Forced vaccines...

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by nina&noah
http:///forum/post/3166898
Oh how I wish I had seen this thread earlier!!!! I support you and want you to know that you are not alone. There is PLENTY of scientific research to back up both sides of this arguement. The problem is the pharmaceutical companies are obviously going to make sure that what we hear is pro-vaccine. We as parents have to make the decision for our children. My son has received some vaccines, but will not receive the MMR, varicella (chicken pox), or any of the flu shots. I did however choose to provide my son with the best immunity possible by nursing him until he self-weaned at 14 months. People who say that we are wrong for not vaccinating our children simply has not done the research that we have done.
As for the arguement that our children will make other children sick. I've never gotten that one. If your child is vaccinated then what do you care? How is my child going to give yours the measles if your precious vaccine is so effective?
But what happens if more and more people quit vaccinating? Only a matter of time until all hell breaks lose. Illegal aliens have already brought in some diseases that we had pretty much been wiped out here.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3166947
But what happens if more and more people quit vaccinating? Only a matter of time until all hell breaks lose. Illegal aliens have already brought in some diseases that we had pretty much been wiped out here.
Entirely valid point.
Now, let's turn it on its ear for a second. There are diseases, which don't require vaccinations, which were largely eliminated as well - Scurvy, for example - which are now making a comeback.
Should it be mandated that people stop subsisting on a diet of Cheetos™ and Coke™? Should we force them to take the occaisional Vitamin C tab?
What about "Fast Food" (which isn't FOOD)? How 'bout preservatives, High Fructose Corn Syrup, saturated fats and hydrogenated oils, artificial flavors and colors, GMOs, Teflon™, Aluminum Chlorohydrate, Gamma Radiation of food products, etc???

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3166966
Entirely valid point.
Now, let's turn it on its ear for a second. There are diseases which don't require vaccinations which were largely eliminated - Scurvy, for example - which are now making a comeback.
Should it be mandated that people stop subsisting on a diet of Cheetos™ and Coke™? Should we force them to take the occaisional Vitamin C tab?
What about "Fast Food" (which isn't FOOD)? How 'bout preservatives, High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificial flavors, colors, GMO grains, Teflon™, Aluminum Chlorohydrate, etc???
Is scurvy or diabetes contagious? Self inflected, non communicable diseases. Not the same thing.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3166968
Is scurvy or diabetes contagious? Self inflected, non communicable diseases. Not the same thing.
Ummmm - ridiculous argument. What does contagion have to do with it? The question is not contagion. It's cause.
Seems to me it would be more cost effective to prevent than to cure (An Oz. of prevention and all...). Then again, attempting to cure the problems we've created stimulates the economy, so Capitalistically speaking, we create a problem and then we have to create a solution. That's good for the economy, right?
Are you seriously arguing that the HUMAN cause of a disease is acceptable as long as the HUMAN development of its cure is also profitable (let alone possible)?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3166969
Ummmm - ridiculous argument. What does contagion have to do with it? The question is not contagion, it's cause.
Benjamin Franklin
Seems to me it would be more cost effective to prevent than to cure. Then again, attempting to cure the problems we've created stimulates the economy, so Capitalistically speaking, we create a problem and then we have to create a solution. That's good for the economy, right?
Are you seriously arguing that the HUMAN cause of a disease is acceptable as long as the HUMAN development of its cure are both profitable?
Is English not your first language???

What I said is if someone's lifestyle causes them to develop a condition or disease that isn't contagious then it doesn't rise to the level of forced government intervention being appropriate. Now if you have a drunk or stoner who is caught breaking the law, public intoxication or DUI, that is a different case as well.
If someone develops small pox they are a public threat as they can transmit the disease to others. Someone who eats 3 bags of Cheetos and a dozen Krispy Kreames daily might gas out the other people on the bus with him but he isn't going to give them diabetes or clogged arteries.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3166979
Is English not your first language???

Hehe - ok - nicely played

What I said is if someone's lifestyle causes them to develop a condition or disease that isn't contagious then it doesn't rise to the level of forced government intervention being appropriate. Now if you have a drunk or stoner who is caught breaking the law, public intoxication or DUI, that is a different case as well.
If someone develops small pox they are a public threat as they can transmit the disease to others. Someone who eats 3 bags of Cheetos and a dozen Krispy Kreames daily might gas out the other people on the bus with him but he isn't going to give them diabetes or clogged arteries.
I don't disagree, but please consider this:
If a business develops something that becomes a public threat - contagious or not - does Society have a right to tell them to cease and desist?
How is it OK to enforce a vaccination, but not penalize an otherwise health related choice?
Additionally, it puts Capitalism at cross purposes with itself. We want people to live longer so they will consume more, except when it comes to insurance, where we need them to die faster and get out of the way...

 

[dragonzim]

Originally Posted by nina&noah
http:///forum/post/3166898
As for the arguement that our children will make other children sick. I've never gotten that one. If your child is vaccinated then what do you care? How is my child going to give yours the measles if your precious vaccine is so effective?
Because those vaccines are not given to babies until they are 6 months old or later! If your unvaccinated child is carrying one of these entirely preventable diseases and comes in contact with a baby that is not old enough to have been vaccinated yet they are going to get that disease. I guess you're OK with potentially killing someone else's child by having your kid give them the measles?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3166990
Hehe - ok - nicely played

I don't disagree, but please consider this:
If a business develops something that becomes a public threat - contagious or not - does Society have a right to tell them to cease and desist?
How is it OK to enforce a vaccination, but not penalize an otherwise health related choice?
Because we live in a free society. If your personal choices don't impact another person then what right does the government have interfering? Drug use is a good example of this. Drugs are illegal because people under the influence are considered to be a menace to society. It is a somewhat valid concern in the case of most drugs. DUI is illegal but it is not illegal to drink because until you and your slowly decaying liver get behind the wheel you are likely not a threat to someone else.
It's a balancing act to be sure but if you don't have the freedom to fail are you truly ever free? It's hard to make a case that it is for the public good to ban twinkies because 10% of those who eat them will become fat and catch Diabetes. Is it a secret that eating too many sweet snacks will make you fat? Again, self inflicted wound that doesn't effect others.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3166990
If a business develops something that becomes a public threat - contagious or not - does Society have a right to tell them to cease and desist?
Society already holds this right. Not in an actual cease and desist, but in how it views the company and the way they respond to them. Even so far as extra taxes from the government or an out right ban on the product in public areas.
A few examples.
The Tobacco industry. Look at everything done to this industry in the name of "public safety".
Auto manufacturers have been sued for fault equipment eventually leading to the removal of the product line and lawsuits being paid out.
Even the gun industry has seen some of this.
The California case Erin Brokovich handled years ago is another prime example of how society handles businesses that pose a direct threat to society through their chosen actions.
So to a large degree the government in conjunction with Society already do this. There have been many businesses that have gone bankrupt because of public perception alone.
The current proposed Cap and Trade bill is a prime example as well.
I am not saying I agree with any of this...just pointing out how society does this anyway now. But as Reef is arguing, each one of the products created by these companies has the potential to affect other people through no choice or action of their own. Much like vaccines curb similar things.

 

[nina&noah]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3167085
Because those vaccines are not given to babies until they are 6 months old or later! If your unvaccinated child is carrying one of these entirely preventable diseases and comes in contact with a baby that is not old enough to have been vaccinated yet they are going to get that disease. I guess you're OK with potentially killing someone else's child by having your kid give them the measles?
I'm actually going to help your arguement because the MMR is not given until 18 months-2 years depending on your ped.
However, I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that my child will get the measles and then come into contact with another baby, other than the one I have on the way. It is not that I don't want to vaccinate him, its that I think the threats outweigh the benefits. I am not taking a chance on my child's brain development. It's just not going to happen. I am in the process of looking for a "vaccine friendly" ped. that will seperate the MMR for me so that he can receive the measles seperatly.
As for the flu shots, I researched this one very carefully and decided that there are too many doctors saying that they don't trust how quickly this vaccine was released. Both my son and I are considered "high risk," but as stated earlier I'm not going to be society's guinea pig.

 

[nina&noah]

Bringing this tread back to the original topic, I did some more research and came up with this from askdrsears.com
What about pregnant and/or nursing mothers?
This is a little scary. The flu shots are ALREADY recommended for pregnant and nursing moms, BUT (and this is a really huge but) the vaccine product inserts make it very clear that the regular flu vaccines have never been tested on pregnant or nursing women to determine if there is any harm to fetuses or young babies (with one exception – the ----Flumist nasal spray brand did have some testing in this area, BUT not enough, as is stated in the product insert).
Despite this complete lack of research, it is recommended for these moms anyway. Anyone see a problem with that?
If you do get a flu shot, at least make sure it is mercury free (or at least only TRACE mercury).
The government or anyone else cannot say that I receive such a vaccine!

 

[mantisman51]

You forced vaccination people are like the Obamaniacs. You have developed your beliefs into a religion. Blind faith is all that matters. Force everyone to bend to the will of pharmaceutical companies, when I even linked an article showing (from ABC news-not normally a survivalist group) showed that over 60% of doctors don't take that poison. Here is all that needs to be said, look at when diseases actually were brought under control. It was DECADES before the poison er pharmaceutical companies got Congress to pimp their toxins:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

 

[mantisman51]

Now who's endangering whom? Notice that it's an MD who wrote the study.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3167108
The Tobacco industry. Look at everything done to this industry in the name of "public safety".
Auto manufacturers have been sued for fault equipment eventually leading to the removal of the product line and lawsuits being paid out.
I am not saying I agree with any of this...just pointing out how society does this anyway now. But as Reef is arguing, each one of the products created by these companies has the potential to affect other people through no choice or action of their own. Much like vaccines curb similar things.
Or mandatory auto insurance and motorcycle helmet laws.
It's not as cut and dried as you'd like it to be is all I'm saying.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3167097
Because we live in a free society.
I disagree.
If your personal choices don't impact another person then what right does the government have interfering? Drug use is a good example of this. Drugs are illegal because people under the influence are considered to be a menace to society. It is a somewhat valid concern in the case of most drugs. DUI is illegal but it is not illegal to drink because until you and your slowly decaying liver get behind the wheel you are likely not a threat to someone else.
Except that certain drugs are exempted from the rules. Alcohol is fine. Prescription drugs are fine. Pot isn't. Why?
It's a balancing act to be sure but if you don't have the freedom to fail are you truly ever free? It's hard to make a case that it is for the public good to ban twinkies because 10% of those who eat them will become fat and catch Diabetes. Is it a secret that eating too many sweet snacks will make you fat? Again, self inflicted wound that doesn't effect others.
Seriously? Someone consuming too much alcohol, transfat, sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup™, legally prescribed prescription drugs, etc. doesn't affect me? Really?
My insurance rates go up to help cover the side effects of of those things.
Prostitution is also a self inflicted wound that doesn't affect me, right?
Where does the line get drawn?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3167397
I disagree.
Except that certain drugs are exempted from the rules. Alcohol is fine. Prescription drugs are fine. Pot isn't. Why?
Seriously? Someone consuming too much alcohol, transfat, sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup™, legally prescribed prescription drugs, etc. doesn't affect me? Really?
My insurance rates go up to help cover the side effects of of those things.
Prostitution is also a self inflicted wound that doesn't affect me, right?
Where does the line get drawn?
Pot should be legal. Quite Frankly I don't think the federal government even has the right to regulate half the things they do.
If you want the government to control everything in your life I suggest you move to a different country. Ain't happening here. We may have a quasi Marxist in the White House but the Supreme court will still enforce the constitution. Anything the Ossiah does can be reversed in 2013.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3167367
You forced vaccination people are like the Obamaniacs. You have developed your beliefs into a religion. Blind faith is all that matters. Force everyone to bend to the will of pharmaceutical companies, when I even linked an article showing (from ABC news-not normally a survivalist group) showed that over 60% of doctors don't take that poison. Here is all that needs to be said, look at when diseases actually were brought under control. It was DECADES before the poison er pharmaceutical companies got Congress to pimp their toxins:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html
The link embedded on that page to the original source does not work. Without seeing where it was published, it is very difficult to assess the validity of the data shown. Either way, all the data show is that improved medical care reduces death rates from a variety of diseases, and that vaccination can cause the incidence of death to drop to zero, or nearly so. It has been known for many years that polio also declines under certain circumstances (actually, under poverty conditions)- anyone declining the polio immunization?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3167574
The link embedded on that page to the original source does not work. Without seeing where it was published, it is very difficult to assess the validity of the data shown. Either way, all the data show is that improved medical care reduces death rates from a variety of diseases, and that vaccination can cause the incidence of death to drop to zero, or nearly so. It has been known for many years that polio also declines under certain circumstances (actually, under poverty conditions)- anyone declining the polio immunization?

Falling down the stairs causes more deaths per year in this country than H1N1. Maybe all new homes should be built with an elevator as well. And all old ones need to have one installed, as a tax right off of course.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3167632
Falling down the stairs causes more deaths per year in this country than H1N1. Maybe all new homes should be built with an elevator as well. And all old ones need to have one installed, as a tax right off of course.
Actually, building codes specify how stairs should be built (riser distance, etc) specifically to reduce injuries. The origin of this thread was a right wing nut job ranting about holding children down to give them vaccinations when, in actuality, the law said nothing even close to that. As I have said before, I don't think that NY should be mandating that health care workers have to receive h1n1 vaccination, but I do think that they should have to notify prospective patients (clients) that they are not immunized. i wouldn't go to one who might give me the influenza since the greatest risk is in already ill patients, which is exactly who would go to a physician.

 

[reefraff]

Well I wont do any flu shots. I have a strong immune system and dont believe in taking any drugs or whatever that aren't absolutely vital. I think given the statistics and factual information available it is nuts not to vaccinate kids against serious diseases like polio and small pox. I don't thing we need to be forcing people to vaccinate their kids but I also don't have a problem in the world with school districts that make those kind of vaccinations a requirement for enrollment.
Done.