Forced Vaccination is Wrong

[elohiym]

Those facts are not against me, they simply state the risk is low. They do not say that Gaedasil causes cancer.

You already had the discussion, and you seemed just as dense then.

 

[elohiym]

And there is always this:

Anti-Vaccine Doctors Should Lose Their Licenses

"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."

You posted yellow journalism. Too bad you don't have anything so poorly written about vaccine-critical physicians.

 

[Rusha]

"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."

Guess you missed the reference from the BMJ, huh? Funny that.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

 

[CabinetMaker]

You already had the discussion, and you seemed just as dense then.

Interesting that you think somebody who has watched his bride go through a bilateral mastectomy, a round of chemo, breasat reconstruction surgery, another round of chemo and radiation treatment that left her with permanent lung damage (radiation pneumonitis) is dense in matters regarding cancer.

 

[elohiym]

Interesting that you think somebody who has watched his bride go through a bilateral mastectomy, a round of chemo, breasat reconstruction surgery, another round of chemo and radiation treatment that left her with permanent lung damage (radiation pneumonitis) is dense in matters regarding cancer.

That's not what I think. You already had the discussion about the Gardasil vaccine, and you seem just as dense as you do now in this vaccine discussion.

On the Gardasil thread you were told there is no correlation between your wife's breast cancer and the alleged, extremely low risk of cervical cancer you are trying to prevent with the Gardasil vaccine. The vaccine confers no protection against breast cancer.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That's not what I think. You already had the discussion about the Gardasil vaccine, and you seem just as dense as you do now in this vaccine discussion.

Given that you have just accused me of being dense again, you'll forgive me if I don't find your assertion to be accurate.

On the Gardasil thread you were told there is no correlation between your wife's breast cancer and the alleged, extremely low risk of cervical cancer you are trying to prevent with the Gardasil vaccine. The vaccine confers no protection against breast cancer.

I never said there was a correlation between Gardasil and breast cancer. What I did say is that I have seen first hand what cancer means for a family. Whether the cancer is breast cancer, brain cancer, bone cancer, prostrate cancer, breast cancer, skin cancer or uterine cancer is completely irrelevant. Its the cancer treatment that is to be avoided if at all possible.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I see what you did there! You took two separate response and combined them to make it look like I said something I did not! Are you proud of yourself?

Your insult did not negate the fact that those three things have only one thing in common to predispose a person to risk. And you did agree with that when you stopped ducking under your insults.

Immune systems are not all on or all off. They range from weak to robust.

The measles has a 0.02% risk of death in a well fed population where only the sickest can even manage to die of it in the face of medical care. (keeping in mind that faulty medical care could be responsible for the losses during complications)

And in countries where they die of it, they are very impoverished. Like, dying of hunger impoverished.

An unvaccinated American child is more likely to not survive the trips to school at some point in their lives. 100,000 end up hospitalized on the way to and from school each year.

Well, actually you can use vaccine to greatly reduce the problem. That is why we have vaccines. They were developed specifically to protect the population against the devastation caused by unchecked spreading of disease.

And most vaccines are dubious. Like the flu. Some, like measles, appear to work a lot of the time, with potentially serious side effects.

Vaccination tyranny. Points for superior fear mongering. Keep in mind, the plague wiped out 60% of Europe's population. 60%. ANd it caused the dark ages.

Then why aren't you requiring the plague vaccine? It's not like the measles. You'll never eliminate the threat and the chances of dying are very high! Do that and the other hemorrhagic fever vaccines and maybe I'll take you a tad more seriously. lain:

I difference of opinion is not a rebellion, at least not in my mind.

If their parent says "Danger, don't do it" that's going to be honored by God like it was for a bible family/tribe when they obeyed their parents and didn't drink. Drinking isn't harmful unless it shames your family or causes an addiction, which is only a small risk.

Supported, yes, convey immunity, no. Even with a well supported immune system is is possible for people to catch diseases.

Immunity is not required. Immunity can be a health risk for some things. Atypical measles is more harmful because of immunity. The virus turns it against you. Tetanus. People die of it despite having good, high titers. Immune people are at a higher risk of septic complications.

I would wager that there was some sort of isolation along with the vitamin A. The fact of the matter is, the vitamins will not stop the spread of an active virus.

Wagered wrong for that particular one. The healing was just too fast. We no longer see it as a threat. Now we just dose Vit A when it blows through. Although we do partially isolate for other contagions if possible, some are just too pervasive within a family.

Yes, you do put requirements on the public to support public health.

Draft people for blood draws, then. Make them get doctor notes to opt out.

Then don't move to California. I support mandatory vaccinations. There are reasonable exceptions that need to be allowed, but overall, I support mandatory vaccines. I do not support forced vaccines.

And what if I already lived there and couldn't move? Would you take my kids from me to enforce the upcoming law? Put me into prison?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Guess you missed the reference from the BMJ, huh? Funny that.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

Wakefield is a vaccine pusher. End of story. He wanted to sell the competition to the MMR.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

And there is always this:

Anti-Vaccine Doctors Should Lose Their Licenses

Do you have any idea what a health crisis that would cause? We already have doctor and nurse shortages!

You can't dump 300 or so pediatricians without putting many thousands of children at risk. Millions actually, as they cram into other pediatric practices making access harder for others, too.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The physician standard of practice is informed consent.

Therefore their jobs aren't going anywhere.

That dummie (MD!?) writing your article couldn't figure that out, Rusha.

 

[Rusha]

Do you have any idea what a health crisis that would cause? We already have doctor and nurse shortages!

No ... I agree with the article. These quacks who were mentioned in the article shouldn't be receiving money to give bad advice and substandard treatment to patients.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

No ... I agree with the article. These quacks who were mentioned in the article shouldn't be receiving money to give bad advice and substandard treatment to patients.

Yeah, and you would vote with Solomon to cut the child in half.

Would you remove children from their homes in Cali for non-vaxing?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your insult did not negate the fact that those three things have only one thing in common to predispose a person to risk. And you did agree with that when you stopped ducking under your insults.

It wasn't intended as an insult, it was a snarky reply pointing out that what you did was dishonest. I replied to two separate points that were not related.

The measles has a 0.02% risk of death in a well fed population where only the sickest can even manage to die of it in the face of medical care. (keeping in mind that faulty medical care could be responsible for the losses during complications)

I note that you neglect to mention the other complications of measles.

And in countries where they die of it, they are very impoverished. Like, dying of hunger impoverished.

And for a few pennies they could get a vaccine and they wouldn't die either.

An unvaccinated American child is more likely to not survive the trips to school at some point in their lives. 100,000 end up hospitalized on the way to and from school each year.

According to the NTSB, the number is closer to 8,000 per year for school bus accidents. In any case, I have already pointed out on this thread that life is not with out a certain amount of risk. One need not even get out of bed to be at risk of getting hit by a car.

And most vaccines are dubious. Like the flu. Some, like measles, appear to work a lot of the time, with potentially serious side effects.

The flu vaccine works well IF we correctly guess which strains of flu are going to be active in the coming year. Guess wrong and the vaccine we use does not work on the strain of flu we have. It happened a couple of years ago.

Then why aren't you requiring the plague vaccine?

Because plague has been eradicated. As the recent Disneyland outbreak clearly proves, measles has not.

It's not like the measles. You'll never eliminate the threat and the chances of dying are very high! Do that and the other hemorrhagic fever vaccines and maybe I'll take you a tad more seriously. lain:

Plague and hemorrhagic fever vaccines do, in fact, exist. I had to have one before I traveled to Angola for business. It was required, forced even, if I wanted to travel. Had I not had it, I would have been refused entry to the country. I didn't mind getting the vaccine. Were there risks associated with the vaccine? Yes. Were the risks greater than the risks associated with the disease? No.

If their parent says "Danger, don't do it" that's going to be honored by God like it was for a bible family/tribe when they obeyed their parents and didn't drink. Drinking isn't harmful unless it shames your family or causes an addiction, which is only a small risk.

ANd when that child grows up and starts to make decisions of their own, God will equally honor there decisions for their children.

Immunity is not required. Immunity can be a health risk for some things. Atypical measles is more harmful because of immunity. The virus turns it against you.

You deal in half-truths. You word this to make is sound like if you get the vaccine you will develop AMS at some point. Is that really the case?

AMS occurs in persons who were incompletely immunized against measle. This may happen if a person were given the old killed-virus measles vaccine (which does not provide complete immunity and is no longer available); or the person were given attenuated (weakened) live measles vaccine that was, by accident, inactivated during improper storage.

Tetanus. People die of it despite having good, high titers. Immune people are at a higher risk of septic complications.

If your child gets a cut, do you deny them a tetanus shot? I

Wagered wrong for that particular one. The healing was just too fast. We no longer see it as a threat. Now we just dose Vit A when it blows through. Although we do partially isolate for other contagions if possible, some are just too pervasive within a family.

Vitamins do not prevent infection. They may be effective at treating infections once they are established, but they will not prevent it. If you see a goat with pink eye and give your flock a does of Vit A straight away, if one of those infected goats gets to a close to a non-onfected goat, odds are high the second goat will get the infection. Assuming vitamin A or any other prevents infection reveals a profound lack of understanding regarding infectious diseases. You are wise to segregate for certain infections. We have to do that for our horses. We lost several shows this year because of an out break of Vesicular Stomatitis. We wish there was a vaccine for it as it is spread by flies.

Draft people for blood draws, then. Make them get doctor notes to opt out.

Since I care about those around me, I do give blood. Should it be manditory? Well, since it doesn't contribute to the spread of a public health threat, no.

And what if I already lived there and couldn't move? Would you take my kids from me to enforce the upcoming law? Put me into prison?

I strongly doubt anybody is going to pass a law mandating removal of children and prison time for non-compliance. (You might like it if your kids decide to vaccinate your grandkids, though. It would give you a chance to take custody of your grandkids and give them a proper upbringing. See how that works? There are two sides to every coin.) I wouldn't support a law that takes kids from parents for non-compliance. That is stupid. Exclude them from school? yes.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It wasn't intended as an insult, it was a snarky reply pointing out that what you did was dishonest. I replied to two separate points that were not related.

I'm talking about what you said in post #___ before that comment. Your implications were wrong because I was pointing out that you were dodging my point and I was correct. Condensing your post did not change that at all. The reader can decide.

I note that you neglect to mention the other complications of measles.

You neglect to mention the 100,000 who are hospitalized just for going to school. Nevermind the measles. School itself is a public health threat.

And for a few pennies they could get a vaccine and they wouldn't die either.

Yes, they would. Vaccines don't feed or correct anything. nutritionally. The next bug will get them if their immune systems even exist after the vaccine.

According to the NTSB, the number is closer to 8,000 per year for school bus accidents. In any case, I have already pointed out on this thread that life is not with out a certain amount of risk. One need not even get out of bed to be at risk of getting hit by a car.

Buses are only one way a child gets to school. Buses didn't serve me when I went to school except one time when I was far enough away. Most parents drive their kids, anyway. If the child must go to school, the risk cannot be eliminated. It is far greater than the risk from measles.

The flu vaccine works well IF we correctly guess which strains of flu are going to be active in the coming year. Guess wrong and the vaccine we use does not work on the strain of flu we have. It happened a couple of years ago.

And this year. It's a yearly exposure to health risks to get the vaccine.

Because plague has been eradicated. As the recent Disneyland outbreak clearly proves, measles has not.

Has not! Neither has Ebola. Vaccinate for Ebola if you are serious.

Plague and hemorrhagic fever vaccines do, in fact, exist.

I know. Someone I love was injured by those vaccines, I believe.

I had to have one before I traveled to Angola for business. It was required, forced even, if I wanted to travel. Had I not had it, I would have been refused entry to the country. I didn't mind getting the vaccine. Were there risks associated with the vaccine? Yes. Were the risks greater than the risks associated with the disease? No.

You submitted to risk and tyranny. Your choice.

ANd when that child grows up and starts to make decisions of their own, God will equally honor there decisions for their children.

If that tribe told their children to drink after their father said no, what would have happened?

You deal in half-truths. You word this to make is sound like if you get the vaccine you will develop AMS at some point.

I did not and you didn't prove anything.

If your child gets a cut, do you deny them a tetanus shot?

Didn't address my point. Risk for getting tetanus? You know?

Vitamins do not prevent infection.

Then why do starving people get more infections?

Since I care about those around me, I do give blood. Should it be manditory? Well, since it doesn't contribute to the spread of a public health threat, no.

Oh, is that proof you care? I thought you were supposed to (freely) give generously in secret.

I strongly doubt anybody is going to pass a law mandating removal of children and prison time for non-compliance.

How do you think they will punish non-compliers in Cali?

 

[elohiym]

No ... I agree with the article.

That you believe Wakefield's paper "set off the modern anti-vaccine movement" only proves how ignorant you are about history and those who are critical of vaccines. It's obvious the deceitful quack you are relying on has been paid to spread disinformation.

The National Vaccine Information Center was founded in 1982 by the courageous Barbara Loe Fisher and parents of DPT injured children. The pro-vaccination doctor Wakefield, who allegedly had filed a patent for his own safer measles vaccine, published a paper in 1998. Of course you would rather tie the millions of parents critical of vaccines to a seemingly greedy pro-vaccination (ex)doctor straw man (you call "anti-vax") than tie it to a strong woman like Fisher.

The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are you ready?

These quacks who were mentioned in the article shouldn't be receiving money to give bad advice and substandard treatment to patients.

Dr. Sears gives his patients vaccinations! He advises an alternative vaccination schedule to limit a tiny baby's exposure to high amounts of aluminum adjuvant and because, according to scientists, the safety studies on some, e.g. MMR, have been largely inadequate. Additionally some research shows aluminum adjuvants in amounts found in some vaccines cause motor neuron death in mice. He is exercising caution in light of those facts and other facts, but he's not refusing to vaccinate his patients. How is that substandard treatment? The vaccine schedule is obviously not evidence-based.

You and a quack who isn't a pediatrician disagree with a pediatrician about how to care for a baby. Even though he vaccinates his patients, you both claim he is "anti-vaccine" because he uses a alternative vaccination schedule and encourages informed consent for patients. For that reason the two of you want the pediatrician to lose his license. Both of you are irrational and should seek a vaccine against stupidity.

And do either of you seriously think I'm going to shed a tear if pro-vaccination doctors like Wakefield and Sears lose their licenses? :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'm talking about what you said in post #___ before that comment. Your implications were wrong because I was pointing out that you were dodging my point and I was correct. Condensing your post did not change that at all. The reader can decide.

Keep telling yourself that. It wont make it true, but if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that.

You neglect to mention the 100,000 who are hospitalized just for going to school. Nevermind the measles. School itself is a public health threat.

OR going to work. Or working around the house. Or doing some recreational activity. As far as I know, there are no vaccinations to prevent car accidents, slips, trips, falls, food poisoning, or accident in general. Its a red herring argument attempting to equate ALL risk with the specific discussion of communicable diseases.

Yes, they would. Vaccines don't feed or correct anything. nutritionally. The next bug will get them if their immune systems even exist after the vaccine.

But vaccines convey immunity so that people don't get sick in the first place.

Buses are only one way a child gets to school. Buses didn't serve me when I went to school except one time when I was far enough away. Most parents drive their kids, anyway. If the child must go to school, the risk cannot be eliminated. It is far greater than the risk from measles.

This red herring has been dealt with above.

And this year. It's a yearly exposure to health risks to get the vaccine.

And for some, the very young and the very old, that small risk associated with a vaccine is far safer than risking a full on case of the flu.

Has not! Neither has Ebola. Vaccinate for Ebola if you are serious.

I suggest you look up the medical definition of "eradicated". It has a very specific meaning. Ebola, along with many other viruses have no vaccine. They are working on it and time will tell.

I know. Someone I love was injured by those vaccines, I believe.

Many were injured by the disease so a vaccine was developed to protect the many. Are vaccines without risk? No. Are vaccines riskier than the disease they protect against. Generally no.

You submitted to risk and tyranny. Your choice.

I do not think that word means what you think it does. There was no tyranny involved. There is a known and specific risk of getting infected with certain diseases when traveling. In order to reduce the risks, many countries require certain shots as way of protecting their citizens from you and of protecting you from their citizens. To require such shots is not tyranny. That is a word used by those with an irrational fear.

If that tribe told their children to drink after their father said no, what would have happened?

Are they a minor still living at home or is the child grown and living on their own?

I did not and you didn't prove anything.

Keep telling yourself that. The thread has a record of what you have done and facts that have been presented.

Then why do starving people get more infections?

Because it takes energy to combat an infection. The worse the infection, the more energy required.

Oh, is that proof you care? I thought you were supposed to (freely) give generously in secret.

No, it is just a statement that I give blood. I don't generally make a big deal of it, I just do it when I have the opportunity. In any case, it was yet another red herring on your part.

How do you think they will punish non-compliers in Cali?

At a guess, fines and exclusion. I have not, nor do I intend, to read the bill.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

OR going to work. Or working around the house. Or doing some recreational activity. As far as I know, there are no vaccinations to prevent car accidents, slips, trips, falls, food poisoning, or accident in general. Its a red herring argument attempting to equate ALL risk with the specific discussion of communicable diseases.

School travel is 100% preventable. A public school student can attend at his computer in most cases. Unless they get a note from a doctor or teacher or whatever, you should "require" it, like vaccinations.

It will also actually prevent a lot of "gateway" activities, like traveling farther after school, to other houses and malls. You don't have to travel home when you are home.

Working at home also reduces the risks from travel, and prevents excess travel, like to get a latte' afterwards. We keep our travel time down and prevent excess accidents and deaths that way.

And before you say being at home has risks, remember that the more people work and learn at home, the fewer crash INTO homes.

But vaccines convey immunity so that people don't get sick in the first place.

Unless the person is immune compromised.

This red herring has been dealt with above.

Are you going to deny that reducing travel hours saves lives? Really??

And for some, the very young and the very old, that small risk associated with a vaccine is far safer than risking a full on case of the flu.

Source your assertions or otherwise back them up. The very young and old are most at risk from vaccinations.

I suggest you look up the medical definition of "eradicated". It has a very specific meaning. Ebola, along with many other viruses have no vaccine. They are working on it and time will tell.

No, they have a vaccine. It just has risks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31087727

Are vaccines riskier than the disease they protect against. Generally no.

"Generally no" isn't good enough to force it. Cali is forcing it.

To require such shots is not tyranny.

To deny travel to a healthy person without a vaccine is tyranny. We can agree to disagree. But you are weird in my book.

Are they a minor still living at home or is the child grown and living on their own?

The Bible was talking about grown children commanded to not drink who didn't all their generations and were honored by God for it.

Keep telling yourself that. The thread has a record of what you have done and facts that have been presented.

Says the man in fantasy land, where diseases aren't prevented with sanitation and nutrition.

Because it takes energy to combat an infection. The worse the infection, the more energy required.

Energy is a macronutrient. But you actually avoided the point that healthy people get fewer infections in the first place. Research diabetes if you don't know what I mean.

No, it is just a statement that I give blood. I don't generally make a big deal of it, I just do it when I have the opportunity. In any case, it was yet another red herring on your part.

No, it wasn't. Public health and safety covers many things, including blood shortages.

At a guess, fines and exclusion. I have not, nor do I intend, to read the bill.

You didn't even read the warning with links in the chatbox? Sheesh. Cali will be making all children without vaccines, even homeschoolers, truant (non-approved in education).

What happens when children are truant?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The physician standard of practice is informed consent.

The ten points of the Nuremberg Code

The 10 points are, (all from United States National Institutes of Health).[7]
1.The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code

 

[CabinetMaker]

School travel is 100% preventable. A public school student can attend at his computer in most cases. Unless they get a note from a doctor or teacher or whatever, you should "require" it, like vaccinations.

It will also actually prevent a lot of "gateway" activities, like traveling farther after school, to other houses and malls. You don't have to travel home when you are home.

Working at home also reduces the risks from travel, and prevents excess travel, like to get a latte' afterwards. We keep our travel time down and prevent excess accidents and deaths that way.

And before you say being at home has risks, remember that the more people work and learn at home, the fewer crash INTO homes.

And you say I live in fantasy land?! Do you have any idea how the econmy works? How business is done? How durable goods and foods are manufactured for you? In today modern economy there are very few jobs that can actually be done from home. What you say is true, it is just functionally impractical.

Unless the person is immune compromised.

Well, since noone has contended otherwise, so what.

Are you going to deny that reducing travel hours saves lives? Really??

No. So I guess that you would like to see a law that forces people to drive less all in the name of saving lives.

Source your assertions or otherwise back them up. The very young and old are most at risk from vaccinations.

Given the relative risks of vaccines versus diseases, the young and the old are proven to fare better through flu season when vaccinates.

No, they have a vaccine. It just has risks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31087727

Again, what is the relative risk of the vaccine versus the disease. You are vaccine adverse because somebody you know had a bad reaction to vaccination. I get that. I am on the other side of that coin. I know somebody who was harmed by getting the disease. I have no idea what your "vaccine damaged person" actually suffered, but my cousin required a heart transplant due to a viral infection. Did your "vaccine damaged person" have to get a new heart? Relative risk. Each must ***** those risks based on their own experience. Those dealing with matters of public health must also assess those risks but not on personal experience, they must examine them in terms of threat to the entire population. Basically, your rights end where my nose begins.

"Generally no" isn't good enough to force it. Cali is forcing it.

It is. There are no guarantees with any medical procedure. Its not possible. It is known that the vaccines are far less risky than the diseases they convey immunity to. If you think your child might be at risk from the vaccine the right thing to do is to discuss it with your doctor and maybe do some allergy tests before hand.

To deny travel to a healthy person without a vaccine is tyranny. We can agree to disagree. But you are weird in my book.

How you can reasonably argue that vaccinations intended to prevent the spread of disease is tyranny is weird.

tyr·an·ny ˈtirənē/ noun noun: tyranny; cruel and oppressive government or rule.

There is nothing cruel nor oppressive about requiring shots for travel. How would you feel if somebody traveled to the US and started spreading a disease that can cause blindness, encephalitis and miscarriages? This actually happened. Recently.

Says the man in fantasy land, where diseases aren't prevented with sanitation and nutrition.

ANd what of those who are malnourished, should we just ignore that we have something that could help them survive something that would kill them otherwise? Seriously. The vaccination works now. Creating what is required to provide them the nutrition that they need takes considerably longer. Would you really deny these folks something that can improve their chances for survival by prevent them from getting a disease that would kill them otherwise?

Its no different here in the states. The amount of childhood hunger here in the US is a dirty little secrete. Many children are lucky to get one meal a day witch leaves them in a weakened state. Your kid goes to school with the measles because hay, its no big deal to your well fed kids, and infects a child who is not so well nourished and that kid ends up blind. How do you feel? Please, don't answer that. Seriously, don't.

Energy is a macronutrient. But you actually avoided the point that healthy people get fewer infections in the first place. Research diabetes if you don't know what I mean.

Diabetes is not a virus. Health people get sick less and when they do get sick, it tends to be shorter and less severe. But there is no guarantee that that will always be true. There are times when the very healthy get very sick, just like anybody else. In any case, as noted above, not everybody in this country is that healthy. Most are not for a wide variety of reasons. We must be concerned about the welfare of all, not just our own families.

No, it wasn't. Public health and safety covers many things, including blood shortages.

Blood has a limited shelf life. I have also noticed that when the call goes out for blood, people show up in droves to donate. So blood donation and vaccination programs are not analogous.

You didn't even read the warning with links in the chatbox? Sheesh. Cali will be making all children without vaccines, even homeschoolers, truant (non-approved in education).

You may find this hard to accept, but I don't find the TOL chat box to a reliable source of vetted information. I don't read the chat box.

What happens when children are truant?

A friend of mine ended up in court with his overly truant son. My friend had to take his son to school every day and he did. It did no good as the boy went in the front doors and out the back and skipped school anyway. But that was all, no jail time, no fines. I don't know what California does.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

And you say I live in fantasy land?! Do you have any idea how the econmy works? How business is done? How durable goods and foods are manufactured for you? In today modern economy there are very few jobs that can actually be done from home. What you say is true, it is just functionally impractical.

Not for students with computers. And adults can choose dangerous jobs and travel, but kids? What if you had to fly them to school in Alaska? Shouldn't school be required to be done at home then if internet is available??

But why bother to save 2,000 kids a year if help doesn't come in a needle?

Well, since noone has contended otherwise, so what.

You don't see how you lose the debate if that's true. Besides, Nuremburg already decided what's being done is immoral.

No. So I guess that you would like to see a law that forces people to drive less all in the name of saving lives.

If you will force them to take a vaccine to do their job or attend daycare or education. YES. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. Saving lives is not the game. Saving the pharm is.

Given the relative risks of vaccines versus diseases, the young and the old are proven to fare better through flu season when vaccinates.

Without proof you say it. Mhmmm... sure... That justifies crimes against humanity, I see.

Again, what is the relative risk of the vaccine versus the disease.

Human rights allow me to choose my relative medical risks.

... Basically, your rights end where my nose begins.

Sacrifice the few for the many? See Nuremburg. Utilitarianism fails.

ANd what of those who are malnourished, should we just ignore that we have something that could help them survive something that would kill them otherwise? Seriously. The vaccination works now. Creating what is required to provide them the nutrition that they need takes considerably longer. Would you really deny these folks something that can improve their chances for survival by prevent them from getting a disease that would kill them otherwise?

Unreal. Don't feed them and hydrate them first, give them shots in their weakened state. As if that isn't a dangerous and foolish idea.

What they need to resist death and bolster the immune system is food, water and a lack of violent oppression with the attendant stresses that causes. Their immune systems will perk back up.

Your kid goes to school with the measles because hay, its no big deal to your well fed kids, and infects a child who is not so well nourished and that kid ends up blind. How do you feel? Please, don't answer that. Seriously, don't.

If I even suspected my kids were exposed the measles I would quarantine them if they were in a school with impoverished children who might end up catching it from them. School can be done at home.

Here's one for you: How would you feel if you sneezed on an old lady in church and killed her? Would you feel better if you were fully vaccinated? Would it really make you feel any better about it?

Diabetes is not a virus.

You can prevent it with nutrition and thus prevent a greatly increased risk of infections and death without a vaccine. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/

Health people get sick less and when they do get sick, it tends to be shorter and less severe.

See, you know.

But there is no guarantee that that will always be true.

No, it's always true that they are at reduced risk of infection. Never are sick or malnourished people at an advantage over them.

There are times when the very healthy get very sick, just like anybody else.

Your standard for healthy is dubious and your assertion ridiculous. Healthy people don't get sick "like anybody else."

We must be concerned about the welfare of all, not just our own families.

Blood has a limited shelf life. I have also noticed that when the call goes out for blood, people show up in droves to donate. So blood donation and vaccination programs are not analogous.

A friend of mine lost a father to blood shortage. It happens.

You may find this hard to accept, but I don't find the TOL chat box to a reliable source of vetted information. I don't read the chat box.

You are still gonna have to check what Cali's doing;

http://www.sb277.org/

Currently in CA, there is a bill before the legislature, SB 277, which would eliminate a parent's right to exempt their children from one, some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure. Only a medical exemption would remain, which is usually only issued after a catastrophic adverse vaccine reaction has occurred, and often times, not even then.

Following the State of Maryland's threats against parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated, children were herded into a Price George County courthouse being guarded by armed personnel with attack dogs. Inside, the children were forcibly vaccinated, many against their will, under orders from the State Attorney General, various State Judges and the local School Board Director, all of whom illegally conspired to threaten parents with imprisonment if they did not submit their children to vaccinations.

A friend of mine ended up in court with his overly truant son. My friend had to take his son to school every day and he did. It did no good as the boy went in the front doors and out the back and skipped school anyway. But that was all, no jail time, no fines. I don't know what California does.

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/08/indiana-doctor-tells-mom-be-compliant-vaccinate-or-ill-call-cps/

I’m standing in a corner, in a room the size of a box with these 2 men trying to take my child and vaccinate him against my will. I hold onto Adam as the student doctor is trying to take him from my arms and Adam begins to cry and cling to me. I’m shaking; I’m afraid and Adam can sense this. I put both arms around Adam and bring his head towards my bosom to protect him and I pull bravery from somewhere.




“He will NOT be vaccinated. You will NOT be putting poison in my son.” I stammered, shaking like a leaf but I held strong.



The pediatrician GLARED at me. “Well,” he says clearly irritated.” If you aren’t going to comply, then you leave me no choice. Not only will you not be allowed back at this clinic but I will be reporting you to Child Protective Services. You are endangering your child.”




I didn’t wait for him to say anything more, I pushed past them and walked out. As I’m walking down the hall as fast as possible, with Adam screaming scared to death and me shaking like mad, he hollers after me, “You’re going to be sorry for letting Google be your doctor!!!”




I walked faster and got out of there as fast as I could.




Not once did this dr ask me WHY we weren’t vaccinating. Whether it be medical reason, religious belief, personal belief.. he never bothered to even ask. Not once did I say I did my research “online” or with “google” as he insinuated. In fact, HE treated me as some insubordinate, uneducated, ignorant, abusive parent.