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.
Thank you for acknowledging that fact that not all families have the option to homeschool and that this law will in fact force some to vaccinate against their will due to economic factors such as the parent needing to work. People will be forced to vaccinate by the state, against their will. How's that for freedom?
Suzy doesn't understand this fact. She still thinks that all of those who are not fully vaccinated make enough money to homeschool. It's not true. Some people will be forced to vaccinate.
Because they can't afford to homeschool. Not every family can make it work financially. The need to have food and shelter is strong.
What you fail to understand is that the person who can't afford to home school is a person who cannot afford to have a sick child or children. It is also a parent who is unlikely to refuse vaccines for her child. Like it or not, the people who do not vaccinate their kids tend to be affluent enough to home school. There will be very few who "cannot make it work financially" just due to vaccine mandates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
"Measles and the other diseases we vaccinate for. Ask your grandparents how it felt to bury their siblings."
Since my own grandparents were born in the 1800's and are long dead, I cannot ask them about their siblings dying from measles. My Uncle in the 1920's died from what they called "crib death", but I am sure that wasn't from one of these deadly contagious diseases because his twin brother in the same crib with him did not get sick, let alone die. Is there a vaccine today for crib death?
I can tell you though about MY generation who grew up in 1950's and 1960's. Children were not dying in the streets of NYC from the deadly diseases of measles, mumps, rueblla, chicken pox, etc.
My generation's parents (born 1920's) WANTED their kids to get these childhood diseases as young as possible and get them over with it. As I have said many, many times, I had them all under the age of 2. My Mom bragged about that to all the other parents, because I would not miss school being sick from them. No, it was not only my parents, because if all other parents were so terrified as they are today, I would not have had any other kids to play with growing up. Those measles and pox parties were also a part of those times also. That is also a fact.
Sorry, do not even attempt to pull the wool over my eyes because I LIVED in those days. You are spreading very false information about what it was like in those days, purely to suit your own agenda to scare the younger generation.
Edit: I tried to do a search on the Net about these old parties, but surprise, surprise, I could not find anything. Hmmm. There was just the usual propaganda promoting what you are saying. When my generation is dead, there will be nobody to dispute what science wants people to believe what the past was really like.
In all, I count about 30 children who died from whooping cough, 5 from measles, and 2 from diphtheria. In the 1880 census, there were 17,651 people enumerated in the county. Let's say a third were under age 18. That means about 5825 children. In that year, 37 died from three diseases we can now prevent with vaccines: about 6 children out of 100 in the community died from just those three diseases.
The Mortality Schedules are available at Ancestry.com. Perhaps someone you know who does genealogy research could look up your grandparents' counties of residence and see what people died there in 1880, how many were children, and what they died from. Ancestry.com has a free trial offer. You could even do it yourself. You will probably be surprised to find how many of your own ancestors lost children to these diseases, if you only look.
There is no conspiracy to cover up your theory that every child participated in pox parties and measles teas. No one cares enough about it to do that.
So you feel laws making murder illegal to be "coercion"?
Laws for a speed limit or stop light to be "coercion"?
Laws against theft to he "coercion"?
Or just laws that you don't like?
Not very good analogies.
Vaccination involves injecting your body with ingredients that may do harm and when the state says, "if you don't get these injections, you can't go to public school". That is coercive.
The examples that you gave are not even in the same category. Not even close.
You're the only one on this forum who brags about having parents who deliberately tried to get her sick, so perhaps you could keep your, umm "unique" parenting philosophies to yourself?
Most people are terrified of getting sick with ANYTHING when they're pregnant. With the flu that fear is rational. Your superhuman family isn't average.
We've been over this before and Jo is not the only one. Exposing children as young as possible to chicken pox and measles pre-vaccine was extremely common. It was a very logical thing for parents to do considering those diseases were more mild in early childhood.
I also don't remember people getting worried about the flu until the last few years when flu vaccine hype has taken a foothold in the media. Getting the flu was a bummer and not fun but it was far from "terrifying". I don't know anyone in real life who was or is "terrified of getting sick, pregnant or not.
What you fail to understand is that the person who can't afford to home school is a person who cannot afford to have a sick child or children. It is also a parent who is unlikely to refuse vaccines for her child. Like it or not, the people who do not vaccinate their kids tend to be affluent enough to home school. There will be very few who "cannot make it work financially" just due to vaccine mandates.
Plenty of jobs offer sick time and vacation time and parents use that time as needed. It's not fun but it's a part of life. When you have kids in school, they do tend to get sick, vaccinated or not. What about the "affluent" (making $60,000 or more per year ) family that is dual income. Cut one income and they suddenly are not so affluent anymore. Also, keep in mind that places like San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, etc. are not exactly cheap places to live. The amount of money that would qualify as affluence in Atlanta is not affluence in many areas of CA. There will be people who won't be able to make homeschooling work due to the mandates. Why you continue to deny this is bizarre.
Another factor in the decline in measles in the early 60s? Demographics. The population was starting to change. People were having smaller families. You had adults walking with natural immunity, teenagers walking around with natural immunity, probably their younger siblings, etc. Kinda of a natural immunity Herd Immunity. The vast majority of the herd could not get or give measles. It was finding fewer hosts.
A breastfeeding mother would be passing her own natural immunity antibodies (more than from a vaccine) to her baby in her milk. My own Mom did not breastfeed me, which is probably why I got measles and chicken pox under a year old. I did not worry about my own babies catching measles before they were too young to be vaccinated, because it was known even 30+ years ago that a nursing mother would protect her babies with her own antibodies in her milk.
There were many factors involved.
There were new hosts born every day. If your theory were true, all of these diseases would have disappeared in a few generations. That did not happen. All of those people with "natural" immunity had to be infected to become immune.
Passive immunity from breast milk only lasts a few months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
So you admit that these mandates take away choice and are coercion. Parents that cannot homeschool, for whatever reason, are being coerced (forced to choose) into vaccinating. Thanks for at least being honest about that.
As a resident of WA, the whole case is suspect and full of holes. The report also came months later, the day after the CA mandate. It was discussed thoroughly on another thread.
No one will be forced to vaccinate. Parents can do their own risk evaluation and if they think vaccines are too risky decline to use them. It's not poor families who are refusing to vaccinate.
The woman who died from measles is very real. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to make up a story about someone dying from measles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
As you know, not everyone can homeschool. Those families who cannot afford to homeschool with in fact be forced into vaccinating in order for their children to attend school. Not everyone can afford to homeschool. That's not akin to choice.
It's not poor parents who are refusing to vaccinate, much as you keep insisting it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Our opinions and views on this clearly differ greatly and I for one know that there is science and evidence on BOTH sides of the issue.
Please let us see the science and evidence on your side. All I have seen from you is that you cannot assess risk of vaccines compared to risks of the diseases they prevent.
Another BS article. I question if this was even a real person in this article. 1968 when she had her twins???? Nobody was terrified of pregnant women catching the flu in 1968, or even 1978, or 1983 when I was pregnant. This supposedly real person was afraid of measles, etc., when at her age back then, she herself would have had all those childhood diseases herself? Her twins were born FINE when she had the flu during pregnancy.
Little secret????? The FLU does not put chemicals into a pregnant woman's body, as the vaccinations do. You just "suffer" through the flu while pregnant and do not take even OTC medications for it. Been there, done that myself decades ago. My daughter has done that for both colds (no VACCINES!) and the flu in her previous pregnancy. Just 2 weeks ago, while early in current pregnancy, she caught a cold. Got a vaccine for common cold? Better work on that one. She just let it run it's course with no medications at all.
I guess she would be considered an anti-vaxer for refusing to be vaccinated during pregnancy? Her 16 month old son IS up to date on his vaccinations; just not pregnant MOMMY. She also does not demand to see vaccination records of every child, adult, or family members who comes around to see her babies. Yeah, I guess in the fanatics on here, that would be considered an anti-vaxers too. It is seems to be an ALL or nothing viewpoint.
Since Jane Brody is a very real person, your questioning amounts to nothing but conspiracy theory.
"Pregnant women in Australia and New Zealand who had pandemic influenza in 2009 were 13 times more likely to be admitted to hospital with a critical illness than non-pregnant women who had pandemic influenza 2009. Nearly 70% of these women admitted to Intensive Care needed mechanical ventilation. Of those admitted to Intensive Care, 11% of mothers and 12% of babies died despite modern obstetric and Intensive Care management."
"Direct vertical transmission of the influenza virus to the fetus is thought to be extremely rare, therefore the adverse effects observed on the fetus in mothers who have influenza are likely to be indirect i.e. as a result of the mother’s response to the virus. One mechanism by which maternal influenza infection is associated with congenital abnormalities is via the induction of fever. Fever in pregnancy is associated with neural tube defects when it occurs in early pregnancy and infants born to mothers infected with influenza during pregnancy are more likely to have babies with congenital abnormalities than uninfected matched controls. Overall there is an increase of general pregnancy complications in women who have influenza.
Maternal influenza infection is also associated with an increased risk for cancers in the infant, including neoplasms of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue (noted in the 1957 pandemic) and neuroblastomas. The increased risk of developing a neoplasm in a child born to a mother who had influenza is estimated to be not less than fourfold but depends on the epidemic or pandemic year. Note however the absolute risk is still low as these are rare cancers."
Flu in pregnancy is dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Vaccination involves injecting your body with ingredients that may do harm and when the state says, "if you don't get these injections, you can't go to public school". That is coercive.
The harm vaccine preventable diseases do far exceeds the risks of the vaccines that prevent them.
Mandates work. They increase vaccination rates and reduce the risk of large outbreaks.
It's not poor parents who are refusing to vaccinate, much as you keep insisting it is.
You completely ignored the examples I gave regarding how families could be forced to vaccinate and how "affluence" changes when one income is dropped or when you are talking about high cost of living areas. You are out of touch.
Plenty of jobs offer sick time and vacation time and parents use that time as needed. It's not fun but it's a part of life. When you have kids in school, they do tend to get sick, vaccinated or not. What about the "affluent" (making $60,000 or more per year ) family that is dual income. Cut one income and they suddenly are not so affluent anymore. Also, keep in mind that places like San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, etc. are not exactly cheap places to live. The amount of money that would qualify as affluence in Atlanta is not affluence in many areas of CA. There will be people who won't be able to make homeschooling work due to the mandates. Why you continue to deny this is bizarre.
Repeat post. Clearly addressed multiple times.
If you can't afford the impact of your choices you will need to reconsider your choices. Life is hard.
You know who likely really can't afford to homeschool? The parent of an immune compromised kid who likely already have medical bills, time taken off work etc.. Those kids are safer at school with mandates than without (don't bother launching into all the places unvaccinated kids go, its old and tiresome and has been addressed). I'm "all in" with allowing them the choice to go to school when they're well enough, and letting your "squad" homeschool their unvaccinated kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
We've been over this before and Jo is not the only one. Exposing children as young as possible to chicken pox and measles pre-vaccine was extremely common. It was a very logical thing for parents to do considering those diseases were more mild in early childhood.
I also don't remember people getting worried about the flu until the last few years when flu vaccine hype has taken a foothold in the media. Getting the flu was a bummer and not fun but it was far from "terrifying". I don't know anyone in real life who was or is "terrified of getting sick, pregnant or not.
Already addressed, see links above about how absurd this approach to "getting your child sick on purpose is".
No, they haven't been addressed. Suzy still denies that there are families that will be forced to vaccinate because they will not be able to afford to homeschool.
Quote:
If you can't afford the impact of your choices you will need to reconsider your choices. Life is hard.
You have zero respect for people who do not believe the same as you. You clearly remain completely in the dark about the studies out there despite your constant cries that "all science support vaccines". So you are admitting once again that it's ok to force people to vaccinate if they can't afford to homeschool.
Quote:
You know who likely really can't afford to homeschool? The parent of an immune compromised kid who likely already have medical bills, time taken off work etc.. Those kids are safer at school with mandates than without (don't bother launching into all the places unvaccinated kids go, its old and tiresome and has been addressed). I'm "all in" with allowing them the choice to go to school when they're well enough, and letting your "squad" homeschool their unvaccinated kids.
There are people in every group who cannot afford to homeschool. It's not limited to vaccinators, anti-vaccinators, immune compromised, etc. You're all in with coercion and vaccination by force for those who can't afford to homeschool. You've made your position very clear.
Quote:
Already addressed, see links above about how absurd this approach to "getting your child sick on purpose is".
You are correct, this has been addressed and you are the one that is wrong. To say that parents exposing their children deliberately in the pre-vaccine era is "absurd" shows how little you understand about these illnesses which were far less dangerous in childhood. You obviously don't understand this, at all.
No, they haven't been addressed. Suzy still denies that there are families that will be forced to vaccinate because they will not be able to afford to homeschool.
You have zero respect for people who do not believe the same as you. You clearly remain completely in the dark about the studies out there despite your constant cries that "all science support vaccines". So you are admitting once again that it's ok to force people to vaccinate if they can't afford to homeschool.
There are people in every group who cannot afford to homeschool. It's not limited to vaccinators, anti-vaccinators, immune compromised, etc. You're all in with coercion and vaccination by force for those who can't afford to homeschool. You've made your position very clear.
You are correct, this has been addressed and you are the one that is wrong. To say that parents exposing their children deliberately in the pre-vaccine era is "absurd" shows how little you understand about these illnesses which were far less dangerous in childhood. You obviously don't understand this, at all.
Another repeat post.
So you don't like the statistics proving Suzy is correct, we get it. How many posts will be enough for you to make?
I have zero respect for people who want choice, then don't want to have any consequences for their choice. That's illogical and not the way the world works. Those same "choice" folks have no issue denying a sick kid choice. Cool...
Deliberately making your kid sick is absurd. Especially when the person advocating getting your kid sick is arguing against a safe vaccine that could prevent it. It didn't make sense pre-vaccine and it is negligent when vaccines prevent those illnesses.
None of those laws involve a person's bodily integrity, as in being in injected with foreign substances, or any medical treatment for the "good of society". I suppose you don't agree with the Nuremberg Codes either?
The Nuremberg Codes deal with experimentation on human subjects, not procedures which have been approved by the CDC and other reputable organizations.
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.
My Uncle in the 1920's died from what they called "crib death", but I am sure that wasn't from one of these deadly contagious diseases because his twin brother in the same crib with him did not get sick, let alone die. Is there a vaccine today for crib death?
It was discussed thoroughly on another thread.