the committee when his vaccine was approved. The date of this "extremely pro-vaccine blog" is 2000! Rotateq was not approved until 2006; rotarix in 2008.
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.
