Forced Vaccination is Wrong
- Thread starter 1PeaceMaker
- Start date
1PeaceMaker
New member
You didn't get Gardasil 9 for your girls, you got the 4 strain Gardasil.
The 9 strains cover more than the sexually transmitted cervical-cancer-correlated viruses. In fact, supposedly most cancer-correlated infections are covered this way, even though there are actually dozens of HPV strains that have been identified so far.
1PeaceMaker
New member
:up:
1PeaceMaker
New member
http://www.rense.com/general83/ozc.htm
Is this forcing vaccination, or what?
Can't we all agree that this particular situation is a wrong use of force?
Is this forcing vaccination, or what?
Can't we all agree that this particular situation is a wrong use of force?
1PeaceMaker
New member
Do you see the difference between a healthy child and one needing a lifesaving pint of blood?
So you admit to a double standard where force is involved. Force is okay when it is used to enforce that which you value but is immoral when used to enforce that which you disagree with.
elohiym
Well-known member
No. She asked you two questions you didn't answer.
I was curious about her consistency on the use of force. It is not a consistent position that she holds. In short, the use of a court order to force a vaccination over the parents objections is no different than a court order to force a transfusion over the parents objections. Parents either have the right to manage their childrens health care in all situations or they do not.
1PeaceMaker
New member
The child was not in danger over the short delay to do research. The shots bring a danger, even if a small risk, that the parents could legally reject.
Do you want parents stripped of their legal rights without changing the laws that protect them? Will you just say it's okay when the State and medical powers break the law like this?
elohiym
Well-known member
Her position is consistent. Had you answered her questions you might have realized that.
One treatment is considered preventative and the other emergency; hence, the reason for 1PeaceMaker's question to you.
If they don't have the right to refuse elective, preventive treatments that have risks of serious complications and death, it's medical tyranny.
Tyrathca
New member
This article is an example of a child with a extremely rare and unusual immunodeficiency that even more unusually wasn't detected prior to the vaccine. It is not evidence of a significant problem with the vaccine.
I think the article itself says it best:
| The risk of such a serious adverse event must be balanced by the rarity of such an event and the overwhelming evidence supporting the efficacy of the vaccine in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with measles. It is significant that our patient was found to suffer from a profound deficiency of CD8 cells as well as dysgammaglobulinemia, which were not suspected clinically at the time of vaccination. Most significant primary immunodeficiency states in children will be detected before the age of MMR vaccination, and for such children live virus vaccines should be avoided. Clearly, a serious outcome such as occurred for this patient is an exceedingly rare event, and this report should not lead to changes in current immunization practices. |
O... K..... your counter example is another area where the evidence is strongly in favour of the current practice (pasteurisation) and a fringe group claiming it is evil....
FYI healthy cows and good hygiene only reduces the risk of contamination of milk, it does not completely sufficiently eliminate its risk given the enourmous number of potential points it can occur (and the great growth medium the milk is).
A few hundred among professions that collectively number in many millions. Meanwhile the remainder get on with publishing research about how best to apply vaccines, create policies within organisations and health departments and then go out and implement it.
You're like creationists saying that evolution isn't an established scientific theory. Perhaps we need a "Project Steve" for vaccinations too?
Vaccines make a up a quite small fraction of pharmaceutical companies income. Far too little to warrant a global conspiracy and manipulation on the scale you claim.
Are you referring to the Chicago Tylenol Murders? If so it doesn't sound like an example that has much to do with our topic or is that historically significant (other than leading to tamper-proof products).
But health departments and governments DO have a financial interest in it if your claims are true. Because if vaccines are as bad and useless as you claim then they are not only wasting money they are also causing costs as well. Surprisingly there are no developed nation health departments that I am aware of that share your concerns.
What on earth are you talking about? "Destroying religions"?
Yes we should protect children at risk of complications (i.e. those with known allergies or a particular immunodeficiency) and that is what is done.
And this is why our discussions on this topic always come back to whether vaccines are safe or not. Ultimately that is the root of our disagreement and the root of each of our positions on vaccine programs for children.
I propose we should protect children from your ideologically driven, ignorant, anti-science/medicine crusade and provide appropriate evidence based medical care including preventative therapies (such as, but not limited to, vaccines).
elohiym
Well-known member
There isn't overwhelming evidence of that nature. The MMR is an avoidably unsafe product, and it's risks cannot be divorced from it's alleged efficacy.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Exactly my point. :up:
I simply find it interesting that you oppose the use of force in some cases while supporting it in other cases.
1PeaceMaker
New member
I oppose force where it is illegal and immoral.
I think we can all think of force used in a legal and moral fashion.
It is consistent within her paradigm, it is not logically consistent.
Why does a person with strong religious convictions regarding certain health care procedures lose the right to live according to those convictions in an emergency situation?
There is a greater risk of death and injury by not being vaccinated than from the vaccination itself. If the state can force a transfusion as a life saving measure, why can't it also force a vaccination as life saving measure?
elohiym
Well-known member
You think an apple is an orange. We disagree.
They don't lose the right.
You keep saying that but never prove it. I have asked you to prove that several times. If you search threads we've been on, you might find that I've disproved that claim, or at least severely weakened it, several times. See my Measles Parties thread for example.
Vaccines are not a "life-saving measure."
1PeaceMaker
New member
Hmmm.... didn't detect it. Interesting. Like, what tests are used on children to ensure they don't fall into that category or one less severe but still serious enough to warrant caution?
What is your opinion of factory farming, conventional vegetable farming and dirty food being cleaned by high levels of radiation rather than making sure food production is clean in the first place?
Is this for the people's good?
I'm a dairy provider. Should my milk be pasteurized before my child gets it? Why or why not?
I've been making milk for over 14 years. Raw milk is not a good growth medium for pathogens. Never once have my children been poisoned by my healthy, raw milk.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/
Do you think the companies of the world are being honest and good for the people and planet? Do you think we can go on like we have without destroying the earth and the people on it?
Do you trust the ones drilling in your great barrier reef?
Not at all. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108843