U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-17-2019, 11:10 AM
 
9,080 posts, read 2,644,132 times
Reputation: 10192

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debsi View Post
Suzy, do you know if I’m more likely to get shingles again as an adult since I had it at 6 years old? I know insurance won’t pay for the vaccine until I’m 50, but I could pay for it myself.
FYI: Suzy is NOT a doctor. Suzy is NOT a physician assistant, a nurse practitioner or a nurse. She has no medical training.

She works in a medical office pushing papers. She cannot provide you with any medical advice. She likes to appear as though she is a doctor. She can copy and paste links and quote posters so it often appears to others that she has a medical background, however. But she doesn't. /shrug/

 
Old 11-17-2019, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
24,478 posts, read 29,505,172 times
Reputation: 30385
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
Why is supporting freedom of choice and parental rights and medical freedom a bad thing? Why is anti-mandatory forced drug treatment a bad thing?
No one is forcing anyone to vaccinate.

I note you did not answer my question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debsi View Post
Suzy, do you know if I’m more likely to get shingles again as an adult since I had it at 6 years old? I know insurance won’t pay for the vaccine until I’m 50, but I could pay for it myself.
There is really no way to predict whether it will happen again. Having it once does not protect against having it again, and the risk increases with age. I would suggest discussing it with your doctor. Having other risk factors, if you do, such as anything that might lower immune function, might inform your decision. Also, what we do not know yet is whether boosters will be needed with Shingrix, since the vaccine is new. At this point, protection appears to be long lasting.
 
Old 11-17-2019, 01:04 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
6,118 posts, read 2,715,298 times
Reputation: 19284
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
You'll have to excuse me if I elect not to accept unsupported claims as evidence. I would note not a single bit of support for the legal argument you had introduced earlier.
That's pretty much what the Tobacco Industry said regarding the research that was signaling risk from smoking. To refute it with 'science-based' evidence; they formed the Tobacco Research Institute with research facilities all over the world & developed their own method of epidemiology , designed to mitigate risk; that is now used in vaccine risk studies.

My life experience is not 'unsupported evidence', any more than the hundreds of thousands of lung cancer deaths of smokers was 'unsupported evidence'. Thanks to flawed epidemiology; two decades of smoking-related mortality continued unchecked; until the Surgeon Generals report in 1964, which was largely the product of underground whistle blowers who provided corporate documents.

My legal argument is very well supported. Epidemiology is admissable evidence but not for causation.

Quote:
A scientific hypothesis simply cannot be proved. Statisticians attempt to solve this dilemma by adopting an alternate [sic] hypothesis – the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the opposite of the scientific hypothesis. It assumes that the scientific hypothesis is not true. The researcher conducts a statistical analysis of the study data to see if the null hypothesis can be rejected. If the null hypothesis is found to be untrue, the data support the scientific hypothesis as true.Causation | Schachtman Law
The desired outcome for the epidemiology of vaccine risk is for there to not be a statistically significant risk. Using Big Tobacco epidemiology; this is easily done. The etiology of most of the adverse events claimed to be caused by vaccines; continues to point to the vaccines. Since it assumes the hypothesis that vaccines are safe is untrue; that becomes the null hypothesis.

The only way for the epidemiology that vaccines are safe to be considered 'proved'; is for vaccines to be found as safe. Has anyone ever proved that vaccines are safe?

Actually; no. In fact,

Quote:
Unavoidably unsafe products.

Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. The same is true of many other drugs, vaccines, and the like, many of which for this very reason cannot legally be sold except to physicians or under the prescription of a physician. . .. The seller of such products, again with the qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed, and proper warning is given, where the situation calls for it, is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with an apparently useful and desirable product, attended with a known but apparently reasonable risk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216813/#ddd00076

So the null hypothesis has not been found to be untrue. Therefore; the hypothesis that vaccines are safe; including all that crap epidemiology; has not been proven.

Vaccinate away to your hearts content. Consider yourself 'immune' from VPD's & leave my child's exemptions alone, because all you have is a yet-to-be-proved hypothesis & I already KNOW that vaccines can kill & injure my children.

Last edited by coschristi; 11-17-2019 at 01:21 PM..
 
Old 11-17-2019, 01:23 PM
Status: "Happy New Year!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
88,582 posts, read 104,925,784 times
Reputation: 34109
Enough with the tobacco industry. The science people never supported that shtick.

It is untrue that the Supreme Court said that vaccines are 'unavoidably unsafe'. See:
https://rickjaffeesq.com/2019/02/16/...safe-it-didnt/
"The Supreme Court has never held or decided or even affirmatively stated as a proposition of medical fact that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” Those who make that incorrect assertion have misread or misstated the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruesewitz v Wyeth, LLC, decided in 2011."
 
Old 11-17-2019, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
24,478 posts, read 29,505,172 times
Reputation: 30385
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi View Post
That's pretty much what the Tobacco Industry said regarding the research that was signaling risk from smoking. To refute it with 'science-based' evidence; they formed the Tobacco Research Institute with research facilities all over the world & developed their own method of epidemiology , designed to mitigate risk; that is now used in vaccine risk studies.

My life experience is not 'unsupported evidence', any more than the hundreds of thousands of lung cancer deaths of smokers was 'unsupported evidence'. Thanks to flawed epidemiology; two decades of smoking-related mortality continued unchecked; until the Surgeon Generals report in 1964, which was largely the product of underground whistle blowers who provided corporate documents.

My legal argument is very well supported. Epidemiology is admissable evidence but not for causation.



The desired outcome for the epidemiology of vaccine risk is for there to not be a statistically significant risk. Using Big Tobacco epidemiology; this is easily done. The etiology of most of the adverse events claimed to be caused by vaccines; continues to point to the vaccines. Since it assumes the hypothesis that vaccines are safe is untrue; that becomes the null hypothesis.

The only way for the epidemiology that vaccines are safe to be considered 'proved'; is for vaccines to be found as safe. Has anyone ever proved that vaccines are safe?

Actually; no. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that vaccines are 'unavoidably unsafe'.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
https://nft.nu/sv/unavoidably-unsafe-products

So the null hypothesis has not been found to be untrue. Therefore; the hypothesis that vaccines are safe; including all that crap epidemiology; has not been proven.

Vaccinate away to your hearts content. Consider yourself 'immune' from VPD's & leave my child's exemptions alone, because all you have is a yet-to-be-proved hypothesis & I already KNOW that vaccines can kill & injure my children.
Sorry, I do not believe that you know more about epidemiology than the people who have done thousands of studies on vaccines that show they are safe and effective. The fact that 999,999 out of 1,000,000 people take vaccines with no serious adverse effects at all is testimony to their safety.

You do not understand what "unavoidedly unsafe" means. Why it does not mean what you think it does, from a lawyer:

https://rickjaffeesq.com/2019/02/16/...safe-it-didnt/

No, the Supreme Court has not ruled that vaccines are "unavoidedly unsafe".

Do not vaccinate if you do not want to. If there is a medical reason not to do so, apply for a medical exemption.
 
Old 11-17-2019, 01:33 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
6,118 posts, read 2,715,298 times
Reputation: 19284
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Vaccines have been studied to see if they might cause autoimmune diseases. There is no evidence that they do.
Umm; what?

Quote:
DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10714532

Gillian-Barr & chronic arthritis are table injuries. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/f...njurytable.pdf

Eczema is a contraindication for vaccination.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/22/2/259
 
Old 11-17-2019, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
24,478 posts, read 29,505,172 times
Reputation: 30385
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi View Post
Umm; what?



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10714532

Gillian-Barr & chronic arthritis are table injuries. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/f...njurytable.pdf

Eczema is a contraindication for vaccination.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/22/2/259
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0304072832.htm

"Large scientific studies do not support claims that vaccines may cause chronic diseases such as asthma, multiple sclerosis, chronic arthritis and diabetes, according to a report in the March 2003 issue of Pediatrics."

The risk of Guillain Barre syndrome after flu infection is about 18 times higher than after flu vaccination. Since most people recover from GBS it is not a chronic autoimmune disease.

Your Pediatrics article is from 1957. It refers specifically to smallpox vaccine. Did you know smallpox has been eradicated worldwide - by vaccination? The smallpox vaccine is no longer routinely administered, anywhere in the world.
 
Old 11-17-2019, 02:05 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
6,118 posts, read 2,715,298 times
Reputation: 19284
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
You don't get to decide that you aren't going to risk the health of others because you have some irrational fear of vaccines.
And YOU don't get to decide more children must die or be injured because you have an irrational fear of illnesses easily treated with IVF, sup O2 &/or antibiotics.

Or because that YOU also fear your own vaccines won't protect YOUR health. THAT'S irrational.

You should have the right to protect your health with vaccines but you don't have the right to demand that I sacrifice my own health for yours.
 
Old 11-17-2019, 02:09 PM
 
10,510 posts, read 6,169,832 times
Reputation: 10355
I’m sure that vaccination laws play a small role in some people’s decision to homeschool. I sure hope that if the laws surrounding vaccines become as strict as the laws in NY and CA in every state that legislators won’t start targeting homeschoolers and requiring hat they get vaccinated for everything on the schedule, or else. I worry about that. People should have choice when it comes to their body and medical interventions.
 
Old 11-17-2019, 02:14 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
6,118 posts, read 2,715,298 times
Reputation: 19284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Enough with the tobacco industry. The science people never supported that shtick.
You are right. Not only did they not support it but they couldn't prove them wrong either. It took inside whistle-blowers & leaked documents to do that.

But they didn't mind borrowing their epidemiology playbook to use for vaccines.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top