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.
All I am saying is that it would be more beneficial to human society to create cures rather than band-aides and adding the problem of creating these super-bugs.
Would you rather repair your vehicle after an accident or prevent the accident in the first place?
It's asinine to think that curing any disease is better than not getting it at all.
Vaccines do not create "super-bugs".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
I was born in 1947, and received a full set of 'baby shots' (at that time, there was no MMR, so I never got that). Had the measles at 3, chicken pox at 6, and nothing else. Survived 'em just fine. Got smallpox shot at 5, to enter school, and a few polio shots as a kid. Got an anti-tetanus once as a kid.
From my teens on, I have had NO vaccines of any kind, and I'm 68 now. No flu shots, no shingles shots, no any shots. I have also enjoyed excellent health. I take NO meds (nothing to take them for...), and have not had as much as a cold in over a decade.
Good for you. Not everyone is so lucky.
Quote:
Both my grandparents and my mother passed on during my adulthood. My dad died at 32, of unusual causes. But I noted that my family members passed away shortly after being put on new meds; there had been nothing really wrong with them, but poof! within a week or so, they were just gone. I became concerned that drugs, esp of the type that they prescribe for the elderly, might not be the best thing in the world. My doctor will have some 'splainin' to do, before I take any drugs!
If they were put on "new meds" perhaps they had health problems that contributed to their deaths. Otherwise, what were the meds for?
Quote:
Whille I understand that many people really need some drugs, I wonder how many realize that they may be experimented on? I see the elderly blindly lining up at the drugstores to get their annual flu shots; I then see at least half of them suffer from flu-like symptoms. I have had people tell me that they'd be first in line to get an ebola shot, or swine flu/bird flu shot, and scratch my head.
What evidence do you have that anyone is being "experimented on" without his consent?
Quote:
I truly believe that the anti-vaxxers have a good point: why do we need the gov't meddling in our health matters? That is not freedom; that is not good medicine. I will never get a flu shot or a shingles shot, or an ebola shot. I will never be put on any drug 'for life'. I equate submitting "for the greater good", to redistributionist economics...and we all know what that is, don't we?
The "greater good" includes infants too young to receive their own vaccines. Kids with cancer. Grown-ups whose immune systems are sub par for various reasons. But every man for himself, eh? I guess you would be first into the life boats off the Titanic.
Do you have any evidence that there is currently any unethical human experimentation going on with respect to vaccines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandefjord
Most European countries DO NOT have mandatory vaccination schedules, in fact most of them don't even need reasons to opt out. They do how ever give monetary incentives to get them or tax breaks for families who get them.
Note that many countries without mandates do not need them because their citizens voluntarily vaccinate. Mandates exist where vaccination rates are too low to protect public health.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is, we are no longer trying to eliminate these diseases, just prevent them ...
Some diseases can be eliminated - with vaccines. It's been done with measles in the US. Measles no longer circulates here; it has to be imported from countries that still have it. Every outbreak here starts with an imported case.
Smallpox and rinderpest, (a disease primarily affecting cattle, descended from a common ancestor shared with measles) have been completely eradicated from the planet, not just eliminated in some geographic areas. We are on the verge of eradicating polio.
There are several other diseases which have been eliminated in the US:
Hib, rubella, and mumps have been almost eliminated.
Hepatitis B and varicella potentially could be eliminated.
Just prevent them? I cannot wrap my head around the idea that preventing sickness - potentially fatal illness - is bad.
Quote:
... and I am all the rights of all Americans to do so, BUT if I believe the mercury, formaldehyde, organic compounds, and yes cells from fetal tissue are not safe to put in my child's body, than I should have the right to excuse them from vaccinations. Once again, this is not tin hat conspiracies, this is straight from the CDC and FDA websites. Doctors don't like you asking questions because of their God complex and while I will be the first to admit that they are smarter than me, don't think for a second I also don't believe that they are more concerned with their pockets than my health.
There is no mercury in children's vaccines. you can even get flu vaccine without it. Your own body makes more formaldehyde than what is any vaccine. There are no "cells from fetal tissue" in vaccines. Viruses for some vaccines are grown on cells cultured from tissue obtained from two abortions done in the 1960s. The cells themselves are not in the vaccines, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asliarun
The only thing I am concerned about is - if sufficient children are not vaccinated, are we bringing back diseases that society collectively worked to eradicate? And are we putting other kids at risk?
Yes and yes.
Quote:
Nonetheless, I am for this being a parental choice as long as it is clearly not a public risk to others.
It is a risk to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandefjord
The chances are closer to 1 in 100 (1 in 104.7 to be precise) for a sever reaction to occur.
Source, please.
Quote:
The US government has a fund setup for those who are injured because here in the good ol' US of A, "pharma" can't be held responsible for adverseness affects caused by their products.
The system we have for vaccines does not require proving that a vaccine actually caused an injury, only that it might have. It was set up to keep vaccines available, as otherwise enormous amounts of money would have to be spent defending lawsuits. The plaintiffs in those suits would lose, because the extremely rare severe side effects of vaccines are not due to defects in the vaccine or negligence on the part of the makers. With the current system, more people get compensated and get more money. The system even pays the claimant's lawyer (even if an award is denied).
Quote:
This is because they are one of the top 5 industries contributing to political campaigns (both parties). We will never know what makes more for those companies because so much money goes to lobbying and therefore comes back ten fold when states like California and Mississippi force vaccinations. Pandemics are one time occurrences where the products are are made as quickly, efficiently and cheaply as possible to stop the spread, not spread out over long periods of time across the entire population like vaccines do.
This is gibberish. What "product"? The whole idea with vaccines is to prevent epidemics, not wait until they have already happened and then scramble to do something.
Quote:
The facts are right there, but most people would rather John Stewart or Kristen Bell tell them whats best for their family. It's fun to tease us "crazy" people who actually do our own research or have witness firsthand whether it be ourselves, friends or family members who have been severely affected by these injections. I pray you never get a bad does or a bad reaction like I have, and have seen.
The difficulty is that many of the conditions people try to blame on vaccines are not caused by vaccines. That does not mean those conditions are not real and distressing. The vaccine just did not do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpaul
anybody here remember thallidimide ??
Thalidomide was never approved for use in the US, thanks to this lady at the FDA:
"In 1960, Dr. Frances Kelsey was only a month into her job at the Food and Drug Administration when she was asked to sign off on a drug providing relief for morning sickness in pregnant women.
Kelsey believed that not enough research had been done and blocked its sale in the U.S.
The drug was thalidomide, later blamed for dire birth defects in thousands of babies.
The Canadian-born Kelsey, 101, whose stance not only blocked the drug in the U.S. but also helped bring about changes in FDA regulations, died on Friday [August 7, 2015] in the home of her daughter, Christine Kelsey, in London, Ontario."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandefjord
Wow, that science sure is tough.... an idiot like me who only has 2 engineers bachelors degrees and an MBA must be too dumb to understand those tough words like you can.
How many courses in infectious diseases and immunology did those degrees require?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandefjord
Do you remember the patients in 1942 who were injected with an experimental flu vaccine at a state insane asylum in Ypsilanti, Mich....by Jonas Salk
They didn't have a say in it, and was considered criminal back than, as it would be today as well.
Do you have any evidence that unethical experiments are currently being conducted with respect to vaccines?
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandefjord
Once again (I am getting tired of saying this) read my previous post... I believe vaccines have worked, I am glad you are able to get them and I hope you can continually get them. I also don't trust a system that has a VERY dark history when it comes to medicine and vaccines. This is not a conspiracy, its a fact. The US govt has officially acknowledged it, and it still happens. NOT CONSPIRACY, FACT
If it's a fact, please provide documentation of current unethical practices with regard to vaccines.
Quote:
Because of the effects that "modern western medicine" have had on my children, I have mostly turned away from it and since have had tremendous success with their health. The awful things I have had to watch my children suffer thru, I wouldn't wish on anyone, not even you. Just because John Stewart says its true, or mocks other opinions, doesn't mean its right.
My son is alive because of modern medicine. I am alive because of modern medicine. My father lived a lot longer due to modern medicine than he would have without it. Whatever your bad experience was, it is not reason to totally discount "modern western medicine".
Quote:
They used to think the Earth was flat, that electricity was magic and that AIDs came from Africans copulating with monkeys. Science has came a long way, and it will continue to grow, so to say that what they are telling you right now is the absolute truth is ignorant.
Medicine changes as new data becomes available. That's the beauty of science. However, the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vaccines is huge. The odds that anything will happen to contradict that evidence are extremely tiny. Extremely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandefjord
I am saying a lot of the vaccines we have today, even from the god of vaccines, Jonas Salk were performed on disabled people who didn't have a say in the matter.
Are you aware that scientists have also used themselves and their own families as guinea pigs? Such as Jonas Salk, who tested the polio vaccine first on himself and his family?
Quote:
As a father of a disabled child and with the new law (21st Centuries Cures Act going thru the gov't so fast it proves the point they haven't even read it) I am scared to death of what they could do to my child and she would not even be able to tell me about it. This is something to government has done in the past and are now trying to stream line the process to do it again. (MMS: Error)
How on earth do you think anything in that bill would mean someone could harm your child?
Quote:
Until you know the pains of that reality, don't you dare try and challenge me.
My oldest son had leukemia, diagnosed when he was 13. He participated in a clinical trial for a new chemo drug. He's going to be 40 in a couple of weeks. Consider yourself challenged.
The bottom line is that you can either do your research and make decisions on what you learn or follow the herd. Making decisions about your health and that of your family is a BIG responsibility and I am willing to take that on rather than delegate it to a government agency.
Ever question why people now are sicker than ever before? More medications and doctor visits with all of this "technology"?
Most vaccinations are never going to cause worse side effects than a sore arm and maybe a slight fever. The risk of a severe complication from a vaccine is tiny, and far smaller than the risk from the disease it prevents.
The "follow the herd" meme is getting tiresome. If anything, the people who are "following the herd" are those who refuse vaccines, because they have zero scientific evidence to support not vaccinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok
Vaccinations are not to protect us from disease. They're to protect the general public from disease.
Yes, they are to protect us; that is their primary function. It's just that by protecting ourselves we do protect others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok
Not true. Vaccinations aren't 100% effective for an individual. They often only reduce the risk of catching a disease by a relatively small amount. You might have a 50% chance of catching a particular disease unvaccinated, and a 35% chance vaccinated. In other words, that particular vaccine might only reduce your risk by a relatively small amount. But, it also reduces, by that same small amount, the risk to each person who might have caught the disease from you. And that effect, compounds. Those who might have caught the disease from those who might have caught it from you, have a larger reduction of risk, because the reduction compounds from one potential victim to the next. If everyone gets vaccinated, then, even though an individual's risk only seems reduced by a small amount, the risk to the whole population will be reduced drastically, because of the compounding of that small reduction of risk.
Therefore, it's a war against disease infecting the general public, not a particular individual. And failure to get vaccination makes you a traitor in that war. Your reason for getting the vaccination is not the reduction of your personal risk for a particular infection opportunity, but the reduction of the risk to the whole population. By failure to get the vaccination, you're just a much of a traitor as if you had sold nuclear weapons to Iran.
Most vaccines are far more effective than you think. Measles vaccine is about 97% effective and lasts a long time, usually for life. For some vaccine preventable diseases, such as measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox, the odds of getting the disease before the vaccines were available was close to 100%. The incidence of measles, mumps, an rubella has gone down to close to zero with the availability of the vaccine. Without imported cases, the US would have no measles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Why are you posting this in a self-sufficiency forum? HTF are people supposed to manufacture vaccines if shtf? I would think genital warts coming back will be the least of anyones worries if shtf. And vaccine protection doesn't last forever. You can't dose up today so if shtf hits the fan 20 years from now you're golden. Doesn't work like that. LOL.
Some vaccines do produce long lasting protection, often lifetime. Even those for which protection tends to wane do not have that effect in everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Is no forum safe from the vaccine terrorists? I simply do not understand the need to try to coerce parents into vaccinating their children. If you want to vaccinate your child, do so and leave other parents alone. It is really that simple. Herd Immunity is BS. True herd immunity is not acquired via a needle. True herd immunity is acquired the hard way. Over time. Generations sometimes. Its messy. People die. And then they don't anymore. In 2015 instead of demanding that parents produce vaccination records to enroll their children in school we should be demanding that a sick child not die from a disease like measles. Conservatives are the very last people I would have thought would be on the wrong side of the vaccine issue. But here they are. Amazing. It just completely proves my theory that if it is at all a logical conclusion to come to the a Conservative will have the opposite viewpoint.
Herd immunity is not "acquired" over time. It exists whenever there is a sufficient percentage of the population is immune, whether that immunity is produced by having the disease or by vaccination.
The best way to keep a child from dying from infectious diseases is to fully vaccinate every healthy child. That will protect those healthy children and the small percentage of us who cannot be vaccinated, those for whom the vaccine does not work, and those with compromised immune systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeNigh
I got ulcerative colitis from a flu shot so ya I'm vaccinated.
There is no evidence that a flu shot will cause ulcerative colitis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
In all this discussion (arguing?) I see no mention of sanitation. Why is this?
I am not speaking here of personal hygiene. I am speaking of sanitation. Many of the worst diseases, and the worst killers, have no vaccines. They are parasite-borne and vector-borne. They are encouraged by poor sanitation. Tell me what sort of provision you are making for yourself and family in regards to water sources, water filtration, waste disposal, toilet facilities, insect and rodent eradication - not now but in a SHTF - and then we can discuss whether your little Johnny or Sally has had MMR innoculations and how pissed off you are that other kids may not.
Because when SHTF, it isn't going to be MMR that kills people off. It isn't going to be a lack of flu or shingles vaccines. It's going to be infection, intestinal diseases, dirty water, poor methods of feces-handling, lack of proper waste disposal, rodent amd insect infestations of food, and common bacteria and viruses that are present today but not usually seen, due to municipal services. Take away those municipal services, the treated running water, and the power grid, and tell me what plans you have for preventing the types of infections and diseases that will surely make a comeback, among both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike.
Sorry, but having your kids vaccinated will not save them from everything. And, depending upon gov't to save you is clearly not an option. What are you doing about sanitation in a worst-case, or do you even bother to consider what your responsibilities will be in this regard?
Vaccination will not save them from everything, but it will reduce the number of possible diseases one might get.
vaccinations wear off over time, that's why some people have booster jabs, in a post SHTF world such will not be available so over a few years everyone will be unvaccinated, your best bet then is to go into self isolation in the event of a serious disease outbreak. sure more people are alive today because of modern medicine, that's whats causing a lot of todays problems, people live so close together that germs can spread easily.
vaccinations wear off over time, that's why some people have booster jabs, in a post SHTF world such will not be available so over a few years everyone will be unvaccinated, your best bet then is to go into self isolation in the event of a serious disease outbreak. sure more people are alive today because of modern medicine, that's whats causing a lot of todays problems, people live so close together that germs can spread easily.
If it was up to you, there would be just a few people left on the planet - one of them you, no? That's a great way to solve the problem, right?
For most vaccines you do not need booster jabs - maybe you are thinking of tetanus shots?
What evidence do you have that anyone is being "experimented on" without his consent?
What evidence do most of these "crazies" have about the U.N. troops coming to occupy America? Still doesn't stop them from blathering it all around non-stop in some frenzied conspiracy theory...
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
But every man for himself, eh?
Pretty much, that's the philosophy of most of the prepper crowd. Did you not know that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
This is gibberish. What "product"? The whole idea with vaccines is to prevent epidemics, not wait until they have already happened and then scramble to do something.
Which is kind of funny - you read on this forum all the time how exercise and good diet keep you away from the doctor's office (prevention) but vaccines (prevention) are bad, bad, bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
How many courses in infectious diseases and immunology did those degrees require?
This is the internet and anyone is an expert, did you not know that? These days everything is open to "basic reasoning" and anyone can apparently do it
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
My son is alive because of modern medicine. I am alive because of modern medicine. My father lived a lot longer due to modern medicine than he would have without it. Whatever your bad experience was, it is not reason to totally discount "modern western medicine".
My father spent a very productive life doing a job he loved. He was an active man and still is but he worked long hours in a very high level, high stress position. He had a genetic basis for diabetes and high blood pressure and acquired both by the age of 50. He is now 73 and has been taking medication for both things since he was 50. He exercises every morning, my Mom and him walk miles and miles every day, yet he still needs his pills (although the doses are low, they are still necessary!). Every new generation of high blood pressure medications brings new improvements for him, for example. In any case, in the crazy nutter, sorry, prepper world, he should have just refused the meds and we would have buried him at the ripe age of 50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Medicine changes as new data becomes available. That's the beauty of science. However, the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vaccines is huge. The odds that anything will happen to contradict that evidence are extremely tiny. Extremely.
You would think that someone with two Engineering degrees would understand that. People act like religion (which has no proof whatsoever) is finite and true and expect the science to be so. Since science is ever changing based on new insights, theories and data, somehow apparently that invalidates science as a whole...
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
My oldest son had leukemia, diagnosed when he was 13. He participated in a clinical trial for a new chemo drug. He's going to be 40 in a couple of weeks. Consider yourself challenged.
Ah, in the prepper world he would have just been allowed to silently disappear. You know, instead of being a victim of a large conspiracy and actually living a full, productive life
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Most vaccines are far more effective than you think. Measles vaccine is about 97% effective and lasts a long time, usually for life. For some vaccine preventable diseases, such as measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox, the odds of getting the disease before the vaccines were available was close to 100%. The incidence of measles, mumps, an rubella has gone down to close to zero with the availability of the vaccine. Without imported cases, the US would have no measles.
Even if you do get the disease when vaccinated, the course is much easier and lighter. This also makes the difference between living and dying. It is funny, people are ready to spend quite a lot of money on building bunkers, buying bug-out locations, stocking food and water and gasoline, buying guns and ammo - all to protect themselves - but they neglect to do the basic thing and get vaccinated. How ironic
I think you are wasting your time Suzy_q! Talking to walls...
If it was up to you, there would be just a few people left on the planet - one of them you, no? That's a great way to solve the problem, right?
For most vaccines you do not need booster jabs - maybe you are thinking of tetanus shots?
flu jabs have to be administered each year, different ones because the strain changes from year to year so if someone hasn't had the current inoculation they aren't covered for that years flu season, funnily enough the only time I had flu is when I had a flu jab, I stopped having them several years ago and never had the flu since.....strange that. I don't bother with anything else, oh I had the usual ones when I was a kid, my mother made sure of that and I think I had a tetanus shot once after being bitten by a dog but that was years ago. as for your first remark, its not "up to" me as you put it, but yes, the "die off" is bound to be huge, as most of the population here in the UK "dosent have a clue" and will be running around in circles expecting "the government will save us", the only thing the government will be doing is saving its own arse.
vaccinations wear off over time, that's why some people have booster jabs, in a post SHTF world such will not be available so over a few years everyone will be unvaccinated, your best bet then is to go into self isolation in the event of a serious disease outbreak. sure more people are alive today because of modern medicine, that's whats causing a lot of todays problems, people live so close together that germs can spread easily.
Many vaccines confer life-long or near life-long immunity. Examples are measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis
The sad fact is that more non-vaccers are more educated on vaccines than those who blindly get them.
It was an adverse reaction that prompted me to actually read the inserts on the vaccines and start researching. I have questions and concerns that have not been addressed even though I've questioned several doctors. They are not interested in that, just want you to get the shot and shut up and move on to the next dollar...I mean patient.
I have strong concerns with being told I have to sign responsibility for something I am accused of being "too stupid" to understand by pro vaxers. If vaccines are so safe, the doctors should be taking full responsibility for their outcomes since they have actually gone to medical school and are assumed to know what's in these things.
For instance, I had no idea there were bovine and monkey kidney cells in PediaRix. I had no idea some vaccines used cell lines from aborted babies (a concern for some).
Manufacturers also do not guarantee immunity with vaccination. Anyone who has been vaccinated needs to have their titers checked to make sure the doses "took." A pediatrician from Egypt told me how his didn't take the first time and he had to have another round when he came to the US to practice. That's something pro vaxers don't consider -- that they might not actually be immune to what they were vaccinated against.
There's also religious issues, personal liberty, and so on.
If anything, the people who are "following the herd" are those who refuse vaccines, because they have zero scientific evidence to support not vaccinating.
.
Well there are a lot of things that people do or put into their bodies that defy scientific supportive evidence. For instance, drinking alcohol to get drunk has no benefit to the body scientifically, yet we allow people to choose to do this. Same with smoking tobacco. No evidence that it's beneficial, a lot of evidence that it's not. But we allow it.
Science indicates healthy and proper diets, but we are allowed to choose to eat and drink sugar and other scientifically harmful things, anyway.
Science is not law, and it's not emotional or philosophical. People can and do act every single day against the information that science has provided as being optimum for our survival.
Are you asserting that we should have our lives dictated by science? Would you be willing to never get drunk again or speed, or eat anything that isn't optimally nutritious, and always sleep the optimum hours and work the optimum hours and walk the narrow line of what you can and can not do in order to keep yourself alive for the longest period of time, including not living in areas with high rates of radiation or environmental hazards?
Insisting that "science" should govern people's minds and lives is just as bad as insisting religion should. Everyone gets to choose, unless you would like to lose your freedoms, too.
It was an adverse reaction that prompted me to actually read the inserts on the vaccines and start researching. I have questions and concerns that have not been addressed even though I've questioned several doctors. They are not interested in that, just want you to get the shot and shut up and move on to the next dollar...I mean patient.
I have strong concerns with being told I have to sign responsibility for something I am accused of being "too stupid" to understand by pro vaxers. If vaccines are so safe, the doctors should be taking full responsibility for their outcomes since they have actually gone to medical school and are assumed to know what's in these things.
For instance, I had no idea there were bovine and monkey kidney cells in PediaRix. I had no idea some vaccines used cell lines from aborted babies (a concern for some).
Manufacturers also do not guarantee immunity with vaccination. Anyone who has been vaccinated needs to have their titers checked to make sure the doses "took." A pediatrician from Egypt told me how his didn't take the first time and he had to have another round when he came to the US to practice. That's something pro vaxers don't consider -- that they might not actually be immune to what they were vaccinated against.
There's also religious issues, personal liberty, and so on.
Keep in mind that adverse events are described in package inserts even if the vaccine did not necessarily cause them. They are listed for legal reasons. If you report catching a cold after getting a vaccine, it might show up in the insert, even though the vaccine had nothing to do with your cold. What you are proposing is the "argument by package insert".
There are no bovine or monkey kidney cells in Pediarix, though they are used in production of the vaccine.
Testing titers on everyone would be prohibitively expensive. Many vaccines are so effective that the likelihood of being immune from the vaccine is so high that the cost would not be justified. Health care workers are a special case, particularly with regard to rubella and hepatitis B. Even health care workers would not normally be tested for other diseases for which they had been vaccinated, including measles.
The virus for some vaccines is grown in cell lines derived from two abortions done in the 1960s. neither was done to provide the cells for making vaccines, and no new aborted tissue is required to keep those cell lines growing. Despite its strong stance against abortion, even the Catholic Church supports vaccination, stating the benefits of vaccines outweigh the issue of the distant relationship to abortion of those cell lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LolaSonner
Well there are a lot of things that people do or put into their bodies that defy scientific supportive evidence. For instance, drinking alcohol to get drunk has no benefit to the body scientifically, yet we allow people to choose to do this. Same with smoking tobacco. No evidence that it's beneficial, a lot of evidence that it's not. But we allow it.
Science indicates healthy and proper diets, but we are allowed to choose to eat and drink sugar and other scientifically harmful things, anyway.
Science is not law, and it's not emotional or philosophical. People can and do act every single day against the information that science has provided as being optimum for our survival.
Are you asserting that we should have our lives dictated by science? Would you be willing to never get drunk again or speed, or eat anything that isn't optimally nutritious, and always sleep the optimum hours and work the optimum hours and walk the narrow line of what you can and can not do in order to keep yourself alive for the longest period of time, including not living in areas with high rates of radiation or environmental hazards?
Insisting that "science" should govern people's minds and lives is just as bad as insisting religion should. Everyone gets to choose, unless you would like to lose your freedoms, too.
With respect to vaccine preventable diseases, the choice not to vaccinate affects others. Your child may have a few days of discomfort, while the neighbor's child who catches it from yours might die.
We do not permit people to drink and drive, because people who do that tend to injure and kill others.
We allow people to smoke, but we restrict where they may do it, because second hand smoke is hazardous to others.
Your freedom to choose may be restricted when it intersects with the freedoms of others.
all drugs have side effects and treat only the symptoms not the underlying causes. as for doctors, they know nothing about the drugs/medicines they are asking you to take, only as little as the drug reps tell them, you would get more information by asking the pharmacist in your local chemists shop, they know far more than any doctor will ever know.
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.
