Is this woman a dangerous moron?

nan said:


shoshannah said:

nan said:
I got all of my shots and so did my son, and these disease breakouts are scary, but I don't think we should be forcing people to get vaccinations. That's really a personal decision, related to our bodies.  We can try to use logic and reason to convince them, but I don't think it benefits any of us to force inoculations.  It sets a bad precedent.  

 ...

Anyway, I understand the problems with these disease breakouts, but I'm still uncomfortable with forcing people to get vaccinations.
Public health.  Communicable disease is a public health issue.   The idea behind vaccination is to reduce or eliminate the amount of infectious organism circulating in the community so that EVERYONE is protected.   Keeping YOU and the rest of the population from dying or becoming disabled from communicable diseases depends on a critical number of people getting vaccinated more than it depends on you personally getting vaccinated. If you are "uncomfortable" with vaccine requirements (although nobody is forced), then you put yourself in danger. You can't rest on your laurels just because you personally have been vaccinated.  


The two most successful public health measures in history are vaccination and public sanitation.  Do you ever hear people saying that they don't want indoor plumbing because of the big plumbing and big sanitation industries? 


It's like global warming.  Every individual has to do his/her part to keep all individuals healthy.  Or like traffic rules. Saying that individuals should have individual choice when it comes to vaccines is like saying we should have individual choice to drive 80 mph down Valley St. 
You are not responding to what I said.  I understand why we need vaccinations and I get them and think everyone should.  I'm fine with having them as a requirement. What I worry about is passing laws requiring people to get them with no opting out available.  As you say, no one is forced, but that could change.  Some people are pushing for that and I worry about the consequences of over-enforcement. 

 That will never happen, and I'm not sure I've seen any such proposals.  What I have seen are proposals to tighten the requirements for vaccination to attend public school -- which absolutely should be the case, except for very tight medical reasons.


tom said:
You probably don't need a smallpox vaccine. Everything else? Probably yes. 

You know why you don't need a smallpox vaccine??  Because SMALLPOX WAS ERADICATED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH IN 1981 DUE TO THE WORLDWIDE VACCINATION PROGRAM.


nan said:
Despite getting all my inoculations and believing in science, I don't trust for profit Pharma and for that reason, I would not like to see any kind of legislation were people were forced to get inoculations.  I just think it's good to have an out, just in case. 

The pharmaceutical industry hates the vaccine business.  In 1967 there were about 26 different vaccine manufacturers licensed by the FDA.  I think there are about 5 today. And not all of them are "big pharma."  Some are small companies you've never heard of. Vaccines are manufactured through a public-private partnership because pharmaceutical companies would love to abandon the vaccine business entirely. 

In any case, vaccine-makers do not make vaccine recommendations.  In the U.S., the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) does that. Here's the description of the committee:

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) comprises medical and public health experts who develop recommendations on the use of vaccines in the civilian population of the United States. The recommendations stand as public health guidance for safe use of vaccines and related biological products.

Outside the U.S., there are other regional and worldwide committees of medical experts who devote their lives to stopping the spread of communicable disease. These are the decision-makers. Not the manufacturers. 

If any vaccine-doubters have info to share, contact these people: Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety. It's part of the World Health Organization.



It's this blind faith in medical science that caused African women to become infertile. African Americans to be infected with syphilis, and children dying from vaccines. Do you sheep actually do any research of your own into the actual contents if vaccines? Would you give your child Mercury? You want your children to live in some bubble? No wonder today children are not even allowed to daydream in n class...there's a drug for that too. Children and adults today are over medicated and over protected from life itself. The pharmaceutical companies have taken control of our government, and our lives. We're supposed to allow them to do whatever with our bodies right? We do more research on garlic than we do on amoxicillin.... unbelievable. No wonder we are where we are today. Sick and tired and a pharmacy on every major intersection. Carry on ....


j_r said:


nan said:
  I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law 
Where have you seen this? 



tjohn said:

So, where do you draw the line?  Gardasil?  
 
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer? 

 the difference is that cancer is not contagious, so deciding to take the vaccination is much more of a personal decision than other vaccines. There's no public health risk if you choose to not take taking gardasil.


Jaytee said:
It's this blind faith in medical science that caused African women to become infertile. African Americans to be infected with syphilis, and children dying from vaccines. Do you sheep actually do any research of your own into the actual contents if vaccines? Would you give your child Mercury? You want your children to live in some bubble? No wonder today children are not even allowed to daydream in n class...there's a drug for that too. Children and adults today are over medicated and over protected from life itself. The pharmaceutical companies have taken control of our government, and our lives. We're supposed to allow them to do whatever with our bodies right? We do more research on garlic than we do on amoxicillin.... unbelievable. No wonder we are where we are today. Sick and tired and a pharmacy on every major intersection. Carry on ....

1.  Research conducted on African Americans is a problem of ethics and racism, not medical science.

2.  The amount of mercury in vaccines was never dangerous and has generally been eliminated.

3.  Vaccines do not represent a coddling of children unless you consider a bout with polio or smallpox to be a good life experience.


ml1 said:


nan said:

j_r said:

nan said:
  I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law 
Where have you seen this? 



tjohn said:

So, where do you draw the line?  Gardasil?  
 
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer? 
 This is  not an issue I spend a lot of time on, but I have seen articles with people advocating for eliminating exceptions.  I also have a conspiracy nut friend who sends me at least one email a week claiming people will be or are forced to get shots against their will.  I almost never read these emails, so I have no idea if they from planet earth, but I think there are many people who are afraid that might happen.  
Despite getting all my inoculations and believing in science, I don't trust for profit Pharma and for that reason, I would not like to see any kind of legislation were people were forced to get inoculations.  I just think it's good to have an out, just in case. 
 no one is being forced to be immunized. Or will ever be forced to do so.  Parents are required to have their kids immunized if they are going to attend public school. People who truly don't want their kids to have vaccinations can home school their kids, or find other like minded parents and start a no-vaccines private school.

You can't know what kind of laws may be passed in the future.  Currently, parents who don't vaccinate can have their kids attend public school with a waiver based on some conditions like religion.  


drummerboy said:


j_r said:

nan said:
  I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law 
Where have you seen this? 



tjohn said:

So, where do you draw the line?  Gardasil?  
 
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer? 
 the difference is that cancer is not contagious, so deciding to take the vaccination is much more of a personal decision than other vaccines. There's no public health risk if you choose to not take taking gardasil.

 Actually, cervical cancer is kind of contagious since it is almost always a side effect of the human papillomavirus which is spread by sexual contact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection


Klinker said:


drummerboy said:


j_r said:

nan said:
  I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law 
Where have you seen this? 



tjohn said:

So, where do you draw the line?  Gardasil?  
 
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer? 
 the difference is that cancer is not contagious, so deciding to take the vaccination is much more of a personal decision than other vaccines. There's no public health risk if you choose to not take taking gardasil.
 Actually, cervical cancer is kind of contagious since it is almost always a side effect of the human papillomavirus which is spread by sexual contact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection

 One would hope that it wasn’t being passed around in a normal classroom setting, which is the point I think they were trying to make 


spontaneous said:


Klinker said:

drummerboy said:
 the difference is that cancer is not contagious, so deciding to take the vaccination is much more of a personal decision than other vaccines. There's no public health risk if you choose to not take taking gardasil.
 Actually, cervical cancer is kind of contagious since it is almost always a side effect of the human papillomavirus which is spread by sexual contact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection
 One would hope that it wasn’t being passed around in a normal classroom setting, which is the point I think they were trying to make 

 Who do you think these kids are having sex with?


My comment was in regards to children needing vaccines to be in a school setting, and there was a comment somewhere above about the expanding of what vaccines were needed and if that was overreach 


If your child has measles they can easily transmit that to the rest of their class, and during lunch to other classes.  Guardisil protects against a disease that isn’t as easy to spread, so in a normal classroom setting an unvaccinated child doesn’t pose the same risk as a child who hasn’t had their MMR or chickenpox vaccine


For a few years immigrants were not allowed to get a green card unless they received the guardasil vaccine.  They have since changed that rule, but it was enforced for awhile 


shoshannah said:


tom said:
You probably don't need a smallpox vaccine. Everything else? Probably yes. 
You know why you don't need a smallpox vaccine??  Because SMALLPOX WAS ERADICATED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH IN 1981 DUE TO THE WORLDWIDE VACCINATION PROGRAM.

Polio would by now have been eradicated were it not religious objections. The same eradication effort that was sucessfull on smallpox was attempted on polio.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/

The local Taliban have issued fatwas denouncing vaccination as an American ploy to sterilize Muslim populations. Another common superstition spread by extremists is that vaccination is an attempt to avert the will of Allah. The Taliban have assassinated vaccination officials, including Abdul Ghani Marwat, who was the head of the government’s vaccination campaign in Bajaur Agency in the Pakistani tribal areas, on his way back from meeting a religious cleric (). Over the past year, several kidnappings and beatings of vaccinators have been reported. Vaccination campaigns in Nigeria and Afghanistan have also been hampered by Islamic extremists, especially in the Nigerian province of Kano in 2003, which has resulted in the infection returning to 8 previously polio-free countries in Africa ().

The only exception should be a medical exception, where the vaccination will cause more damage than good to a child's health. 


Schools are not the only place where children congregate and interact with other children.  Not sure if any laws have changed since my kids were little, but back then there were no requirements to prove they were vaccinated before being able to play recreational sports.  The organizations didn't ask what school they attended, they just assumed everyone went to a school, therefore everyone was vaccinated.   Even as toddlers (probably more so) playing at a public playground an unvaccinated child is putting other children in harm's way and those parents don't even know it.  


I would take it a step further  and hold parents whose child was not vaccinated responsible if another child got infected from their child.

If the child who became infected dies.....the other parent should be charged with manslaughter.  Seems extreme, but their reckless actions caused the death of human being.


Finally, I can't remember what vaccination the commercial was for but I thought it was a great commercial, not just for that specific vaccination but for all vaccinations. 


The commercial went something like this:  an older child had contracted a disease and he finds out that he would have been okay if his parents had gotten him the vaccination when he was younger.  He then starts asking his parents if it was true that his parents knew the risks and still chose not to give him the vaccination.  



It is partly religious extremists, but it is also distrust of vaccine campaigns since the US used a fake vaccine program to acquire DNA samples in their search for Bin Laden. If I am not mistaken people who received vaccines during that event didn’t even get all the needed doses since there was no need to return, they only needed to show up once to get the DNA samples.  Medicine should NEVER be used for intelligence gathering.  Doing so endangers medical staff and hampers efforts to give aid to needy populations 


Under federal law vaccines are legally classed by Congress as "unavoidably unsafe products", because there is nothing safe about injecting children, pregnant women and the elderly, with cell and DNA fragments of aborted fetuses. With human serum, aluminum, Mercury, fetal bovine serum, monkey and canine kidney proteins, albumin, formaldehyde, sodium chloride, neomycin and polysorbate.....in fact next generation of vaccines are intended to permanently alter Human DNA and genome. 

The vaccine industry has paid out over $4 billion in vaccine related injury and death.

In 1986 Congress passed NCVIA, granting immunity to the vaccine industry. Since then we've seen an increase in the hysterical reports of "dangerous" outbreaks....."epidemics" ....when less than one percent of 300,000,000 gets the measles....

I'm amazed at the the people who trust the pharmaceutical industry with their family's health. People who research every political science subject under the sun....but condemn anyone who questions medical science.

Carry on.


Whackadoodle stuff being posted here.  Jaytee, I've got a friend who's a polio survivor.  He got it overseas when he was a kid.  Now he's 50 and he just had what is the most recent in a line of dozens of surgeries to deal with the side effects.  I would just LOVE to see you debate him.  Nothing better than a well deserved arsewhoopin to put harmful, kid killing nonsense to rest.

I'll be skipping the rest of your posts here on this thread.  I hope that, at some point, you get the help you so clearly need.


Jaytee said:
Under federal law vaccines are legally classed by Congress as "unavoidably unsafe products", because there is nothing safe about injecting children, pregnant women and the elderly, with cell and DNA fragments of aborted fetuses. With human serum, aluminum, Mercury, fetal bovine serum, monkey and canine kidney proteins, albumin, formaldehyde, sodium chloride, neomycin and polysorbate.....in fact next generation of vaccines are intended to permanently alter Human DNA and genome. 
The vaccine industry has paid out over $4 billion in vaccine related injury and death.
In 1986 Congress passed NCVIA, granting immunity to the vaccine industry. Since then we've seen an increase in the hysterical reports of "dangerous" outbreaks....."epidemics" ....when less than one percent of 300,000,000 gets the measles....
I'm amazed at the the people who trust the pharmaceutical industry with their family's health. People who research every political science subject under the sun....but condemn anyone who questions medical science.
Carry on.

Which "pharmaceutical-free" ER do you take your family members to in case of an emergency then? And what do they use instead of pharmaceuticals nowadays? Leeches?


shoshannah said:


nan said:

shoshannah said:

nan said:
I got all of my shots and so did my son, and these disease breakouts are scary, but I don't think we should be forcing people to get vaccinations. That's really a personal decision, related to our bodies.  We can try to use logic and reason to convince them, but I don't think it benefits any of us to force inoculations.  It sets a bad precedent.  

 ...

Anyway, I understand the problems with these disease breakouts, but I'm still uncomfortable with forcing people to get vaccinations.
Public health.  Communicable disease is a public health issue.   The idea behind vaccination is to reduce or eliminate the amount of infectious organism circulating in the community so that EVERYONE is protected.   Keeping YOU and the rest of the population from dying or becoming disabled from communicable diseases depends on a critical number of people getting vaccinated more than it depends on you personally getting vaccinated. If you are "uncomfortable" with vaccine requirements (although nobody is forced), then you put yourself in danger. You can't rest on your laurels just because you personally have been vaccinated.  


The two most successful public health measures in history are vaccination and public sanitation.  Do you ever hear people saying that they don't want indoor plumbing because of the big plumbing and big sanitation industries? 


It's like global warming.  Every individual has to do his/her part to keep all individuals healthy.  Or like traffic rules. Saying that individuals should have individual choice when it comes to vaccines is like saying we should have individual choice to drive 80 mph down Valley St. 
You are not responding to what I said.  I understand why we need vaccinations and I get them and think everyone should.  I'm fine with having them as a requirement. What I worry about is passing laws requiring people to get them with no opting out available.  As you say, no one is forced, but that could change.  Some people are pushing for that and I worry about the consequences of over-enforcement. 
 That will never happen, and I'm not sure I've seen any such proposals.  What I have seen are proposals to tighten the requirements for vaccination to attend public school -- which absolutely should be the case, except for very tight medical reasons.

 


https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=88&ba=HF272. Here’s a proposal for the state to mandate homeschoolers get vaccinated.


nan said:


ml1 said:

nan said:

j_r said:

nan said:
  I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law 
Where have you seen this? 



tjohn said:

So, where do you draw the line?  Gardasil?  
 
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer? 
 This is  not an issue I spend a lot of time on, but I have seen articles with people advocating for eliminating exceptions.  I also have a conspiracy nut friend who sends me at least one email a week claiming people will be or are forced to get shots against their will.  I almost never read these emails, so I have no idea if they from planet earth, but I think there are many people who are afraid that might happen.  
Despite getting all my inoculations and believing in science, I don't trust for profit Pharma and for that reason, I would not like to see any kind of legislation were people were forced to get inoculations.  I just think it's good to have an out, just in case. 
 no one is being forced to be immunized. Or will ever be forced to do so.  Parents are required to have their kids immunized if they are going to attend public school. People who truly don't want their kids to have vaccinations can home school their kids, or find other like minded parents and start a no-vaccines private school.
You can't know what kind of laws may be passed in the future.  Currently, parents who don't vaccinate can have their kids attend public school with a waiver based on some conditions like religion.  

if the future U.S. is a place where states are allowed to enact laws in which the authorities force immunizations on people, it will be the least of our citizens' worries.  


Jaytee said:
when less than one percent of 300,000,000 gets the measles....

you do know why this is the case, don't you?


ml1 said:


nan said:

ml1 said:

nan said:

j_r said:

nan said:
  I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law 
Where have you seen this? 



tjohn said:

So, where do you draw the line?  Gardasil?  
 
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer? 
 This is  not an issue I spend a lot of time on, but I have seen articles with people advocating for eliminating exceptions.  I also have a conspiracy nut friend who sends me at least one email a week claiming people will be or are forced to get shots against their will.  I almost never read these emails, so I have no idea if they from planet earth, but I think there are many people who are afraid that might happen.  
Despite getting all my inoculations and believing in science, I don't trust for profit Pharma and for that reason, I would not like to see any kind of legislation were people were forced to get inoculations.  I just think it's good to have an out, just in case. 
 no one is being forced to be immunized. Or will ever be forced to do so.  Parents are required to have their kids immunized if they are going to attend public school. People who truly don't want their kids to have vaccinations can home school their kids, or find other like minded parents and start a no-vaccines private school.
You can't know what kind of laws may be passed in the future.  Currently, parents who don't vaccinate can have their kids attend public school with a waiver based on some conditions like religion.  
if the future U.S. is a place where states are allowed to enact laws in which the authorities force immunizations on people, it will be the least of our citizens' worries.  

 Still a concern.  I'm just trying to avoid one more slippery slope.  


drummerboy said:




 the difference is that cancer is not contagious, so deciding to take the vaccination is much more of a personal decision than other vaccines. There's no public health risk if you choose to not take taking gardasil.

 Perhaps that's a comfortable position to take if you don't have a uterus, or a daughter or sister, or if you (unlike the majority of Americans 18 and over) don't plan to have sex. (And the diseases that HPV immunization protects against also strike men.) 

Herd immunity requires a community effort. And the cost of medical treatment for cancer falls, directly or not, on all of us.


nan said:

 Still a concern.  I'm just trying to avoid one more slippery slope.  

 Slippery slope arguments are nonsense 


ml1 said:


nan said:
 Still a concern.  I'm just trying to avoid one more slippery slope.  

 Slippery slope arguments are nonsense 

 No they are not.  Look at censorship.  When Alex Jones got banned, few protested because he is a nutcase.  But, now they are banning lots of people, especially those that oppose the establishment.  And it's getting slowly worse, and still few are protesting.  

The same could happen with forced inoculations.  Not something I spend time worrying about, but from my research into other areas, such as censorship and surveillance, I think it's a good idea in general to oppose extreme government intrusion into personal health. 


Jaytee said:
Under federal law vaccines are legally classed by Congress as "unavoidably unsafe products", because there is nothing safe about injecting children, pregnant women and the elderly, with cell and DNA fragments of aborted fetuses.

That's just plain wrong. The term "unavoidably unsafe"  does not mean what you say here. It refers to the fundamental nature of a product. If an ingredient is the primary functional component, it cannot be removed to make it safer because then it would no longer be that product. That's a legal term and the more concise details are here: the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A. Consider peanut butter. It's just not a safe thing for those with a true peanut allergy but removing peanuts from that product is impossible - so if food products were labeled as such it would be classed as unavoidable unsafe. Foods aren't typically given that legal term, although the coming of nutraceuticals may be cause for revision.

-----------

Mocking those with these suspicions is unhelpful except for people getting their jollies off other people's fears. You may have had adverse experiences linked to any of the medicines or medical instruments and I'm sorry for that. I cannot judge you for feeling how you feel, regardless of whether the cause has been definitely proven. But I point out that the scientists who work on developing vaccines are very much concerned with making them safe and effective. I know that from experience.

Peter Wick, RPh, MS, PhD (pharmacology)

-----------

Jaytee said:
...with cell and DNA fragments of aborted fetuses. With human serum, aluminum, Mercury, fetal bovine serum, monkey and canine kidney proteins, albumin, formaldehyde, sodium chloride, neomycin and polysorbate....

 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

That's a link to information about the contents of vaccine formulations.

Sodium chloride - uhh, that's table salt

Neomycin - an antibiotic used in humans for a variety of infections. You might even have some in your home as part of an ointment somewhere. A vaccine shot has a tiny amount.

Ethylmercury (from thimerosal) - is used in multi-dose vials to preserve the vaccine formulation. Again, a tiny amount in a single dose, but yes, organomercurial compounds carry a risk. Here's more info on this:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

I could go on but I don't have all night, but yes there is risk. It's a matter of extensive clinical testing to ensure to the best of our abilities the safety of any component (and combination thereof) in a product. And then there's the question of dosage. Anything, including things like water and oxygen, can be deadly - it's just a matter of how much and how it is applied and where and how long and other factors. That's why a series of experiments are conducted to establish what is known as a dose-response curve for a given substance. That's how proper dosing regimens for a medicine are established (as in the ED50, effective dose for 50% of subjects). It is also key in determining data points such as the LD50, that's the amount that kills 50% of the subjects. Once they know the LD50 (or similar data) for something, strict limits are placed on how much can safely be present in something. Similar to the way parts per million (ppm) data is used for limiting substances in environmental reports.

---------


j_r said:
drummerboy said:

 the difference is that cancer is not contagious, so deciding to take the vaccination is much more of a personal decision than other vaccines. There's no public health risk if you choose to not take taking gardasil.
 Perhaps that's a comfortable position to take if you don't have a uterus, or a daughter or sister, or if you (unlike the majority of Americans 18 and over) don't plan to have sex. (And the diseases that HPV immunization protects against also strike men.) 

Herd immunity requires a community effort. And the cost of medical treatment for cancer falls, directly or not, on all of us.

I am all for Gardasil.  The question is whether or not you put it in the same category as vaccines against highly contagious diseases like polio or small pox along with a range of less deadly infectious diseases.


j_r said:


drummerboy said:





 the difference is that cancer is not contagious, so deciding to take the vaccination is much more of a personal decision than other vaccines. There's no public health risk if you choose to not take taking gardasil.
 Perhaps that's a comfortable position to take if you don't have a uterus, or a daughter or sister, or if you (unlike the majority of Americans 18 and over) don't plan to have sex. (And the diseases that HPV immunization protects against also strike men.) 

Herd immunity requires a community effort. And the cost of medical treatment for cancer falls, directly or not, on all of us.

You're missing my point. There is no "herd immunity" for a non-contagious disease like cancer. The point of vaccinations is to protect a whole population, not individuals.

eta: think of it this way. In order to eradicate a communicable disease, you need to achieve herd immunity, which is, let's say, a vaccination rate of 90% of the population. 

If you reach 90% coverage of gardasil, you will not eliminate the disease, nor will you decrease the chance of a non-vaccinated person of contracting cancer.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.