Are anti-vaxxers liable if their children spread preventable diseases? (private school, supporters, income)
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.
1. The prospect of my loved ones or myself catching a deadly disease does terrify me. The availability of vaccines to prevent many of these diseases is something intelligent people are grateful for.
2. I have never been concerned at all about psoriasis.
3. I struggled for fifty years with allergies. I finally went and got allergy shots because my allergies were starting to cause me sinus infections that took several courses of antibiotics to cure. The allergy shots are working well. My sinus infections are now down to one per year or less. About 85% of my allergy symptoms are now gone. I don't need to keep popping Allegra pills.
4. There was nothing paranoid about 9,000 deaths per year from whooping cough before the vaccine was introduced. There was nothing paranoid about paralysis from polio before the advent of the Salk and Sabin vaccines. It was a very real thing that parents dealt with in the late 1940's. Now that disease has been eliminated from the western hemisphere. Mumps sent my friend to the hospital. There was nothing paranoid about that. I missed a week of school because of it.
Some people want to reject science and that is their right as long as their rejection of it does not impinge on me. When they stop vaccinating their kids and they start reducing herd immunity it becomes my business.
Science is irrelevant when it comes down to the choice of an individual to choose their own medical interventions, treatments, etc., especially when you talk about adults for their own bodies.
Here is a question for you? How about pregnant women refusing Flu and Tdap vaccinations? How do you propose to mandate they take them? OB refuses to keep them as a Patient? She can then choose to go to a Midwife and have a Home Birth. Actually, up to a certain gestation, she could freely choose to abort also. Which us back to Whooping Cough.
Was it ever eradicated? Why not? No vaccine for that? Has that been making a big come back (tens of thousands of cases a year) because of all the little children not being vaccinated? I think you know the answer to and what I am getting at with whooping cough. Maybe you need a new Pertussis Vax which is mandatory for every child, AND will last a lifetime. Herd Immunity!!!!
No, it is not about the science. It is about CHOICE. Edit: I supposed my parents had a whole lot to "deal with" until I was 7 years old when that Polio vaccine came out, especially since I was what is now referred to as a "Free Range" child on the streets of NYC.
Science is irrelevant when it comes down to the choice of an individual to choose their own medical interventions, treatments, etc., especially when you talk about adults for their own bodies.
Here is a question for you? How about pregnant women refusing Flu and Tdap vaccinations? How do you propose to mandate they take them? OB refuses to keep them as a Patient? She can then choose to go to a Midwife and have a Home Birth. Actually, up to a certain gestation, she could freely choose to abort also. Which us back to Whooping Cough.
Was it ever eradicated? Why not? No vaccine for that? Has that been making a big come back (tens of thousands of cases a year) because of all the little children not being vaccinated? I think you know the answer to and what I am getting at with whooping cough. Maybe you need a new Pertussis Vax which is mandatory for every child, AND will last a lifetime. Herd Immunity!!!!
No, it is not about the science. It is about CHOICE. Edit: I supposed my parents had a whole lot to "deal with" until I was 7 years old when that Polio vaccine came out, especially since I was what is now referred to as a "Free Range" child on the streets of NYC.
What's with all the sarcasm? It would be nice to be able to discuss this w/o having to wade through all that.
I have never heard of any proposal to mandate Tdap and Flu vaccines for pregnant women. Both are recommended.
Pertussis seems to be a particularly stubborn bacteria. The old vaccine was, contrary to popular opinion, at least on anti-vax boards, not 100% effective, either, and immunity did not last for life. This is to be expected b/c pertussis disease does not give lifetime immunity; in some cases, disease immunity is no longer than immunity from vaccine. Pertussis rates were going up in the 90s, before DTaP was introduced. The old vaccine also caused a lot of fevers, crying, very sore legs/arms, and a few febrile seizures. The new vaccine is less efficacious, but it doesn't cause so many side effects, which made it more acceptable, at least to reasonable parents. The big problem in most pertussis epidemics has been failure to vaccinate. Far more unvaxed people than vaxed get it, percentage wise. Hopefully, a better vaccine is in the near future.
Science is irrelevant when it comes down to the choice of an individual to choose their own medical interventions, treatments, etc., especially when you talk about adults for their own bodies.
Here is a question for you? How about pregnant women refusing Flu and Tdap vaccinations? How do you propose to mandate they take them? OB refuses to keep them as a Patient? She can then choose to go to a Midwife and have a Home Birth. Actually, up to a certain gestation, she could freely choose to abort also. Which us back to Whooping Cough.
Was it ever eradicated? Why not? No vaccine for that? Has that been making a big come back (tens of thousands of cases a year) because of all the little children not being vaccinated? I think you know the answer to and what I am getting at with whooping cough. Maybe you need a new Pertussis Vax which is mandatory for every child, AND will last a lifetime. Herd Immunity!!!!
No, it is not about the science. It is about CHOICE. Edit: I supposed my parents had a whole lot to "deal with" until I was 7 years old when that Polio vaccine came out, especially since I was what is now referred to as a "Free Range" child on the streets of NYC.
I don't agree that science is irrelevant. People on the pusher side like to use it though to their advantage. The truth of the matter is, there is science on both sides of the issue. The pro side tends to get more funding and opportunities for publishing due to the powerful lobby ($$$$) behind it. The side that shows any correlation with vaccines to things such as autoimmune disease as well as a host of other serious issues, it is in most cases suppressed. Science is a completely different thing then the field of scientific research which has shown that it can and in many instances is biased due to funding as well as manipulation of data, suppression of findings, etc. When people shout about science what they really mean to shout about is the often corrupt field of scientific research is on their side. Science is ever evolving and ever changing and is not static as the studies that this group uses as a crutch to rely on to push their agenda. PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
I agree 100% with you that there should always be choice.
Last edited by MissTerri; 04-25-2016 at 10:36 AM..
Really? Then let's ban automobiles since so many people die in car accidents. Let's ban prescription drugs because many people get addicted to them and in turn hurt their family members in addition to themselves and sometimes they even die. Let's ban alcohol for the exact same reason.
We do all of those things. We have continued to tighten regulations. If you can't drive without a license and liability insurance, why should your children be allowed into a public school without a vaccination certificate?
We do all of those things. We have continued to tighten regulations. If you can't drive without a license and liability insurance, why should your children be allowed into a public school without a vaccination certificate?
We already have vaccine mandates for schools. Apparently that is not enough for the pushers. In spite of licenses and liability insurance, death and injuries from car accidents are huge. Let's up the ante and ban them in favor of public transit for everyone. Safety first. Right?
What's with all the sarcasm? It would be nice to be able to discuss this w/o having to wade through all that.
I have never heard of any proposal to mandate Tdap and Flu vaccines for pregnant women. Both are recommended.
Pertussis seems to be a particularly stubborn bacteria. The old vaccine was, contrary to popular opinion, at least on anti-vax boards, not 100% effective, either, and immunity did not last for life. This is to be expected b/c pertussis disease does not give lifetime immunity; in some cases, disease immunity is no longer than immunity from vaccine. Pertussis rates were going up in the 90s, before DTaP was introduced. The old vaccine also caused a lot of fevers, crying, very sore legs/arms, and a few febrile seizures. The new vaccine is less efficacious, but it doesn't cause so many side effects, which made it more acceptable, at least to reasonable parents. The big problem in most pertussis epidemics has been failure to vaccinate. Far more unvaxed people than vaxed get it, percentage wise. Hopefully, a better vaccine is in the near future.
Apparently, you cannot understand my New York Sarcasm, or read between the lines of it, so I will put it bluntly. You can pass your legislation for childhood vaccinations, but if these vaccinations wane (like Pertussis) you will have to depend on your RECOMMENDATIONS to adults (like pregnant women) to get their boosters. You will not have your Herd Immunity, at least for waning Pertussis vaccination, unless the adult population COOPERATES. Clear what I am saying? Recommend all you want. You will never know if science is the reason they refuse.
Create a Paranoid Society to sell more vaccines and prescription drugs. Vaccines are drugs too, but unlike these meds they push on TV, why don't the vaccines list WARNINGS for them on TV? If a person can have a reaction to a pill (drug), they can have a reaction to a vaccine (drug) too.
There is a time when a little fear is healthy. That is why we teach children not to touch a hot stove and not to pet strange animals.
Every vaccine is accompanied by a Vaccine Information Statement listing adverse effects of the vaccine. The person (or his parent) receiving the vaccine is given the chance to ask questions about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Science is irrelevant when it comes down to the choice of an individual to choose their own medical interventions, treatments, etc., especially when you talk about adults for their own bodies.
Here is a question for you? How about pregnant women refusing Flu and Tdap vaccinations? How do you propose to mandate they take them? OB refuses to keep them as a Patient? She can then choose to go to a Midwife and have a Home Birth. Actually, up to a certain gestation, she could freely choose to abort also. Which us back to Whooping Cough.
Was it ever eradicated? Why not? No vaccine for that? Has that been making a big come back (tens of thousands of cases a year) because of all the little children not being vaccinated? I think you know the answer to and what I am getting at with whooping cough. Maybe you need a new Pertussis Vax which is mandatory for every child, AND will last a lifetime. Herd Immunity!!!!
No, it is not about the science. It is about CHOICE. Edit: I supposed my parents had a whole lot to "deal with" until I was 7 years old when that Polio vaccine came out, especially since I was what is now referred to as a "Free Range" child on the streets of NYC.
No, science is not irrelevant. Vaccine refusers just seem to be unable to understand it.
I would put women who refuse vaccines during pregnancy in the same category as those who choose to smoke and drink during pregnancy. It places their babies at unnecessary risk.
Yes, we need a better pertussis vaccine. Did you perhaps miss the earlier discussions about why that is so? Ah, but to you the "Science is irrelevant".
Parents were dancing in the streets when the news came out that the polio vaccine worked. Their fears were very real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Apparently, you cannot understand my New York Sarcasm, or read between the lines of it, so I will put it bluntly. You can pass your legislation for childhood vaccinations, but if these vaccinations wane (like Pertussis) you will have to depend on your RECOMMENDATIONS to adults (like pregnant women) to get their boosters. You will not have your Herd Immunity, at least for waning Pertussis vaccination, unless the adult population COOPERATES. Clear what I am saying? Recommend all you want. You will never know if science is the reason they refuse.
Fortunately, most of the adult population COOPERATES. (See, I can SHOUT, too.)
Joe, it's not about terror, it's about control. The truth is that this push and the hysteria surrounding vaccines is out of proportion with the problem. A very small portion of the population has exercised their right to not get every single vaccine on the CDC's schedule. They are not the threat the media and the other pushers portray. Pushing vaccination on everyone is not the right thing to do in a supposedly free society. It's forced medication. That's not something that people should be begging for. There's clearly more behind this then concern over people's health. There are so many bigger health problems worthy of and easier to tackle then trying to force everyone to get on board with vaccines. There's more to this then a concern for health and I seriously wonder about the motives of some of the regular posters who push for it here. Paid online lobbyists?
No, the campaign to preserve vaccination rates is not out of proportion with the problem, not when there are schools in this country where nearly 70% of the children are not vaccinated. Not when we have seen large outbreaks of measles and whooping cough, sustained by low rates of vaccination in some geographic areas, in the last few years.
The fact that there are other health issues that we need to do something about does not mean we should ignore the problem of declining vaccination rates.
Using the "vaccine shill argument" is unbecoming. No one here is a paid lobbyist for vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
People have been harmed by vaccines and that is why we must allow people to make the final choice in the whether to get all of them, some of them or none of them
.
This is a false equivalency fallacy. You say that, "People have been harmed by vaccines" as if just as many people have been harmed by vaccines as have been harmed by the diseases those vaccines prevent. That is not true. The risk is much greater from having the disease - for every vaccine we have. Inability to evaluate the benefit to risk equation is at the heart of much vaccine refusal. People still refuse the flu vaccine because of fear of Guillain Barre Syndrome, when you are at greater risk to get GBS from flu infection itself than from the vaccine. The increased risk of GBS from the vaccine is tiny, about one case in a million.
Quote:
Forced vaccination will have negative consequences. The schools will lose money as more and more families opt to homeschool instead of comply.
There is no "forced" vaccination. Vaccinate your kids or not. It's up to you. Any parent who has refused vaccines but does it because he wants to send his child to public school must not have a very big fear of vaccines after all.
I suspect that you are overestimating the number of people who will choose homeschooling over public school anyway.
Quote:
Why can't everyone ride the bus or the train instead? Automobiles are dangerous and in addition to people dying in accidents, they also cause harm to our environment. Let's have more busses so that we can save lives and the planet.
Some us live in areas where there is no light rail (and it would be terribly expensive) and no bus service. Your metaphor is weak.
Quote:
Lots of people are addicted to prescription drugs. It's a huge problem.
One that has nothing to do with vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I don't agree that science is irrelevant. People on the pusher side like to use it though to their advantage. The truth of the matter is, there is science on both sides of the issue. The pro side tends to get more funding and opportunities for publishing due to the powerful lobby ($$$$) behind it. The side that shows any correlation with vaccines to things such as autoimmune disease as well as a host of other serious issues, it is in most cases suppressed. Science is a completely different thing then the field of scientific research which has shown that it can and in many instances is biased due to funding as well as manipulation of data, suppression of findings, etc. When people shout about science what they really mean to shout about is the often corrupt field of scientific research is on their side. Science is ever evolving and ever changing and is not static as the studies that this group uses as a crutch to rely on to push their agenda.
Well, science is on the side of using vaccines. There is not "science on both sides of the issue". I guarantee that if there had been any replication of Wakefield's original "study" it would have been published. The very fact that no one could replicate it is what led to his downfall and the discovery that he subjected autistic children to unneeded invasive tests (Colonoscopies. Ever had one?) for $$$$$$.
No one is suppressing evidence that vaccines cause autoimmune disease - or SIDS, or autism, or allergies or asthma. The evidence supports that vaccines do not cause such conditions, and the fact is that the evidence comes from a variety of financing sources from around the world. Suppressing it would require a colossal conspiracy.
If a published finding is false, it cannot be replicated. That is what happened to Wakefield, remember? If study, after study, after study shows the same finding, the likelihood that the finding is false gets smaller, and smaller, and smaller. That's what led to the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism - or autoimmune diseases.
No, the campaign to preserve vaccination rates is not out of proportion with the problem, not when there are schools in this country where nearly 70% of the children are not vaccinated. Not when we have seen large outbreaks of measles and whooping cough, sustained by low rates of vaccination in some geographic areas, in the last few years.
Using the rare case of a Waldorf school having a 70% opt out rate doesn't help your argument. It just shows how willing you are to exaggerate the reality in order to push your agenda. You know that is by far the exception and does not represent the average public school. There is no campaign to preserve vaccination rates. There is a push to increase them and a push to make it more difficult for anyone to opt out or in other words, be able to choose.
Quote:
The fact that there are other health issues that we need to do something about does not mean we should ignore the problem of declining vaccination rates.
There is no push like the one for vaccinations for other serious issues that cause death and ill health.
Quote:
Using the "vaccine shill argument" is unbecoming. No one here is a paid lobbyist for vaccines.
Your opinion.
Quote:
This is a false equivalency fallacy. You say that, "People have been harmed by vaccines" as if just as many people have been harmed by vaccines as have been harmed by the diseases those vaccines prevent. That is not true. The risk is much greater from having the disease - for every vaccine we have. Inability to evaluate the benefit to risk equation is at the heart of much vaccine refusal. People still refuse the flu vaccine because of fear of Guillain Barre Syndrome, when you are at greater risk to get GBS from flu infection itself than from the vaccine. The increased risk of GBS from the vaccine is tiny, about one case in a million.
People can weigh their individual risk. Are they at risk from serious complications if they catch the disease? Are there ways to treat it if they catch it? Are they at increased risk from a serious reaction to a vaccine? People are allowed to decide for themselves. It's not your decision to make.
Quote:
There is no "forced" vaccination. Vaccinate your kids or not. It's up to you. Any parent who has refused vaccines but does it because he wants to send his child to public school must not have a very big fear of vaccines after all.
Coercion is a form of force.
Quote:
I suspect that you are overestimating the number of people who will choose homeschooling over public school anyway.
I suspect you're wrong.
Quote:
Some us live in areas where there is no light rail (and it would be terribly expensive) and no bus service. Your metaphor is weak.
Adding more bus services is not terribly expensive. Besides, isn't the benefit worth the cost. We'd be saving so many lives as the planet. Why do you want to see people die in car accidents?
Quote:
One that has nothing to do with vaccines.
It shows that the pharmaceutical companies have played and continue to play a huge role in an epidemic of prescription drug abuse. It shows that their motive is profit, not health.
Quote:
Well, science is on the side of using vaccines. There is not "science on both sides of the issue". I guarantee that if there had been any replication of Wakefield's original "study" it would have been published. The very fact that no one could replicate it is what led to his downfall and the discovery that he subjected autistic children to unneeded invasive tests (Colonoscopies. Ever had one?) for $$$$$$.
There are scientific studies on both sides. I'm not talking about Wakefield here. You are the only one bringing u Wakefield.
Quote:
No one is suppressing evidence that vaccines cause autoimmune disease - or SIDS, or autism, or allergies or asthma. The evidence supports that vaccines do not cause such conditions, and the fact is that the evidence comes from a variety of financing sources from around the world. Suppressing it would require a colossal conspiracy.
BS. There have been studies showing a possible link between autoimmune diseases for instance and vaccines. More studies need to happen in order to find out more. Will that happen? Doubtful. As of now they can just say, there is no evidence. It's easy to not have any evidence when you're not really looking for any.
Quote:
If a published finding is false, it cannot be replicated..
Of course a BS study can be replicated, especially when it's funded by groups with the same interest. Don't be so naïve, Suzy. Manipulating information to ensure a certain outcome is very easy to do.
What other serious issues do you have in mind? Certainly the "Back to Sleep" campaign gets a lot of publicity. The "Never Shake a Baby" commercials are on Channel 9 almost every night during the news, it seems. Ditto the Colorado Quitline (anti-smoking) commercials.
In almost every case, the disease is more serious and can cause more harm to health than the vaccine. The only exceptions are medical contraindications, which are very few.
Do you feel requiring someone to stop at a stop sign or a red light is coercion as well?
This thread is not about public transportation or drug addiction.
There are no scientific studies on "the other side". As the Fiddler on the Roof said, "There is no other hand". Some issues are just like that. Please post some studies you think are anti-vaccine, that have been peer-reviewed, not "My child got this shot, and then that happened".
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.
Herd Immunity!!!!
