Forced Vaccination is Wrong

[Tyrathca]

Yeah, like I said, as long as it isn't your kid 100 is a "tiny number".

Clearly you either didn't read or didn't understand what the implications of that number was. Namely that those 100 weren't deaths by vaccine but instead likely statistically expected deaths given the cohort and time frame.

Try reading the four threads currently running on this subject in their entirety and then get back to me. Jumping in late on this one and offering unsubstantiated assertions is presumptuous and speaks of a person who isn't so much interesting in listening or learning but being heard. I'm not going to rehash what has already been offered because you can't be bothered to look for yourself.

Unsubstantiated assertions? Did you even read the article you linked? Or read about the database they drew their data from? Do you have any idea how the number of 100 was determined?

Judging by your non sequitur response I'm going to guess "no" to each of those. I'm responding in this thread and on this thread you've demonstrated you don't even understand your own sources. Don't assume that because you've been on a thread longer that somehow gives you a free pass to mislead with your lazy ignorance.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Clearly you either didn't read or didn't understand what the implications of that number was. Namely that those 100 weren't deaths by vaccine but instead likely statistically expected deaths given the cohort and time frame.

Same could be said for modern cases of measles deaths, couldn't it?

Doctors kill people all the time with properly proscribed medications. And if you had measles at the time you were medicated and suffered an adverse event from your treatment, well.... :idunno: You can see where that goes.

Plus, many people have other health conditions which might more properly get the blame, unless measles is already getting credit for the death.

 

[Tyrathca]

Same could be said for modern cases of measles deaths, couldn't it?

No. The methodology of finding disease complication rates is more detailed than what was used here. Besides think it through, how many kids are in each group? How many deaths? What is the percentage of deaths per cases for each?

Some of those answers should make it more obvious why.

Doctors kill people all the time with properly proscribed medications. And if you had measles at the time you were medicated and suffered an adverse event from your treatment, well.... :idunno: You can see where that goes.

You don't understand how medical research and health statistics about diseases work do you?

Plus, many people have other health conditions which might more properly get the blame, unless measles is already getting credit for the death.

This is a well known issue for ALL medical research and there are already methods to control and limit these potential confounding variables. None of that was done here and the site from which the data was gathered even warns against over-interpreting it's data in the way done.

 

[fzappa13]

Clearly you either didn't read or didn't understand what the implications of that number was. Namely that those 100 weren't deaths by vaccine but instead likely statistically expected deaths given the cohort and time frame.

Unsubstantiated assertions? Did you even read the article you linked? Or read about the database they drew their data from? Do you have any idea how the number of 100 was determined?

Judging by your non sequitur response I'm going to guess "no" to each of those. I'm responding in this thread and on this thread you've demonstrated you don't even understand your own sources. Don't assume that because you've been on a thread longer that somehow gives you a free pass to mislead with your lazy ignorance.

Your beloved U. S. government was responsible for both set of statistics. Got a problem with that?

 

[Tyrathca]

Your beloved U. S. government was responsible for both set of statistics. Got a problem with that?

My beloved US government? I've never even been there! Do you think they'll give me a green card?

What I care about is how the numbers are calculated which affects what can be meaningfully interpreted from them. I have no issues with the numbers themselves, I do have issue with over-interpretation of them and saying they are the number of deaths due to the vaccine (this is a matter of basic research methodology, none of this is specific to vaccines)

 

[1PeaceMaker]

No. The methodology of finding disease complication rates is more detailed than what was used here.

Is it really? Proof? I'm inclined to disagree, considering what shoddy birth/death data was used to smear homebirth. Fact is, in most, if not all homebirth data sets it's impossible to tease apart the different kinds of homebirth, some due to lawlessness, some due to drug use and hiding pregnancy, etc. So saying homebirth is dangerous is really difficult to prove. (just an example)

Besides think it through, how many kids are in each group? How many deaths? What is the percentage of deaths per cases for each?

In modern times the death rate for measles is vanishingly small. We have a population that is weighted down with an epidemic of endocrine-disruption and nutrition-based illness, too. That definitely complicates things, especially when doctors are so proficient at misdiagnosis these days. :dizzy:

Some of those answers should make it more obvious why.

No, not really. If I went to the hospital with an active case of the measles, there is a good chance I could die of a nosocomial infection. Iatrogenic death is a huge percentage of the casualty rate in hospitals.

So if I go in with the measles, I may not come back out and may be misdiagnosed as dying of the measles when in reality they only isolated the one pathogen when perhaps that wasn't the most significant infection of a cluster-attack like with lime-disease, one thing weakens you, then you need antibiotics, then you have a bad reaction, you get a blood transfusion, oops the donor was sick... now the measles and a garbage can of other undiagnosed diseases rushing in... the professional may pick the most obvious thing to blame, the rash-inducing measles.

You don't understand how medical research and health statistics about diseases work do you?

Personally, I've not only gotten a high school diploma and all, I took all the health and medicine courses they offered as electives.

I study health and science every year I get pregnant. And every time I or a loved one gets sick and needs answers. My husband has medical training and two degrees. He's treated wounded civilians on the battlefield.

This is a well known issue for ALL medical research and there are already methods to control and limit these potential confounding variables. None of that was done here and the site from which the data was gathered even warns against over-interpreting it's data in the way done.

Those methods are subject to the flaws in human thinking normally present. I seriously doubt that you will find the data infallible.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Are you seriously so blinded by your vaccination paranoia that you completely overlook that a kid was making threats in front of the other students at a public school?

Would you consider it mitigating circumstances if he was threatening because the teacher had ordered him to disrobe in front of the class for a cavity search?

The "criminal code" in that quote is referring to students making threats of violence or damage, not about vaccinations. If they were making an example of the kid it was for making threats.

What is it with this place lately? It's unreal.

The student "criminal code" is supposed to be supplemented with common sense, which apparently is lacking with the forceful adults in this situation.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Would you consider it mitigating circumstances if he was threatening because the teacher had ordered him to disrobe in front of the class for a cavity search?

Depends on what the threat is. You can say no and say no forcefully. If the kid starts threatening to use a gun or knives or physical destruction of property they have crossed a line. The simple fact of the matter us that there is not enough information provided in the article to actually conclude anything. The article suggests the child's reaction was inappropriate but we just don't know.

The student "criminal code" is supposed to be supplemented with common sense, which apparently is lacking with the forceful adults in this situation.

Its a zero tolerance policy. I call them zero intelegence policies as they polices tend to be enforced with no common sense. We gad a case here in Colorado where a child was actually punished for doing exactly the right thing.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Yes, your conspiracy theory where you assume a combined effort by the education, health and legal authorities involved to silence an incident and with the help of the mainstream media.

What an effort! (not) Just don't bother to report on what the kid or family says happened. I'm guessing reporters who are pro-vaccine are going to be biased about the kid's reaction.

Not only that, it's rather surprising that even though they can hide the identity of the child in question, they can't quote the exact words that constituted a threat. How believable can they be?

The point is you have assumed that this was an abuse of power because it is conveniently aligned with your point of view. Furthermore you act as if it is the only possible description of events that were not reported.

"Act as if" - no I don't.

I only "act as if" they did a one-sided story to influence parents and children. News reporters are famous for facilitating social influence and biased reporting. Not once did it say "Reporters asked to speak with the child or parents on anonymous terms but the family refused to comment."

Nor did it say "Reporters asked to see the allegations and to quote the exact words construed against the child, but were denied access."

The child's side is silent. And that's all you need.

Again you assume, this time that the child was doing what they did for reasons which align with your point of view. You won't even consider the possibility that it was due to the far more banal reason of a dislike of needles, which seems far more likely. You won't even consider that the parents consented.

I have raised 12 year olds who for beauty's sake will put up with needles and braces. I know full well that if they thought vaccines worked they would not only roll up their sleeves and look the other way, they'd ask for them if we weren't giving them. I believe they have the right to consent or not by then.

I would never have forced braces or any other medical procedure at that age.

Sure they have :chuckle:
Nice dodge, but would your reaction have been otherwise SIMILAR?

Unless the child was not capable of informed consent, then yes.

When a child is either not conscious or capable of reasoning, then they shouldn't be charged as a criminal for what they couldn't help reacting to.

You seem to have a very distorted way of interpreting things as soon as vaccinations are involved.

Then you don't know me very well.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Depends on what the threat is. You can say no and say no forcefully. If the kid starts threatening to use a gun or knives or physical destruction of property they have crossed a line. The simple fact of the matter us that there is not enough information provided in the article to actually conclude anything. The article suggests the child's reaction was inappropriate but we just don't know.



Its a zero tolerance policy. I call them zero intelegence policies as they polices tend to be enforced with no common sense. We gad a case here in Colorado where a child was actually punished for doing exactly the right thing.

What we do know is they sent the parents and children of Ontario a warning. One might argue it was divorced from vaccines, but come on, kids that age could have been made an example out of over arguing gum chewing with the teacher. But they chose a vaccine-resister. It says something.

 

[CabinetMaker]

What we do know is they sent the parents and children of Ontario a warning. One might argue it was divorced from vaccines, but come on, kids that age could have been made an example out of over arguing gum chewing with the teacher. But they chose a vaccine-resister. It says something.

It says nothing. We do not have enough information to know if the kid was afraid if vaccines or had a phobia of needles.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Nah, I shouldn't have to guide other *supposed* adults to the correct usage of simple terms. :chuckle:

Neither should I. I can't believe you want to argue that only an encounter involving physical contact is using force. :nono:

I have no need to poison an already contaminated well.

You can't cap my well with that flimsy saran-wrap and anyone who tests my logic can see the truth for themselves. And your little PR announcement does nothing for your case.

(Is your argument that forced vaccination is wrong but never happens?)

Just seeking clarification as to why you are here.

It's called understanding the behavior of children and being able to figure out the most likely scenario as well as who has more credibility.

Replace the word "children" with other human descriptors and maybe you'll see your agism. Try women, minorities, etc.

As far as agism, until the day you give ALL children the same amount of responsibility and freedom, you, by your own description, are an age bigot.

Here's how dumb you sound, worded another way. Until the day you give all adults the same responsibility and freedom you are a bigot.

Some children are liars like some adults. Adults are not automatically good and right just because they are doctors, teachers or those who occupy any other station in humanity you might worship.

Be sure to let us know when an arrest of those you are accusing has been made.

Right, because every crime brings an arrest, especially if the crime was committed by school staff. :carryon:

One, I do not believe the bit about reading the CDC info that was relevant.

Here's an idea; post your list of links if you want to influence them.

Two, well :duh: No child wishes to have a shot. This surprises you?

Certainly! After seeing all my children with cavities sit there calmly and take their shots. Lots of "ow" with one girl but no saying "stop."

You were the one rambling on about how much you allow your children to have voices because you are not tyrants. So sorry if your own inconsistencies defeat your arguments (which never actually came together in the first place).

:dizzy: Right, if they can read, then they must drive. If they can refuse consent, they must what? Be at liberty to drink? Huh?

:chuckle: Now that's funny. How long did it take you to come up with this?

Translation: I dunno what to say... :help:

I'm gonna say it again so nobody misses it.

While you are saying that, you are selfishly and vainly trying to get "herd immunity" for your child, above the health risks to my child from your medical fanaticism.

I wouldn't know. My children never had access to a computer as children with the exception of school.

That either makes you ancient or an interesting kind of parent. :think:

As far as *contending* with her myself, it's entirely up to you as to whether you allow your children to participate in TOL. As for the users, they would not know without notification that it was a child, and she/he might be treated in the same manner as other members are on TOL.

Why do you think we want to keep her off TOL? She's a growing girl and doesn't need the stress you offer.

Personally, I would never have allowed my kids even as teens on this website because it's for adults. However, I have no doubt you will argue that your way is better. :chuckle:

Tell Nori you said that. Or Yorzhic (sp?)

Only my own ... years ago. And yes, I have read the material and the benefits far outweigh the minimal risks. Though again, as long as the non-vaccinated are segregated away from those vaccinated against the deadly diseases, not a problem.

Segregation. How far would you take that? Back to the Warsaw ghettos with our family, eh? Been there, done that, Rusha. Lost family members as a result. :sigh:

Only in your world would trusting the competency of those EDUCATED in medicine and diseases over the everyday mom/dad/caregiver be considered *bigotry*.

It is bigotry to assume if they are not school staff or hold a PhD in something they are ignorant, stupid hicks.

The family wasn't present.

How long did it take you to come up with that?

I guess the reporter forgot they could ask to speak with them. Whoops.

You are willing to selfishly sacrifice EVERYBODY'S kids by refusing vaccinations.

Because "EVERYBODY'S kids" are in grave danger of a kid who didn't get a shot? :dizzy: Laughable. If that's even true, they are in grave danger when they travel to and from school, and in grave danger from all the contagions that cannot be vaccinated away no matter what you believe.

There are millions of contagious strains! How do you miss that fact? :doh:

And stay home. I agree.

And if a third or half the school is already opting out of vaccines, who should stay home? Non-vaccinators tend to cluster; why not let them?

Oh, so you don't believe those who were exposed to the recent Ebola outbreaks should have been quarantined and thereby not given the same preferential treatment as those who were not exposed.

Huh? Exposed or sick people should be quarantined. That's not a forced vaccination. You want a forced ebola vaccination? How about we just put infrared cameras in like TX and send kids home who have a fever.

But I guess that's just too easy an answer.

:Wouldn't that be convenient if that were actually the case? :chuckle:

What evidence of a violent display do you have? Video footage? It is a school, after all; where's the fit? Are you going to call his words violence? That's as bad as redefining "force" to suit your agenda. :doh:

So you say, Peacecrusher.

It's not?

You don't judge anything without an actual judge to help you? Sheesh.

Not threatening to destroy school property during his tantrum ...

I agree it would have helped if he instead accused the staff trying to force him of "bad touch" or threat of "bad touch."

During the ensuing mayhem that act would have caused he could easily have gotten home with a request and away from their needles.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It says nothing. We do not have enough information to know if the kid was afraid if vaccines or had a phobia of needles.

Fear is fear. You don't assault and traumatize that kid away from his parents or trusted counselor. You bet he felt traumatized if he panicked so bad he was arrested.

It's a common sense kind of thing.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Fear is fear. You don't assault and traumatize that kid away from his parents or trusted counselor. You bet he felt traumatized if he panicked so bad he was arrested.

It's a common sense kind of thing.

So common sense says that this incident may have absolutely nothing to do with vaccine safety. I hope you see that.

 

[Rusha]

I'm gonna say it again so nobody misses it.

While you are saying that, you are selfishly and vainly trying to get "herd immunity" for your child, above the health risks to my child from your medical fanaticism.

:chuckle: Obviously you need the bells, lights, and big words to pretend you have a valid point to make.

Your intentional dishonesty does not hide the fact that I have been speaking about safety for ALL children which you haven't even bothered to address.

You have chosen to not vaccinate your children. I have stated in plain terms that I am fine without as long as they are secluded through your homeschooling as they have been.

OTOH, that isn't enough for you. You begrudge the fact that people do not wish to have your selfishness harm OTHER children.

There is a reason why most of these diseases have been controlled for years. There is also a reason we are reading about them coming back. It is because people like you are invested in being allowed to call the shots even when it means putting lives at danger.

 

[Rusha]

Fear is fear. You don't assault and traumatize that kid away from his parents or trusted counselor. You bet he felt traumatized if he panicked so bad he was arrested.

Why weren't the police notified of the attempted *assault*? There is no way parents would not call the police over an attempted assault.

It's a common sense kind of thing.

Any reference to a child's temper tantrum and threats of destruction as a *common sense response* is not based on rationality.

 

[Rusha]

Just a little reading material in regards to what would happen if people were to stop vaccinating.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

From the article:

A final example: what could happen.

We know that a disease that is apparently under control can suddenly return, because we have seen it happen, in countries like Japan, Australia, and Sweden. Here is an example from Japan. In 1974, about 80% of Japanese children were getting pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine. That year there were only 393 cases of whooping cough in the entire country, and not a single pertussis-related death. Then immunization rates began to drop, until only about 10% of children were being vaccinated. In 1979, more than 13,000 people got whooping cough and 41 died. When routine vaccination was resumed, the disease numbers dropped again.
The chances of your child getting a case of measles or chickenpox or whooping cough might be quite low today. But vaccinations are not just for protecting ourselves, and are not just for today. They also protect the people around us (some of whom may be unable to get certain vaccines, or might have failed to respond to a vaccine, or might be susceptible for other reasons). And they also protect our children’s children and their children by keeping diseases that we have almost defeated from making a comeback. What would happen if we stopped vaccinations? We could soon find ourselves battling epidemics of diseases we thought we had conquered decades ago.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Just a little reading material in regards to what would happen if people were to stop vaccinating.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

From the article:

A final example: what could happen.

We know that a disease that is apparently under control can suddenly return, because we have seen it happen, in countries like Japan, Australia, and Sweden. Here is an example from Japan. In 1974, about 80% of Japanese children were getting pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine. That year there were only 393 cases of whooping cough in the entire country, and not a single pertussis-related death. Then immunization rates began to drop, until only about 10% of children were being vaccinated. In 1979, more than 13,000 people got whooping cough and 41 died. When routine vaccination was resumed, the disease numbers dropped again.
The chances of your child getting a case of measles or chickenpox or whooping cough might be quite low today. But vaccinations are not just for protecting ourselves, and are not just for today. They also protect the people around us (some of whom may be unable to get certain vaccines, or might have failed to respond to a vaccine, or might be susceptible for other reasons). And they also protect our children’s children and their children by keeping diseases that we have almost defeated from making a comeback. What would happen if we stopped vaccinations? We could soon find ourselves battling epidemics of diseases we thought we had conquered decades ago.

And if you continue vaccinating, you will continue adding more and more vaccinations to your schedules.

There are millions of contagious, potentially lethal viral strains out there. More new ones appear all the time.

 

[fzappa13]

Pediatrician Michele Tamse said it can be scary during cold and flu season because at first it's hard to tell the difference between pertussis and the common cold.

"It can be as simple as the common cold initially, but if we start seeing any signs of vomiting or seizures and blueness to the face, then we have to keep that in mind," Tamse said.

She said the simplest way to combat pertussis is to get vaccinated.

School officials said of the 524 students at Monterey Park, 99.5 percent are vaccinated, including the four students who have been diagnosed.

http://www.ksbw.com/news/pertussis-outbreak-at-monterey-park-school/31881324

 

[fzappa13]

Over half of the 2,480 awards for vaccine injury and death totaling $2 billion dollars made under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act involve pertussis vaccine.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/July-2010/Whooping-Cough-Outbreaks-Vaccine-Failures.aspx

The CDC reports that in the United States, cases of whooping cough have increased approximately 10-fold in the last twenty years [1], despite an increase in infant vaccination rates from 61% getting at least three doses of the pertussis vaccine in 1991 to 96.2% getting at least three doses in 2008

http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=43