Are anti-vaxxers liable if their children spread preventable diseases? (work, single, country)
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.
Oh, so that is why I had only 7 and 7.8 lb. daughters? Because I wasn't vaccinated during pregnancy 30+ years ago? It had nothing to do with the fact that I was 5'1", 98 lbs, my Dad was 5'8 , 140 lbs, and my Grandma was 4'8", 85 lbs.? Wow, if going back generations if those vaccines were around we would all be BIG people? Actually, I kinda like be petite and thin.
My daughter joined the Guard a few years ago and was given those vaccinations before Boot Camp. She lasted less than week before she was in the Infirmary with severe vomiting, diarrhea, and was put on an IV. They could not find anything wrong with her, but suspected an allergy. She was sent her home to go get tested by an Allergist. It was discovered that she has a (rare) beef allergy. You do know that these vaccines contain bovine serum, cultures? She was medically discharged for this allergy, which she did not want.
We know about people with egg allergies taking flu shots. They have tried to eliminate those. So what about someone with a BEEF Allergy? Which vaccines contain THOSE? Search the ingredients? BUT they are only TRACE amounts? My daughter reads ingredient labels on food. If she eats some containing trace amounts of beef anything, she is on the floor in pain, or in the bathroom.
What do you do about that? Health Professionals tell me there are no bovine products in vaccines.
How did she make it to adulthood with this allergy never having been diagnosed?? No hamburgers?? no pot roast?? no beef at all??
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I haven't had a flu shot in 30 years and no flu during that time. I didn't hide in my house either. I have been exposed and even cared for family members sick with the flu in my home on three occasions and didn't catch it. If I get the flu, I will have the flu. It's not that big of a concern to me.
Fine for you..... As for me, I have had the real influenza flu ONE time and that was when I was a young and healthy 22 or 23 year old..... It was AWFUL..... my hair hurt!! and I was flat on my back for 5 or 6 days..... with exception of the MRSA infection I contracted many years later, I believe that was THE sickest I have ever been and if there is a way for me to minimize my chances of a repeat performance, you better believe I am going to take advantage of it..... I just don't understand WHY people are so willing to risk such an awful and miserable illness when it is so very easy to minimize that risk....
Fine for you..... As for me, I have had the real influenza flu ONE time and that was when I was a young and healthy 22 or 23 year old..... It was AWFUL..... my hair hurt!! and I was flat on my back for 5 or 6 days..... with exception of the MRSA infection I contracted many years later, I believe that was THE sickest I have ever been and if there is a way for me to minimize my chances of a repeat performance, you better believe I am going to take advantage of it..... I just don't understand WHY people are so willing to risk such an awful and miserable illness when it is so very easy to minimize that risk....
As a flu shot provider, I've heard your story many times over.
oh, and I am right about Mark G's age and based upon what I saw when my mother contracted shingles, not once, but twice, I think I will be following his lead and getting mine a bit early.....
she had permanent scarring all around her waist from those awful and extremely painful lesions....
Again.... why would you NOT want to minimize your chances of contracting such an awful and painful illness??
Fine for you..... As for me, I have had the real influenza flu ONE time and that was when I was a young and healthy 22 or 23 year old..... It was AWFUL..... my hair hurt!! and I was flat on my back for 5 or 6 days..... with exception of the MRSA infection I contracted many years later, I believe that was THE sickest I have ever been and if there is a way for me to minimize my chances of a repeat performance, you better believe I am going to take advantage of it..... I just don't understand WHY people are so willing to risk such an awful and miserable illness when it is so very easy to minimize that risk....
DH said the same thing: my hair hurts! Then he turned up the furnace (he never does that), climbed into bed, and turned the electric blanket on high.
The example I gave was of an office mate who refused the vaccine and came down with the flu. He denied it was the flu, though it obviously was. You are the same. You claim you have not had the flu in 30 years, despite never being immunized. That is only likely if you live in a mountain cave with no human contact. Every year between 5% and 20% of the population comes down with flu, and the majority of those cases are among unvaccinated people. You have less than one half of one percent chance of not having had the flu in 30 years, you just choose to deny it.
No, it's not unlikely. I really haven't had the flu in 30 years, even though I have been exposed. My daughter got it twice from her friends who were immunized for it but got it anyway. My husband brought it home one time as well. I know the difference between a cold and flu and I am 100% positive that I haven't had it since I was a young child. Maybe you don't actually know the difference between a bad cold and the flu? I don't live in a cave. I live in a large city and have school aged kids who bring home all kinds of bugs from school. You might be in denial but I'm not.
So 0% effectiveness is better than 80-90% effectiveness? How does that logic work?
I didn't say that 0% effectiveness is better then whatever the effectiveness rate of the current vaccine may be. I am only arguing for choice. And I do think that a family of a newborn who is concerned is much better off taking care of their own family by cocooning then they are worrying about what strangers may or may not have the vaccine.
How did she make it to adulthood with this allergy never having been diagnosed?? No hamburgers?? no pot roast?? no beef at all??
Fine for you..... As for me, I have had the real influenza flu ONE time and that was when I was a young and healthy 22 or 23 year old..... It was AWFUL..... my hair hurt!! and I was flat on my back for 5 or 6 days..... with exception of the MRSA infection I contracted many years later, I believe that was THE sickest I have ever been and if there is a way for me to minimize my chances of a repeat performance, you better believe I am going to take advantage of it..... I just don't understand WHY people are so willing to risk such an awful and miserable illness when it is so very easy to minimize that risk....
I've had the flu before as well, just not in the last 30 years. I do agree that it is not fun and is painful. I can remember the body aches and I understand the hair hurting comment. Larry thinks that his coworker went to work with it and that I also had it (even though Larry doesn't even know me) but just thought it was a bad cold. I think your post is testimony that the flu can't be mistaken for a cold. I'm not minimizing how un-fun the flu is. I am advocating for choice. The flu vaccine is not one that I choose to take for a number of reasons that are not worth getting into as they are not relevant to the discussion. I have no problem if people choose to get it or skip it. That's what choice is all about. I just don't think that people should be able to sue others just for not being vaccinated.
Finally a name for it, thank you! I think the Nirvana fallacy also applies to welfare and food stamps, too. As in, if it isn't 100% fraud free, the programs aren't working and should be scrapped.
Since I know a lot of people won't bother to read the link, I am posting the first paragraph here:
"The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy. By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better"."
Has any law been established regarding non-vaccinated children who become the center of an epidemic?
If polio, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, etc begin to claim lives again, can the parents of the children who began spreading the disease be held liable to pay financial restitution to the families of those they made ill?
As for my kids, they've all been 100% vaccinated with no problems. I'm pro-vaccination.
If indeed some children are developing autism over this, I hate to say it but isn't it better to have a rare child here & there with autism than an epidemic outbreak of horribly crippling, deadly diseases?
Will you apply the same standards to those who pass sexually transmitted diseases?
Finally a name for it, thank you! I think the Nirvana fallacy also applies to welfare and food stamps, too. As in, if it isn't 100% fraud free, the programs aren't working and should be scrapped.
Since I know a lot of people won't bother to read the link, I am posting the first paragraph here:
"The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy. By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better"."
Sound familiar, anyone?
Yes, it's the same argument that dope-smokers and drug-addicts use.
Since the vaccine formulations used in the 1950s and 1960s did not cause autism, then why not use those formulations?
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 think the Nirvana fallacy also applies to welfare and food stamps, too. As in, if it isn't 100% fraud free, the programs aren't working and should be scrapped.