California lawmakers seek to end 'personal belief' vaccine exemptions

[rexlunae]

Since there is a great financial incentive for the medical establishment to create an endless supply of people with chronic diseases that require frequent appointments and expensive medications, I am sure you can see where some people would believe that the medical establishment might be biased?

That, in itself, doesn't prove corruption. There are seven billion people in this world. If you can think of a way to provide all of them with adequate health care that doesn't involve a lot of money, you'd be rich!

 

[rexlunae]

You are comparing pennies to thousand dollar bills.
It is not a very fair comparison.

I'm not comparing at all. The principle remains true regardless of the amount of money in play.

 

[rexlunae]

I have seven perfectly healthy children that you think should be immunized with unnamed vaccines.

And the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy child is? Exposure to a communicable disease with no immunity will do it.

Don't you think you should come across as rational if you want to convince me I should vaccinate my children, or convince me the government should mandate I vaccinate my children for any reason?

I think there's little chance that antivaxxers will see me as rational, sadly. And there's little evidence that they can be persuaded, too.

Then you are an irrational, rabid pro-vaxxer, someone willing to sacrifice my children to a procedure he doesn't really understand, but does so based on his faith in a process he believes is sound while at the same time irrationally condemns the judicial process.

You don't trust in the judicial process. That's not my problem.

I'm not condemning the judicial process, in general. Just recognizing its limitations. I don't expect a court to do science, for the same reason that I don't expect a duck to play the tuba. It isn't the purpose of a court, and when a court reaches a verdict contradicting a more competent body of genuine professionals in the relevant field, it's an indictment of the court, not the body.

You want me to trust in a process I can see is clearly flawed, disregard the evidence that suggests vaccines can be dangerous and unnecessary and ignore the judicial process of two nations as if they are engaged in some conspiracy to defame vaccines? :ha:

I want you to recognize that it isn't any one person's decision alone to make. If you want to make that decision for yourself, fine. If you make it for your children...I suppose it's your right. But when you send your kids out with preventable diseases because you feel like bucking the prevailing science, you put everyone else at risk. That's not within your rights beyond the reach of the law. And it is perfectly legitimate for the law to say that if you fail to immunize your children, you will be unable to put them into shared public spaces.

 

[elohiym]

If you can think of a way to provide all of them with adequate health care that doesn't involve a lot of money, you'd be rich!

How would he be rich if the solution does not involve a lot of money?

Dr. Weston Price wrote a book called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. If one follows the dietary protocol in that book, one should have results similar to the cultures that Dr. Price investigated. They were free from disease. In theory, one could obtain a comparable diet for free. I don't think Dr. Price got rich telling people to eat correctly, and it seems most people either never read his book or disregarded it's message in spite of the evidence.

 

[Ktoyou]

If you use the state, that is one matter, if you do not then it is another matter. The same logic, if I order a hamburger is a restaurant, I get iceberg lettuce, which is not real lettuce, but a member oionsion belief about ono the cabbage family. If I make my own hamburgers, I am able to use real lettuce.
food, but uoi can buy red onions, and there is no reason to have relig
Red onions are rarly used to fast

 

[elohiym]

I have seven perfectly healthy children that you think should be immunized with unnamed vaccines.

And the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy child is? Exposure to a communicable disease with no immunity will do it.

My children have been exposed to communicable diseases and developed natural immunity. Why should I inject them with aluminum and attenuated viruses that could possibly become virulent? What diseases are you concerned about specifically and why? What's your argument?

Don't you think you should come across as rational if you want to convince me I should vaccinate my children, or convince me the government should mandate I vaccinate my children for any reason?

I think there's little chance that antivaxxers will see me as rational, sadly. And there's little evidence that they can be persuaded, too.

Okay, but know that if you are my doctor I'm walking out of your office because you come across like a pro-vax wacko that couldn't even answer my simple question. Don't you think you should come across as rational if you want to convince me I should vaccinate my children? Suggestion: just say "yes" and move on.

I'm not condemning the judicial process, in general. Just recognizing its limitations. I don't expect a court to do science, for the same reason that I don't expect a duck to play the tuba. It isn't the purpose of a court, and when a court reaches a verdict contradicting a more competent body of genuine professionals in the relevant field, it's an indictment of the court, not the body.

You are implying that the judicial process either was not presented with evidence or could not judge the evidence, and doing so while having absolutely no knowledge of the cases I referenced. That's not Rex. Bring back Rex.

I want you to recognize that it isn't any one person's decision alone to make.

I'm curious to know if you feel the same about abortion because I think women should be prevented from murdering the unborn.

If you want to make that decision for yourself, fine.

Government mandate or "fine?" Pick. We're having a debate.

If you make it for your children...I suppose it's your right.

If it's fine for me, it's fine for them, right? I have to give informed consent until they are capable, right?

But when you send your kids out with preventable diseases because you feel like bucking the prevailing science, you put everyone else at risk.

I don't feel like "bucking the prevailing science." What is the science that proves my children should get, say, a tetanus vaccine every ten years? I think I recall reading some time ago that only 1 in 300,000 get tetanus in a non-vaccinated population, but maybe you know better.

That's not within your rights beyond the reach of the law.

At the moment I believe it is beyond the reach of the law.

And it is perfectly legitimate for the law to say that if you fail to immunize your children, you will be unable to put them into shared public spaces.

Are you willing to be forced to visit a doctor yearly to make sure you don't need any boosters? I'm concerned you are presently a risk to the population. We read earlier in this thread from an immunized poster who contracted Measles because her immunization wore off and so was a risk herself.

 

[elohiym]

As I said, I have confidence in the process.

You have faith in an ideology that is flawed, imo.

That's not to say that I've read all the studies and made a determination of all the evidence for myself, because I just can't do that. I've read a few of the studies about vaccines, but the fact is, I'm not qualified to make a final determination about anything in medicine.

Then don't suggest I should be forced to vaccinate my children.

What I am more comfortable doing is evaluating which side is relying on the scientific process, and which is relying on less reliable forms of reasoning and argument, and that is currently quite lopsided.

You must be smarter than those judges, huh?

Off the top of my head I can tell you there are two studies that link aluminum adjuvants in vaccines to neurological damage in mice.

I'm sure there are. And yet...
http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine...cine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum.html

Hard to see how a concentration of an element lower than a lot of background sources could be dangerous.

Two studies on mice versus a hospital website page that doesn't refute those studies in any way? You really want to buy into the idea that there is no difference between ingesting aluminum and injecting aluminum?

I know the judges heard testimony from expert witnesses and reached the conclusion the plaintiffs should be compensated for their claim that the MMR vaccine damaged their child.

And in so doing, the judges became qualified epidemiologists?

Are they qualified pathologists when they judge forensic evidence? Come on, man. Your response is irrational. They were judging based on evidence. Why not just accept that and investigate the evidence that convinced the judges?

I consider it a travesty of justice that the courts have reached a verdict not in keeping with the best available research...

You are certainly just making assumptions.

 

[rexlunae]

How would he be rich if the solution does not involve a lot of money?

You noticed my little joke.

But, on a more serious note though, anything that you do for all 7 billion people in the world right now has to be cheap. And vaccines fall into that category. Even in countries like the US, where we seem to have no problem charging unreasonable sums for basic medical care, we've figured out how to make vaccines essentially free. And there are people who would pay pretty well for that to happen. In other words, you can get rich saving people even a little money.

Dr. Weston Price wrote a book called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. If one follows the dietary protocol in that book, one should have results similar to the cultures that Dr. Price investigated. They were free from disease.

You don't think that claim seems a little suspicious? Just at face value?

In theory, one could obtain a comparable diet for free. I don't think Dr. Price got rich telling people to eat correctly, and it seems most people either never read his book or disregarded it's message in spite of the evidence.

I'll bet he made a not small amount of money off of selling the books.

 

[rexlunae]

You have faith in an ideology that is flawed, imo.

Then don't suggest I should be forced to vaccinate my children.

It is certainly no surprise that that is your opinion. And it is just an opinion. I have an opinion too, but it's shared with the overwhelming majority of the medical establishment.

You must be smarter than those judges, huh?

You must be smarter than all those doctors about medicine, huh?

I don't understand why you think two judges are so credible and millions of doctors are not.

Two studies on mice versus a hospital website page that doesn't refute those studies in any way? You really want to buy into the idea that there is no difference between ingesting aluminum and injecting aluminum?

I'll look at your studies if you like. But I'm not really going to be able to response to them with any real authority.

Are they qualified pathologists when they judge forensic evidence? Come on, man. Your response is irrational. They were judging based on evidence. Why not just accept that and investigate the evidence that convinced the judges?

It simply baffles me that you think that this is even an appropriate authority on this subject. Judges and juries are not competent in this area, so they rely on the testimony of others who are. So when they reach a conclusion clearly at odds with the scientific consensus, it reflects badly on the court.

You are certainly just making assumptions.

Some, yes. But then, I also recall asking you about your knowledge of these cases, and you haven't volunteered much. Can you even suggest a scenario where it would matter what the courts found, given that I don't take the opinions of two judges over the consensus of the entire medical community?

 

[genuineoriginal]

That, in itself, doesn't prove corruption. There are seven billion people in this world. If you can think of a way to provide all of them with adequate health care that doesn't involve a lot of money, you'd be rich!

I see you are waffling.

Our discussion was about the rise in auto-immune diseases and neurological disorders in civilized nations that correlate to the rise in vaccinations, especially simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines.

The rise in auto-immune diseases and neurological disorders keeps many people in the medical field and pharmaceutical companies supplied with customers for life with absolutely zero monetary incentive to change this.

The proletariat, I mean the people, that have friends, family, or self suffering from these diseases and disorders are starting to grumble about the bourgeoisie, I mean the medical and pharmaceutical professionals, that are making a killing, I mean a profit, from their suffering.

 

[rexlunae]

Yes, that shows that it is a well known fact.

I provided your quote without alteration.

...while fundamentally misrepresenting what I said. You had said this:

Isn't it amazing how modern vaccinations don't provide immunity any more?

To which I responded as follows:

Vaccinations have never provided 100% immunity to 100% of people who have received them. They do generally reduce the likelihood that you will catch a disease, however.

Note that I did not endorse your crazy notion that vaccines just don't work anymore. I explained that they have never worked as you claim. And none-the-less, you used it as an example supposedly bolstering your claim to another poster. If you have to lie that blatantly in the space of a few posts, what other lies are you telling that aren't so easy to see?

Neurological disorders are the most painful and most debilitating disorders known to man and almost all of them are classified as auto-immune disorders.
The percent of population that have severe neurological disorders in countries with vaccinations has increased while the percent of the population in countries without vaccinations has not increased.

Got a source for that claim?

There may be other factors not related to vaccinations that are responsible for the increase in neurological disorders, such as pollution and modified food.

And some people might actually require evidence of a causal relationship between one thing and another before we establish the blame.

Until a definite cause for the increase in neurological disorders is found, there will be many people who will justly or unjustly vilify vaccinations, since vaccinations inject unknown chemicals directly into the bloodstream and are designed to trigger the body's immune system in ways and frequencies not normally found.

What unknown chemicals? There is an ingredient list:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

Are vaccinations the cause of auto-immune neurological disorders?

Nope. If we're going to blame something at random, lets pick concrete. I think you'll find that there is a disturbing correlation between paved roads and diagnoses with neurological disorders.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I did not endorse your crazy notion that vaccines just don't work anymore. I explained that they have never worked

Yes, there are many websites that show vaccines have never worked.

Nope. If we're going to blame something at random, lets pick concrete. I think you'll find that there is a disturbing correlation between paved roads and diagnoses with neurological disorders.

Auto-immune diseases and neurological disorders are related to the immune system, which coincidentally is unnaturally stimulated by vaccines and not by concrete.

The unnatural stimulation of the immune system by vaccines is described in the NIH article on How Vaccines Work

 

[elohiym]

Dr. Weston Price wrote a book called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. If one follows the dietary protocol in that book, one should have results similar to the cultures that Dr. Price investigated. They were free from disease.

You don't think that claim seems a little suspicious? Just at face value?

No. Doctors tell people to eat better, eat right, etc., because the consensus is that what you eat effects your health. Dr. Price travelled to communities where disease was uncommon and studied their diets to see what the diets had in common. It is reasonable to claim that if you eat like a healthy person you should have similar results, so maybe that's why doctors are pushing the idea, too.

I'll bet he made a not small amount of money off of selling the books.

I doubt it. The Weston Price Foundation is a non-profit organization.

 

[aikido7]

uh-oh !!!

Kenneth Copeland's mega-church has been struck by an outbreak of measles.

To read and understand the state of "cognitive dissonance" this fact has placed into the minds and hearts of those sitting in the pews in this church, "google" COPELAND and MEASLES.

I do not want to do your work for you. But believe me, the facts, evidence and data are there.

 

[resodko]

they were chewing on this on the cbc the other day and one of the panelists asked what it would take to get people to recognize the need to vaccinate

nobody came up with the response that immediately came to my mind - it will take the deaths and disabilities of many children (and adults) who wouldn't otherwise have had to die or be disabled

as a society, we have been so successful in overcoming these diseases that there's no longer a cultural memory of the potential severity of them

once children start dying, going permanently deaf and developing devastating, permanent neurological disorders, the public mood will change


until then, the public discourse will continue to be led by tards like oprah and jenny mccarthy :idunno:

 

[oatmeal]

California lawmakers seek to end 'personal belief' vaccine exemptions

Read more here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-usa-measles-california-idUSKBN0L82NR20150204

From another article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ersonal-belief-vaccine-opt-out-now-in-danger/

Do you think the states should be able to mandate immunizations? If so why and if not why not?

No, they do not.

It is none of their business

 

[Granite]

I have a real hard time defending someone's "right" to pose a menace to the public.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Why do so many people believe federal agents should be allowed to take people and inject them with unknown chemicals against their will?

The ingredients are known. Unsubstantiated paranoia has no place in a public health discussion.

 

[elohiym]

I have a real hard time defending someone's "right" to pose a menace to the public.

Then are you in favor of mandating vaccines for all citizens, not just kids who are in school for part of the day and then afterwards are exposed to plenty of adults who are not vaccinated or their vaccinations are no longer effective?

 

[Granite]

Then are you in favor of mandating vaccines for all citizens, not just kids who are in school for part of the day and then afterwards are exposed to plenty of adults who are not vaccinated or their vaccinations are no longer effective?

I'm not advocating a thing, actually. Still chewing on this whole issue. That said, someone stupid enough not to vaccinate their kids is posing a health risk to the public--that much seems pretty undeniable.

Vaccines are a blessing. They're a cure. They don't cause autism. And it takes a special kind of reckless, borderline suicidal stupidity to argue against them.