Forced Vaccination is Wrong

[CabinetMaker]

You think an apple is an orange. We disagree.

You are a bit goofy sometimes.

They don't lose the right.

The link I posted shows that they did. 1PM agreed with using force in that situation to save a life.

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.

Trythica and others have already disproved your assertion in many of those threads. The graphs have been posted and links to research showing how vaccines have reduced the incidents of death and other side effects to nearly zero and you do not want to believe them. You have made up your mind and you are convinced that ALL doctors who recommend vaccinations are wrong and liars. If you do not accept peer reviewed research by medical professionals as proof, what would you accept?

Vaccines are not a "life-saving measure."

Yes, they are. That is why they were invented in the first place.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

1PM agreed with using force in that situation to save a life.

I don't have time for this now. You are stretching the meaning of my words a little too much, and later I may set aside some time to explain.

 

[Tyrathca]

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?

It seems they are normally detected from clinical signs not screening tests. It is likely that there is no effective screening test and the implementation of investigation would carry more harm from over-investigation than any benefit gained.

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?

Relevance?

I'm a dairy provider. Should my milk be pasteurized before my child gets it? Why or why not?

Yes however the risks are significantly lower than for anyone else being given the milk. The balance of probabilities is that your child wont become ill from it.

There is still some of the same potential for contamination, although he lack of mass storage, packaging and transport would diminish this somewhat. Critically there is less time from point of potential contamination to it being drunk as you are both supplier and consumer, ergo even if it gets contaminated it is less likely to be able to grow to sufficient quantities to cause disease.

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.

Milk is a great growth medium for some bacteria, your experience proves nothing to the contrary and is not surprising given what I have already said above. Even those who don't have your advantages of on site production and consumption are likely more likely than not to be fine, however an not insignificant minority will not.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/

I'm not sure what your point is with this article. It merely emphasizes my point - that pharmaceutical companies make money out of vaccines but it is a quite a small fraction of their total income and thus would not warrant them implementing worldwide corruption and bribery for it (they'd spend their efforts elsewhere).

To quote your article:

One estimate puts the vaccine market now at $24 billion—huge, but a mere 2 to 3 percent of a trillion-dollar worldwide pharmaceutical industry.

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?

No I trust companies to try and make a profit, which is why I don't trust them with healthcare implementation in general (see the universal healthcare thread) but with appropriate government regulation and oversight they can be useful for healthcare product design and production.

Not at all. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108843

This is an example of corporate cost cutting that is an issue of companies in general and inadequate oversight, regulation and consumer protections (which seems particularly an issue in the USA). This is more an example of an endemic problem with corporatism and weak government than it is to do with pharmaceutical companies specifically.

 

[Tyrathca]

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.

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."​

I like playing this game, so few of you actually read the actual article you quote further than A) the line you were told about or at best B) the abstract.

Authors' conclusions Implications for practice Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunisation aimed at global measles eradication and in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mumps and rubella. Implications for research The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre and post-marketing, need to be improved and standardised definitions of adverse events should be adopted. More evidence assessing whether the protective effect of MMR could wane with the time since immunisation should be addressed. Full text

The study found areas where our knowledge could be better and (particularly with rubella) where more research would be expected. However it does not say that the vaccines should not be used nor does it challenge the consensus (on the contrary it can clearly be seen here reinforcing the consensus). It is merely an example of science looking at itself and saying "hey, we can do this a better" not "OMG what are you doing!?!?! Stop! Stop now!"

 

[Lon]

I like playing this game, so few of you actually read the actual article you quote further than A) the line you were told about or at best B) the abstract.

Isn't Spring Break over? I'm a bit surprised a few of you are still thinking about vacations. You can't just keep stock-piling vacation time! Take your vacation and quit complaining "it was forced!" :doh:

P.S. If you are leaving the country, don't forget your shots!

Wait... what?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It seems they are normally detected from clinical signs not screening tests. It is likely that there is no effective screening test

That's a problem.

and the implementation of investigation would carry more harm from over-investigation than any benefit gained.

Then the PKU test is too invasive and expensive and so are vaccines.

Relevance?

Corporations aren't serving us, they are serving short term corporate profits. They shouldn't be allowed fascist powers to force us to buy their products. Forced insurance is at least physically non-invasive, even if you do get financially scalped. This is just proof that unchecked fascism is bad for your health.

Yes

The correct answer is no. That would destroy the immunoglobulin and other cancer fighting properties.

however the risks are significantly lower than for anyone else being given the milk. The balance of probabilities is that your child wont become ill from it.

Raw milk kills and immobilizes bacteria and viruses. It also fights cancer.

See the difference in instructions for pasteurized milk storage vs raw - whether human or cow, it does not keep once heated, because raw milk is actively, aggressively destroying bacteria, even in the gut of the baby. This is well known in breastfeeding and milk storage circles.

There is still some of the same potential for contamination, although he lack of mass storage, packaging and transport would diminish this somewhat.

Sick cows or goats make sick milk. Pasteurization doesn't get rid of toxins made by killed bacteria nor does it help when you destroy delicate milk proteins, transforming them into unnatural, deformed, lifeless shapes.

Protective enzymes and immune factors requiring vital nutrients can't work without proper nutrition. The solution is ample vitamin A, D, and the vital minerals involved in milk production and health.

Critically there is less time from point of potential contamination to it being drunk as you are both supplier and consumer, ergo even if it gets contaminated it is less likely to be able to grow to sufficient quantities to cause disease.

Get educated. I've read the books on it. Live milk fights back and destroys bacteria.

Milk is a great growth medium for some bacteria, your experience proves nothing to the contrary and is not surprising given what I have already said above.

The conditions that cause contamination never need to take place. Not on a small or large scale. Healthy cows eating fresh grass don't need to live on drugs and pass contaminated milk that must be cooked. Proper sanitation is not replaceable.

Even those who don't have your advantages of on site production and consumption are likely more likely than not to be fine, however an not insignificant minority will not.

Evidence? Why is raw milk outlawed? Is it for the people or the filthy milk counsel?

I'm not sure what your point is with this article. It merely emphasizes my point - that pharmaceutical companies make money out of vaccines but it is a quite a small fraction of their total income and thus would not warrant them implementing worldwide corruption and bribery for it (they'd spend their efforts elsewhere).

To quote your article:

One estimate puts the vaccine market now at $24 billion—huge, but a mere 2 to 3 percent of a trillion-dollar worldwide pharmaceutical industry.

That's plenty. These companies have every incentive to keep business rolling, as do their paid commercial scientists.

No I trust companies to try and make a profit, which is why I don't trust them with healthcare implementation in general (see the universal healthcare thread) but with appropriate government regulation and oversight they can be useful for healthcare product design and production.

You mean, like VIOX?

This is an example of corporate cost cutting that is an issue of companies in general and inadequate oversight, regulation and consumer protections (which seems particularly an issue in the USA). This is more an example of an endemic problem with corporatism and weak government than it is to do with pharmaceutical companies specifically.

I'm not singling them out, but it's wrong to force me to give them business when they are in general untrustworthy and fallible. People get hurt by the millions when big Pharma gets a giant product line wrong.

 

[fzappa13]

Milk is a great growth medium for some bacteria, ...

:darwinsm:

So are humans. Maybe we should all be pasteurized involuntarily so we don't present a danger to each other.

 

[Tyrathca]

That's a problem.

That's reality, if we needed a screening test for everything before we acted then A) we'd be constantly being screened and B) we'd never be able to act.

Then the PKU test is too invasive and expensive and so are vaccines.

I'm not sure how you jumped to this conclusion from what I said.

Corporations aren't serving us, they are serving short term corporate profits. They shouldn't be allowed fascist powers to force us to buy their products.

I agree, that is why we rely on health departments and health officials to determine which vaccines are warranted and in what regimes. The corporations themselves aren't allowed to force anyone anywhere to take their products as far as I am aware, and for good reason.

The correct answer is no. That would destroy the immunoglobulin and other cancer fighting properties.

Actually a significant proportion of immunoglobulins survive typical pasteurisation (unless they are using UHT) not that I've found much evidence of the cancer fighting properties of bovine milk immunoglobulins in humans.

Sick cows or goats make sick milk. Pasteurization doesn't get rid of toxins made by killed bacteria nor does it help when you destroy delicate milk proteins, transforming them into unnatural, deformed, lifeless shapes.

Please don't form the habit of assuming natural = healthy

Evidence? Why is raw milk outlawed? Is it for the people or the filthy milk counsel?

It is for the people, are you trying to claim ANOTHER world wide super-conspiracy within governments and health departments?

That's plenty. These companies have every incentive to keep business rolling, as do their paid commercial scientists.

If that's all it takes to get an industry to maintain worldwide corruption of such a consistent and well hidden nature then why not be done with governments and hand of control to the corporations now? We've clearly lost if a mere $24 billion industry comprising only a tiny percentage of multi-national company profits is still able to completely control ALL the worlds health departments and major relevant research institutes.

You mean, like VIOX?



I'm not singling them out, but it's wrong to force me to give them business when they are in general untrustworthy and fallible. People get hurt by the millions when big Pharma gets a giant product line wrong.

SOoooo... we should get rid of all medicine everywhere then?

 

[Ha Nazir]

Do vaccines cause autism? Highly informative video narrated by Rob Schneider (5 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv_IaLHwgAQ

 

[1PeaceMaker]

That's reality, if we needed a screening test for everything before we acted then A) we'd be constantly being screened

For any coerced, mass medication program it's inexcusable to force it without proper screening. It would still be a horrible idea to crush liberty, though, and wouldn't fix the ethics problem of force. It also wouldn't eliminate the problems in quality that can harm children.

and B) we'd never be able to act.

And yet we have millions of viral contagions and the call is going out to scoop more into vaccination schedules.

I'm not sure how you jumped to this conclusion from what I said.

PKU is a screening test that is painfully traumatic for little newborn babies - invasive - and for a vanishingly rare genetic condition.

I agree, that is why we rely on health departments and health officials to determine which vaccines are warranted and in what regimes. The corporations themselves ....

Can buy politicians and legislation. And exert undue influence.

Actually a significant proportion of immunoglobulins survive typical pasteurisation (unless they are using UHT) not that I've found much evidence of the cancer fighting properties of bovine milk immunoglobulins in humans.

And just because some elements survive doesn't mean the therapeutic properties haven't been largely denatured. Don't expect cooked milk to work as well, in other words. It can even exaggerate inflammation, unlike raw milk.

Problems include beta-lactose (causes insulin disruption) and denatured calcium that is less absorbable.

Here's another "biased" article by a doctor who must know less than you about milk and nutrition http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/03/26/pasteurized-milk-part-one.aspx

As a lactivist who has breastfed my seven children and milked my own animals I'm well aware that killed milk is bad news. Do that to human breastmilk and you lose numerous health advantages from breastfeeding.

Some women have no choice, but that doesn't mean they like the option, as it concerns their baby. And the breastmilk becomes risky and rapidly perishable and a dangerous culture for bacteria, compared to raw breastmilk bottles.

Please don't form the habit of assuming natural = healthy

Just because I've studied health and nutrition since I was a geeky teenager doesn't mean I confuse those ideas with "natural." Although it is striking how many unnatural things are harmful and how often eating food more naturally results in better health.

Do you feel safe about eating irradiated food?

It is for the people

So you don't believe the factory farmers are protecting their business model? I see. Do you think factory farm milk is good for you? Don't you think they have an interest in killing their competition?

....are you trying to claim ANOTHER world wide super-conspiracy within governments and health departments?

Dude, are you going to tell me that private company board meetings that concern how to increase profits in the short term are things of myth? How do you think Tylenol purposefully kept selling dirty infant liquid Tylenol to our families for over a year? What else might they be hiding? Am I really so crazy for being suspicious?

If that's all it takes to get an industry to maintain worldwide corruption of such a consistent and well hidden...

Whoa, stop right there, partner.

Well hidden? Ha! They do it in front of our faces with a minimum of lying.

....then why not be done with governments and hand of control to the corporations now?

We are already in that brave new world. Corporations are now more powerful and wealthy than the governments that serve them. People aren't too big to fail, that's for the corporations.

We've clearly lost if a mere $24 billion industry comprising only a tiny percentage of multi-national company profits is still able to completely control ALL the worlds health departments and major relevant research institutes.
SOoooo... we should get rid of all medicine everywhere then?

No, because medicine can just sit there and rot of disuse when not needed --- unless we let them force us around. Let us call the shots on our own health individually - and we can all get along.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Do you feel safe about eating irradiated food?

Yes.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Yes.

Why?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Creepy avatar, but kinda funny, too, CM. (another Doctor Who fan, here :wave

It's, like, BOOO! Cabinet Maker is here... didn't see him move, did ya? :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why?

Because irradiated does not mean radioactive. Food is irradiated for a number of reasons, is accepted world wide and is vital for preserving food freshness between farm and market. Most of the citizens of the world cannot produce their own food on their own property.

Food irradiation is the process of exposing foodstuffs to a source of energy capable of stripping electrons from individual atoms (ionizing radiation).[1] This treatment is used to preserve food, reduce the risk of food borne illness, prevent the spread of invasive pests, and delay or eliminate sprouting or ripening. The radiation can be emitted by a radioactive substance or generated electrically. Irradiated food does not become radioactive. Food irradiation is permitted by over 60 countries, with about 500,000 metric tons of foodstuffs annually processed worldwide.[2] Irradiation is also used for non-food applications, such as medical devices.[3]

 

[CabinetMaker]

Creepy avatar, but kinda funny, too, CM. (another Doctor Who fan, here :wave

It's, like, BOOO! Cabinet Maker is here... didn't see him move, did ya? :chuckle:

I have to agree with you. Its a bit creepy but I like it for now.

 

[Ha Nazir]

Yes.

Would you let your children (assuming) consume mercury? How much mercury would you let them consume? How much mercury are those assumed children receiving by way of vaccines already without out your knowledge?

You owe it to your grand-children to educate yourself about this matter.

add: this is not personal, this post is for all of us.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Would you let your children (assuming) consume mercury? How much mercury would you let them consume? How much mercury are those assumed children receiving by way of vaccines already without out your knowledge?

You owe it to your grand-children to educate yourself about this matter.

This is a scare tacktic used by many in the anti-vacc crowed to spread fear and mistrust. Straight up mercury is not used in vaccines.

Start your education here.

Thimerosal as a Preservative Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see "Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials" and "Thimerosal Toxicity", below). At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.

 

[Ha Nazir]

This is a scare tacktic used by many in the anti-vacc crowed to spread fear and mistrust. Straight up mercury is not used in vaccines.

Start your education here.

Thimerosal as a Preservative Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see "Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials" and "Thimerosal Toxicity", below). At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.

yeah I know that it's in the preservative. Do what ever you like....

 

[CabinetMaker]

yeah I know that it's in the preservative. Do what ever you like....

Do you honestly think you are bringing a new point of view to this very old debate? The link shows that mercury concerns have been around for a long time and have been researched and found to be safe. You are actually at greater risk of mercury poisoning from eating sashimi (raw fish) than you are from getting a vaccination.

 

[Ha Nazir]

Do you honestly think you are bringing a new point of view to this very old debate? The link shows that mercury concerns have been around for a long time and have been researched and found to be safe. You are actually at greater risk of mercury poisoning from eating sashimi (raw fish) than you are from getting a vaccination.

I said this is not personal. I also said do what you like.

Drag out all the stawmen you can build. I know this is not new, I eat nothing raw except vegetables (I eat mostly vegetables). If you want to believe the government story and ingest mercury, knock yourself out dude, it's a free country. Well, it was until they started to force people to do things like this.