Forced Vaccination is Wrong

[1PeaceMaker]

California was delayed from implementing compulsory vaccination by about a week:

After more than three hours of testimony, supporters postponed a vote until next week so authors could work on revisions to address concerns raised in the Senate Education Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...lawmakers-face-second-round-in-vaccine-debate

 

[fzappa13]

If it starts anywhere it will surely be California.

 

[fzappa13]

A little off topic but ... here's one for the funny guy:

http://enenews.com/emergency-closur...series-alarming-die-offs-along-west-coast-mas

 

[1PeaceMaker]

A little off topic but ... here's one for the funny guy:

http://enenews.com/emergency-closur...series-alarming-die-offs-along-west-coast-mas

The era of marine mammals draws to a close.

 

[fzappa13]

The era of marine mammals draws to a close.

Kinda gives you a little better understanding of passages like Rev 11: 18.

 

[Tyrathca]

The test is a bit of a joke these days, sadly. It needs an overhaul. (at least as it's seen done in the USA) Screening needs to keep genetic information private and secure while being more comprehensive and less invasive, all possible with the right motivation. But since money is typically the first thing to motivate, we'll have to wait for a generous brain of a person or philanthropist to start a "methuselah project" type race to the solution to our inadequacies. If we are serious about saving lives, that is.

First of all the test isn't a genetic test, perhaps you are referring to many places keeping the samples and doing genetic tests on it later for research? As for a less invasive test, unless someone figures out how to test via saliva this probably is the least invasive we will have for a long time. Besides it is barely invasive at all, it is just a heel prick really (they're not as horrifying as you make out) and if there were an easy new way to take blood someone would have thought of it by now I think.

Good. Ever heard of a nocebo? http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150210-can-you-think-yourself-to-death

Yes, however I think the impact of placebo and nocebo, as it is understood by the public, is overblown. Despite scattered stories and urban legends nocebo/placebo seems to be generally benign with most affects occurring for subjective symptoms such as pain, nausea/vomiting, other sensations etc. It's affects are not such that it should be a major determinant of therapy and is not seemingly a risk of significant harm in and of itself. Instead it seems to be somehting that doctors and other health professionals should be aware of when communicating with patients lest they increase their chances of relatively minor (though distressing) adverse affects.

Not smart to frighten and threaten families with shots they believe can harm them. If that doesn't do harm then their reaction to society because of it is a social threat to collective moral and well-being.

Remember we are talking about vaccinating children not their parents. The children aren't worrying about all the things you are, the children are worrying about the nasty pointy needle!

Do you remember the post where I showed you that it was not just Hannah Polling?

I was referring to the examples of encephalitis secondary to vaccine virus infection in those with primary immune deficiency not the unmasking of underlying mitochondrial disorders.

That's nice, but how would commercial science be motivated to do this? They plan to multiply business and don't need any barriers to that goal. (notice how we also see that globally, gas efficiency is hampered by the oil industry - which in turn influences the auto industry)

Commercial science isn't always motivated to research what we would like. That is why we have government, university and charity funded research too.

Try to not get impatient with me. I've been glad to communicate with you. I need to know what reasons the other side has to offer and you need to know what my side of the picture has to offer. Again, Hannah Polling is far from alone.

Hannah Polling is not an example of PID.

We don't know that. Reconsider for a moment that for us to know that we'd have to screen and follow up on a large and diverse population.

We know much about immunity and how it functions, certain aspects of immunity are required to fight certain organisms, if you impair a function which doesn't factor into elimination of viruses for example (and doesn't appear to have increased rates of viral infections) then one would reasonably assume that vaccine viruses would be equally unaffected.

Says who with what data?

The clinicians who generally diagnose these conditions after identifying them having unreasonably frequent infections by organisms in the community and environment. I can try a find the review articles I found on these conditions and how they are generally first suspected and present in the community.

Agreed, but that simply means they should avoid infection, a good idea for all people, since all people could get PID under the right circumstances. Otherwise, we should have screening to protect all people from the disorder so that they can take risks that can only be partially addressed (if one argues vaccines work) vs preventing exposure to infections and doing remedial work on the health to correct the underlying issues.

Umm no, first of all avoiding infections is a good idea but not practical to rely on completely if one wants interact with society at all (since many diseases spread before symptoms occur making quarantine measures ineffective in all but a draconian state). Second of all PID is something you are generally born with, although ys people can acquire immune deficiencies for other reasons (but these wouldn't be PID by definition) and most of those with acquired immunodeficiency are either due to haematological malignancies (blood/marrow cancers), chemotherapy, HIV, or losing their spleen. Overall I don't think these are very relevant to issues with vaccines.

Actually, there are treatments that are safe with no side effects, but all the FDA's drugs are dangerous or at least risky.

"Said the man holding the snake oil...", treatments without side affects are almost non-existent. Even treatment with food and essential nutrients will have risks of side affects though low and generally mild.

Anyone who tells you their treatment has no side affects should be treated with great skepticism, most likely they are either lying or ignorant.

Just because something has risk doesn't mean it's not safe, since EVERYTHING has risk even getting out of bed in the morning (or NOT getting out of bed for that matter too!). What matters is the magnitude of the risk and also the risk relative to other options. Some medications are very very low risk (but almost never none) so are considered safe, some are very high risk but compared with the alternative (i.e. leaving an aggressive malignancy to grow vs chemotherapy) are worth it to being relatively less risky.

But the act does no harm. Infecting a child and breaking their skin is an arguable harm to all children, especially since you can't eliminate the risk, no matter how mild the harm may be considered, whereas a food product that is non-toxic and non-allergenic to the child is essential for life and is not inherently harmful in any way. So the food isn't first harming to help, which is what the writer intended. He was talking about stuff like bleeding patients or using toxic medicines.

Ah but aren't all foods potentially harmful and allergenic? That child who has been eating peanuts, eggs, milk, soy, wheat, etc etc happily might tomorrow start to react horribly with anaphylaxis (which can be quickly lethal). The risk is extremely small that a reaction of such lethal severity would appear without prior less immediately lethal episodes occuring but it can and does happen.

Then there is the simple risk of babies breastfeeding, aspirating, getting a pneumonitis +/- subsequent pneumonia leading to respiratory failure. Again vanishingly small risk (like really REALLY small risk) but a real one.

Most things can be harmful in certain circumstances, putting the qualifier "inherently" is subjective and irrelevant regardless. You are chasing a phantasm of the possibility of "risk free", you've been lied to that this is something that is even possible.

Do you deny the influence of the USA or the fact that the same corporations feeding off us flourish with you? Can you find me other agencies that are satisfactory concerning corruptibleness?

Yes the USA has an influence but enough to help a global corruption of all health departments without exception and without obvious scandal or direct bribery? A relatively small industry of only some $20-30 billion can achieve this and the music and film industries can't get governments to regulate the internet in their favor? Or automobile companies to stop public transport spending or bicycle paths? The pharmaceutical companies themselves can't get rid of the pesky regulations like clinical trials and limits on advertising claims like the complimentary medicines/herbal remedies industry?

It's a conspiracy that is too perfect, too large and for too little gain/money. It's also not seemingly replicated where one would expect. If controlling government were that easy then we'd far more screwed than we already are!

 

[1PeaceMaker]

First of all the test isn't a genetic test, perhaps you are referring to many places keeping the samples and doing genetic tests on it later for research? As for a less invasive test, unless someone figures out how to test via saliva this probably is the least invasive we will have for a long time. Besides it is barely invasive at all, it is just a heel prick really (they're not as horrifying as you make out) and if there were an easy new way to take blood someone would have thought of it by now I think.

Blood holds genetic information. That should be kept private unless permission is given that overrides. I'm sure they could do it on one drop of blood. 5 one inch circles... I've seen it done and you are either lying to yourself or us. Nobody likes to watch it done or do it. (unless they are strange)

Yes, however I think the impact of placebo and nocebo, as it is understood by the public, is overblown.

Wrong again. And you represent public opinion just fine. That is, you represent people who think like you in the public.

The nocebo effect might even be powerful enough to kill. In one case study, researchers noted an individual who attempted to commit suicide by swallowing 26 pills. Although they were merely placebo tablets without a biological mechanism to harm the patient even at such a high dose, he experienced dangerously low blood pressure and required injections of fluids to be stabilized, based solely on the belief that the overdose of tablets would be deadly. After it was revealed that they were sugar pills, the symptoms went away quickly.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-nocebo-effect-5451823/#l6ippXbXm6cfeIl1.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Remember we are talking about vaccinating children not their parents. The children aren't worrying about all the things you are, the children are worrying about the nasty pointy needle!

You are wrong, also, about children, generally speaking. My children would surely be at risk from nocebo, since they've heard their parents discussing the dangers of vaccines and have been coached on how to resist vaccination with all means at their disposal.

I was referring to the examples of encephalitis secondary to vaccine virus infection in those with primary immune deficiency not the unmasking of underlying mitochondrial disorders.

But that is yet another thing that must be screened for - else we are talking needless risks again.

Commercial science isn't always motivated to research what we would like. That is why we have government, university and charity funded research too.

Private researchers, when they clash with commercial researchers, get bought out. Or they don't. And sometimes it's plato o plomo.

Hannah Polling is not an example of PID.

And she's far from alone. Surely you didn't mean to forget those kinds of risks? I was including mitochondrial problems in my discussions on screening, just as the PKU test is for more than a single risk.

We know much about immunity and how it functions, certain aspects of immunity are required to fight certain organisms, if you impair a function which doesn't factor into elimination of viruses for example (and doesn't appear to have increased rates of viral infections) then one would reasonably assume that vaccine viruses would be equally unaffected.

That has no bearing on the # of undetected cases.

The clinicians who generally diagnose these conditions after identifying them having unreasonably frequent infections by organisms in the community and environment. I can try a find the review articles I found on these conditions and how they are generally first suspected and present in the community.

No need. The facts are, it's usually diagnosed well after the vaccine schedule is underway.

According to the Immune Deficiency Foundation, it takes an average of nine years between the onset of symptoms to the diagnosis. Fifty percent of patients will be 18 years old or older, and 37 percent of patients will have permanent damage to their bodies by the time they are diagnosed. Early diagnosis and treatment leads to better outcomes, so it is important to recognize the signs of PIDD sooner rather than later.

http://www.silive.com/healthfit/ind...d_with_primary_immune_deficiency_disease.html

Umm no, first of all avoiding infections is a good idea but not practical to rely on completely if one wants interact with society at all (since many diseases spread before symptoms occur making quarantine measures ineffective in all but a draconian state).

You think quarantine is more draconian than vaccination? Silly boy. And you seen to have ignored the fact that it worked with containing Ebola in the USA.

Besides, I've used the method, as a non-vaccinating parent, and it works. We don't get the whole town sick for every sniffle. If we came into contact with a person suffering from measles or anything else like that we would self quarantine to ensure no spreading until passing the prodromal period.

Hey, peeps put up with jury duty... It's our civic duty to keep our society healthy. More so than jury duty or voting. Or paying taxes.

Second of all PID is something you are generally born with, although ys people can acquire immune deficiencies for other reasons (but these wouldn't be PID by definition) and most of those with acquired immunodeficiency are either due to haematological malignancies (blood/marrow cancers), chemotherapy, HIV, or losing their spleen. Overall I don't think these are very relevant to issues with vaccines.

You just ignored all the children with risky medical histories. Like having parents with autoimmune disorders. Or having autoimmune disorders themselves. That's clearly a risk factor.

"Said the man holding the snake oil...",

Be reasonable.

What is the side effect of rehydration therapy? Is it death? No. Dehydration is not only inherently risky, it's 100% fatal.

And while there are ways to administer hydration in harmful fashion, you would have to be extreme and intentional about it.

Life has a bi-phasic dosage to it, one could say.

We are talking about the risks inherent in properly proscribed and taken treatments.

treatments without side affects are almost non-existent.

So side effects should not be forced.

Anyone who tells you their treatment has no side affects should be treated with great skepticism, most likely they are either lying or ignorant.

My treatment for measles exposure is without side effects. Just stay home for observation, eat well and be sure to stay as stress free as possible. No risks; no exposing others to risk.

Just because something has risk doesn't mean it's not safe, since EVERYTHING has risk even getting out of bed in the morning (or NOT getting out of bed for that matter too!). What matters is the magnitude of the risk and also the risk relative to other options. Some medications are very very low risk (but almost never none) so are considered safe, some are very high risk but compared with the alternative (i.e. leaving an aggressive malignancy to grow vs chemotherapy) are worth it to being relatively less risky.

That worth depends on the individual. Extreme suffering and chemo-brain isn't worth it, to me.

Ah but aren't all foods potentially harmful and allergenic?

There are over 40 hypoallergenic foods. Some have to live on them.

Then there is the simple risk of babies breastfeeding, aspirating, getting a pneumonitis +/- subsequent pneumonia leading to respiratory failure. Again vanishingly small risk (like really REALLY small risk) but a real one.

This is nothing like drugs, and no, you don't get infection from aspirating breastmilk normally, because it is antimicrobial in fresh, raw form.

Most things can be harmful in certain circumstances, putting the qualifier "inherently" is subjective and irrelevant regardless.

You are comparing toxic medicines that kill when properly proscribed and taken to choking on breastmilk. It's a stretch, man.

You are chasing a phantasm of the possibility of "risk free", you've been lied to that this is something that is even possible.

No, I'm a person with vaccine damaged loved ones, who has also lost other loved ones to different types of drugs/surgery.

Yes the USA has an influence but enough to help a global corruption of all health departments without exception and without obvious scandal or direct bribery? A relatively small industry of only some $20-30 billion can achieve this and the music and film industries can't get governments to regulate the internet in their favor? Or automobile companies to stop public transport spending or bicycle paths? The pharmaceutical companies themselves can't get rid of the pesky regulations like clinical trials and limits on advertising claims like the complimentary medicines/herbal remedies industry?

Um you are overlooking some biggies. One, the stockholders in those big companies own more than just that stock. They have influence aplenty and the OPEN plan is to make way more money with vaccines. Second, I never said the USA had all the cards. The USA is actually just the most visible host of the parasite causing corruption through commerce.

It's a conspiracy that is too perfect, too large and for too little gain/money.

It's not perfect. At all. It's pretty shoddy and plain and open and public. And has plenty of biased supporters who want to believe in it. Your institutionalized pals are suffering a huge case of confirmation bias. You expected that vaccines would save the world, so when diseases fell, naturally, you gave the glory to vaccines.

It's also not seemingly replicated where one would expect. If controlling government were that easy then we'd far more screwed than we already are!

Find me a single nation that isn't controlled by money. Maybe we can start there.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

This deserves no response and will receive non. If you honestly think that a medical test and bad parent poking their kid for fun are even remotely synonymous then there is no point to this conversation.

Says the ardent believer.

I did finally realize though, that you could be clueless ( and so could Ty) about the suffering of babies because most babies are in a drug haze at birth. My babies are all drug free at birth and feel everything. So how mine react to a heel poke is not necessarily the same as what Ty saw/sees.

To primitive. Primitive compared to what? Again, you cannot lob out these unsupported assertions and expect people to reasonably accept them as factual.

Primitive to the near-ish future like the earliest smallpox inventor's therapy was hundreds of years ago. Which is referred by provaccers today as dangerous, dirty, primitive, etc.

Its not that far a jump from where I'm sitting. Do you prefer homeopathics or a GP?

I support evidence-based medicine. Just that.

Nope, you still to get it. Can't see past your own front yard.

Oh, I get it. Quarantine works in any country. It worked on Ebola. It's God's way, to boot.

Life is not without risk. Its all about risk management. You are extremely risk averse so your kids play with on line friends.

You are less risk averse so your kids could pass a fatal disease to another kid. Vaccines (even if you believe they work) fail and millions of strains don't come in a needle, anyway. Your kids roll in the ball pit and can get MRSA. My kids don't. It's that simple. My kids don't go around catching everything and passing it on. It's a good, clean, wholesome lifestyle. And they do play with friends, just not with sick friends or when they might pass something along.

I am less risk averse so my kids ride horses.

My brain damaged (horse kick induced) childhood friend I tutored at her home - she rides 'em. One nearly crushed her dad to death (many broken ribs). My aunt broke her back on one. Beautiful, dangerous animals; fun to ride. Not fun to fall.

So you live dangerously and embrace it. That's fine with me. As long as you don't force me to share in your risks. :thumb:

We have been known to eat lunch after grooming our horses, including picking their feet, without first washing our hands.

Yummy..... And do you wash your hands before using the bathroom...? After, too? I'm asking about public bathrooms in particular.

It is amazing how few colds we have had over the last 5 years. Live dirty! Its healthier!

Why didn't God say that? (outta time 4 now will be back)

 

[fzappa13]

Sweet dreams Cab ...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-dama...u-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Your equivocating. It does not matter how tiny the sample is, in order to draw blood you must break the skin.

Knee and elbow skin is virtually painless. Experiment and see for yourself. My concern is needless (not needful) suffering and blood loss.

If you poke a knee you might prick a growth plate causing bones to grow improperly.

For a prick that need not go below skin? Evidence?

Do you want to risk that?

Nope, not if I can use hair, urine, skin scrape or cheek swab.

So tell us, how are you going to painlessly break a babies skin to draw blood?

Again, using a tiny spot like a mosquito. Do the math. 1 tiny drop vs many times more to fill 5 one-inch circles. Not even my babies would cry for that.

I am not following your exchange with Ty.

You don't know what you are missing.

(I'm not being glib. I have observed how well Americans travel to foreign countries and exactly how week our immune systems are compared to someplace like Mexico. Get your immune system out and use it. That is what makes is strong enough so that your kids don't have to have on-line friends.)

God brings our challenges. And we embrace it when it comes. We don't run for Tylenol when a fever is 103. There is no danger in it and our bodies can use the spontaneous hyperthermic therapy. I've been to SA myself. There are a lot of persistent parasitic infections down there. Parasites manipulate the immune system to protect themselves. Chrone's disease can be put into remission with worms.

That doesn't mean I want wellness through worms, no offense.

You buy into all this stuff, don't you. Did you even research what it takes to actually form cyanogen chloride in a public pool?

..... “coma, convulsions and death”:

Seriously, you thought my concern was "coma, convulsions and death?" LOL

Actually I was thinking of lung and skin cancer, in particular. That chemical is a risk for the thing you'd try to vaccinate away. http://news.discovery.com/human/health/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.htm

Flu vaccines.

More thinking from the magic kingdom? :think: Those are the worst vaccines that hardly can be called protection for anybody. You'd never control or stop it that way. I don't consider -15% "protection" to be good at all.

Not perfect, of course, but helpful. Actually, our doctors say we don't need flu vaccines because of our lifestyle, we're a pretty healthy lot.

Way to blow my mind. Granny at church? You gonna stay away from her? Your rational is hard to follow...

In any case, yes, we know that we could die from exposure to some exotic bug. Our choice is to hole up in the house or to go out and live. Guess which path we chose.

Too bad you only see those two options. There is a more balanced way to think of it. You can avoid infectious people or if suspected of being infected, then spare the weak around you until your uncertainty is passed.

Again, there is a difference between receiving the measles vaccine and catching the measles. I am truly sorry that you cannot grasp that concept.

I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality of what is in that needle. It's baptism-by-egg won't stop it from de-attenuating if given a chance.

How do I know? I don't. My daughters are not sexually active so I am not over concerned about HPV. They know about it and are aware of the risks. As the grow up and leave the house they will make their choices accordingly. In a broader sense, we don't worry about infectious disease much. Matthew 6:27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

Life is short. It messy and dangerous, grossly unfair and is not for the faint of heart. It comes with but a few promises, requires lots of hard work and much sacrifice. It is also wonderful and joyful and beautiful. I don't worry about diseases. We take reasonable precautions but we go out, jump down into the trenches and live and laugh and love.

Interesting mantra for a vaccinator.

 

[Tyrathca]

Blood holds genetic information. That should be kept private unless permission is given that overrides. I'm sure they could do it on one drop of blood. 5 one inch circles...

Yes but while the PKU test uses blood it is not itself a genetic test, however genetic tests can be performed on the blood too obviously. I believe the issue you are referring to is that of several US states and some countries keeping the blood samples in storage and later using them in population genetic research. This was all done apparently without the knowledge or consent of parents, it raises questions for medical research ethics but is irrelevant to what we are talking about.

I've seen it done and you are either lying to yourself or us. Nobody likes to watch it done or do it. (unless they are strange)

Who said they liked seeing it done? But neither is it as bad as you make out, you are citing a very personal emotive reaction as if it is suggestive of something more than your personal reaction.

Wrong again. And you represent public opinion just fine. That is, you represent people who think like you in the public.

The nocebo effect might even be powerful enough to kill. In one case study, researchers noted an individual who attempted to commit suicide by swallowing 26 pills. Although they were merely placebo tablets without a biological mechanism to harm the patient even at such a high dose, he experienced dangerously low blood pressure and required injections of fluids to be stabilized, based solely on the belief that the overdose of tablets would be deadly. After it was revealed that they were sugar pills, the symptoms went away quickly.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...XbXm6cfeIl1.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

That is a single case report of psychiatric patient in an extreme state of stress where he tried to take his life and then thought he might be successful, it is a big reach to extrapolate this to the wider population. Second of all it is the only report of such a "reaction" to a placebo drug, in the review article also cited in the page you linked it showed what other research was available and it all matched what I said - single case reports should be interpreted with caution. Third the patients blood pressure at worst was 80/40 with a heart rate of 110 and remained conscious (I got past the pay wall) - while low and would generally trigger empirical treatment with fluids it is not life threatening nor did it cause any harm to him. Fourth it was not possible to exclude all other potential simultaneous causes of his hypotension, thus again reinforcing that why interpretations of single case reports should be done with caution.

Ultimately it looks likely that the hypotension was due to his psychological/psychiatric response to taking pills he believed would be lethal. He seemed to have an extreme emotional stress related response, hypotension is a known response to this in some instances.


In the end you are extrapolating WAAAAY to far, this case report is while interesting still not going to affect management of depression or studies with placebos. Carrying it over to children getting vaccinations is a big leap. Furthermore the significance and severity of the case report has been overblown by those reporting about it.

But that is yet another thing that must be screened for - else we are talking needless risks again.

Is your position that unless all risks can be eliminated then a preventative health measure should not be enacted? Even if the health measures risks reduce the risk of harm from other sources more than its own risks?

That has no bearing on the # of undetected cases.

It is reasonable to expect that the undetected cases don't significantly deviate in their characteristics from the detected cases in any way other than aspects that would affect their detection rate.

Suggesting that they are otherwise different, for no theoretical reason, is just wild speculation on your part.

No need. The facts are, it's usually diagnosed well after the vaccine schedule is underway.

http://www.silive.com/healthfit/ind...d_with_primary_immune_deficiency_disease.html

While that wasn't quite what I was referring to your reference matches what I have read about the time it takes to diagnose these types of conditions. It also highlights why screening tests would be so good and are likely considerably more important than even your inflated estimates of risk from vaccines. Some screening tests seem to be being trialed for some variants it seems.


By the way did you know that in some PID types vaccines are actually an important part of their management? By denying them vaccines until we can screen and detect them all you are doing them a disservice.

You think quarantine is more draconian than vaccination? Silly boy. And you seen to have ignored the fact that it worked with containing Ebola in the USA.

No I think that for some diseases quarantine is effective but for some the limitations needed to make the quarantine work would be draconian (i.e. long arbitrary confinement of large numbers of people who each had a small risk of exposure). Ebola was a good example of where it works.

I thought I was clear that I was talking about why hygiene and quarantine good but can not be relied upon for ALL diseases. i.e. treating them as a magic bullet/one size fit's all policy.

Besides, I've used the method, as a non-vaccinating parent, and it works. We don't get the whole town sick for every sniffle. If we came into contact with a person suffering from measles or anything else like that we would self quarantine to ensure no spreading until passing the prodromal period.

You are not an example of it working, you are a too small a sample size and statistically families like yours would be expected to occur even if no-one vaccinated. The problem is ho many WOULDN'T be like your family, and that the odds of being like your family are skewed anyway at the moment because of how many vaccination around you.

Besides your plan for avoiding measles is down right stupid. First of all you risk getting measles in the first place. Second of all measles first signs can look a lot like many other minor and common viral illnesses and so your children could come into contact with people with measles and not even know it (you're relying on the other person A. getting a correct diagnosis, B. Getting that diagnosis in time to quarantine your kids and C. That diagnosis actually being told to you at all/in time). Third measles can linger in a room for quite a while so they might only enter a room an HOUR after someone with measles has been in their coughing, catch measles and NEVER know how they got it (and have already spread it by the time you realise what it is)

What is the side effect of rehydration therapy? Is it death? No. Dehydration is not only inherently risky, it's 100% fatal.

And while there are ways to administer hydration in harmful fashion, you would have to be extreme and intentional about it.

Actually the important side affects of rehydration therapy are fluid overload and electrolyte imbalances (mainly sodium and potassium - which can be fatal if sufficiently severe). These are quite difficult to achieve in otherwise young and healthy individuals getting oral rehydration but a known and monitored for risk in those with certain cardiac or renal co-morbidities or those getting IV or NG rehydration.

So side effects should not be forced.

On an adult? Sure. On a child? They should be given the most appropriate care regardless of parental stupidity or beliefs.

My treatment for measles exposure is without side effects. Just stay home for observation, eat well and be sure to stay as stress free as possible. No risks; no exposing others to risk.

Your treatment for measles HAS side affects. You risk them A) getting measles and all the much higher risk of complications it has B) risk infecting others (as pointed out above your strategy is far FAR from without risk of failure)

That worth depends on the individual. Extreme suffering and chemo-brain isn't worth it, to me.

You are generalising too much. In some cases refusing chemo is a very much a valid option in others it is silly. Not all chemo causes "extreme suffering" and "chemo-brain", some chemo is nasty and only sometimes worth it (even in children), some chemo is fairly mild and pretty much every adult would use it if indicated and would be negligent in the extreme not to give it to a child if indicated.

There are over 40 hypoallergenic foods. Some have to live on them.

This is nothing like drugs, and no, you don't get infection from aspirating breastmilk normally, because it is antimicrobial in fresh, raw form.

And yet the risk is still there, mainly from the aspiration pneumonitis causing the lungs to be vulnerable to secondary infection and sensitive to further insults (loss of reserve function), plus there is also the oral contamination that occurs for the milk anyway (bug fine in mouth, bad in lung). The risk is ridiculously absurdly low but still there, I say it to point out the absurdity of your view that all risk must be eliminated and that even you don't ascribe to that principle consistently.

No, I'm a person with vaccine damaged loved ones, who has also lost other loved ones to different types of drugs/surgery.

I'm sorry to hear. However while that is definitely an emotional reason to be opposed to vaccines, drugs and surgery in general it is not a logical reason. It is no reason to chase the phantasm of risk free anything, I repeat that you have been lied that such a thing is even possible and add that you have just explained why you are so enamored with the idea of non-medical risk free anything. They promise the world but can't do squat, while doctors promise what is possible and are honest that risks are never zero.

Do you want honesty realism or happy delusion?

You expected that vaccines would save the world, so when diseases fell, naturally, you gave the glory to vaccines.

And when disease rates rise when vaccine rates decline.... ?

We have multiple instances of correlation with good theoretical reasons for seeing the correlations and studies showing how the affect causing the correlation occurs. The science on many vaccines effectiveness was settled a long time ago.

Find me a single nation that isn't controlled by money. Maybe we can start there.

Ahh the problem we now has is that even if vaccines are effective and safe there is no way I could ever convince you unless I also created a political utopia and ran a vaccine program there. In your view anything which disagrees with you is due to corporate corruption, but anything which agrees is OK. I can cite studies till the end of days and it would do nothing to convince you since you'd dismiss every single one of them out of hand due to "corruption" without further thought and there is nothing I can think of that would change that even if it were false.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Yes but while the PKU test uses blood it is not itself a genetic test...

Sorry I didn't explicitly state my agreement. :doh:

...it raises questions for medical research ethics but is irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Nonono unethical medicine lacks the integrity for trust. That's why it should be consent-based only. This is the same monopoly-empire of medical control that sanctions vaccines.

Who said they liked seeing it done? But neither is it as bad as you make out, you are citing a very personal emotive reaction as if it is suggestive of something more than your personal reaction.

And you've probably been used to drug hazed babies with high endorphin loads. It might affect your opinion of the harshness.

But here's a test. In your view, how painful is circumcision to a baby?

That is a single case report of psychiatric patient in an extreme state of stress where he tried to take his life and then thought he might be successful, it is a big reach to extrapolate this to the wider population. Second of all it is the only report of such a "reaction" to a placebo drug, in the review article also cited in the page you linked it showed what other research was available and it all matched what I said - single case reports should be interpreted with caution. Third the patients blood pressure at worst was 80/40 with a heart rate of 110 and remained conscious (I got past the pay wall) - while low and would generally trigger empirical treatment with fluids it is not life threatening nor did it cause any harm to him. Fourth it was not possible to exclude all other potential simultaneous causes of his hypotension, thus again reinforcing that why interpretations of single case reports should be done with caution.

1. You couldn't study extreme nocebos, ethically. 2. there are other case studies 3. It may not have killed but fear does kill. 4. It's important to remember that while the needle itself may not harm, the social damage from further eroded trust might be near irreparable. (see the smallpox riots of GB)

Ultimately it looks likely that the hypotension was due to his psychological/psychiatric response to taking pills he believed would be lethal. He seemed to have an extreme emotional stress related response, hypotension is a known response to this in some instances.

Children and adults can have such reactions. It could be very traumatic and psychologically damaging to be forced into a procedure that causes great fear and distress. PTSD can lead to violent reactions in chronic sufferers.

In the end you are extrapolating WAAAAY to far, this case report is while interesting still not going to affect management of depression or studies with placebos. Carrying it over to children getting vaccinations is a big leap.

You have to deny that children have thoughts and feelings of their own and that their parents fears are transmissible to them.

Is your position that unless all risks can be eliminated then a preventative health measure should not be enacted?

My position is that ethical medicine cannot be replaced. It is not ethical to force a threatening medical procedure on a fearful but otherwise healthy family.

Even if the health measures risks reduce the risk of harm from other sources more than its own risks?

Try forbidding CM from riding his horses. It wouldn't be ethical, even if you saved lives. It would be harmful and start a culture war.

It is reasonable to expect that the undetected cases don't significantly deviate in their characteristics from the detected cases in any way other than aspects that would affect their detection rate.

For hundreds of years doctors denied the nutritional nature of scurvy in the face of facts. Don't be a dupe. Also remember how "rare" autism was before supposedly it was diagnosed better and now the rate is hundreds of times what it previously was thought to be? How would you know? Medicine gets things wrong, by its own admissions. Persistently, at times.

By the way did you know that in some PID types vaccines are actually an important part of their management? By denying them vaccines until we can screen and detect them all you are doing them a disservice.

That should be a matter of choice for the families to decide. They need not expose PID sufferers to those vaccine-targeted diseases.

No I think that for some diseases quarantine is effective but for some the limitations needed to make the quarantine work would be draconian (i.e. long arbitrary confinement of large numbers of people who each had a small risk of exposure).

It doesn't have to be forced quarantine unless the alternative would be overflowing hospitals. Most people would self quarantine when needed to contain the disease. Those who didn't could take other precautions to avoid spreading it. Kitchen workers would need to be controlled better, like either taking leave or informing diners of the risks.

Ebola was a good example of where it works.

The measles outbreak is over in Cali. Tiny outbreak. People self-quarantined or it would be all over the USA by now.

I thought I was clear that I was talking about why hygiene and quarantine good but can not be relied upon for ALL diseases. i.e. treating them as a magic bullet/one size fit's all policy.

But that's what you do with vaccines. My bullet's just an alternative to yours. Mine works just as well. And vaccines won't contain all threats; case in point, MRSA.

You are not an example of it working, you are a too small a sample size and statistically families like yours would be expected to occur even if no-one vaccinated. The problem is ho many WOULDN'T be like your family, and that the odds of being like your family are skewed anyway at the moment because of how many vaccination around you.

I'm in a low-vaccination area. The people I'm friends with also non-vax and also self quarantine. My 7 kids don't catch diseases from these other big families we play with. Not even a sniffle. The dentist's office is another story. We keep the office apprised and the staff there don't vax, either. Never got a vaccine targeted disease there, either.

Besides your plan for avoiding measles is down right stupid. First of all you risk getting measles in the first place. Second of all measles first signs can look a lot like many other minor and common viral illnesses and so your children could come into contact with people with measles and not even know it (you're relying on the other person A. getting a correct diagnosis, B. Getting that diagnosis in time to quarantine your kids and C. That diagnosis actually being told to you at all/in time). Third measles can linger in a room for quite a while so they might only enter a room an HOUR after someone with measles has been in their coughing, catch measles and NEVER know how they got it (and have already spread it by the time you realise what it is)

1 If measles is reported in my county, we will implement protocol. It doesn't come here for some reason. We are not risking anything because we would halt mingling after suspected exposure. It worked well enough for low vax Cali. 2. We don't play with sniffling kids who have any kind of cold symptoms, unless it's verifiably only allergies (yet our non-vax friends don't have this problem. :think 3. We don't commonly go to places where we will be in the same room with someone dumb enough to cart sniffles around, or we self quarantine when it's suspected we may be carriers post-exposure.

Only once that I can remember did we go to into town with sick people because it was a less-than yearly grandma visit and we purposefully took measures to limit the risks for people nearby. Needless to say, we aren't sick often, since it's hard to get viruses when one is so cautious. As social responsibilities go, it's more important than any other civic duty we have.

Actually the important side affects of rehydration therapy are fluid overload and electrolyte imbalances (mainly sodium and potassium - which can be fatal if sufficiently severe). These are quite difficult to achieve in otherwise young and healthy individuals getting oral rehydration but a known and monitored for risk in those with certain cardiac or renal co-morbidities or those getting IV or NG rehydration.

But it's not risky when properly proscribed and we are talking about treatments with inherent risks when properly proscribed and administered. Not essential things for life that can't kill when properly dosed.

On an adult? Sure. On a child?

Yes, on a child, unless you want the consequences of angry parents. It's a war crime to assault a parent's child against their wishes and when they believe their child is placed in grave bodily danger.

They should be given the most appropriate care regardless of parental stupidity or beliefs.

You mean, the risks should be taken regardless of parental fears, founded on understandable concerns or not. That is terrorizing and menacing parents.

You are generalising too much.

We were talking about risky medicine. There are a limited number cancer therapies that mainstream science is exploring/expoiting that don't carry such risks.

And yet the risk is still there

Aspirated milk is not "taken as directed."

I'm sorry to hear. However while that is definitely an emotional reason to be opposed to vaccines, drugs and surgery in general it is not a logical reason.

Basically in the USA (at least) medicine does as much harm as good. Therefore I only choose evidence-based, reasonably non-harmful therapies for myself. Not ones with accepted risks such as long term organ damage.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Do you want honesty realism or happy delusion?

Do you? You seem one the one hand to understand the limitations of commercial science, yet on the other, you pretend you can trust their conclusions, even though you know confirmation bias can and does happen to professionals.

And when disease rates rise when vaccine rates decline.... ?

Then you will experience more confirmation bias, no doubt. Just as you must imagine I'm biased because my low-vax county is still outbreak free.

We have multiple instances of correlation with good theoretical reasons for seeing the correlations and studies showing how the affect causing the correlation occurs. The science on many vaccines effectiveness was settled a long time ago.

That correlation comes with other good theoretical reasons you could as easily give credit to. Plumbing, cars, disease prevention policies, antimicrobials, stopping measles parties, etc.

Ahh the problem we now has is that even if vaccines are effective and safe there is no way I could ever convince you unless I also created a political utopia and ran a vaccine program there.

Actually, you could just as easily get me to leave the issue alone by not forcing vaccines on my family, or at least not argue FOR forcing vaccines.

My family has close relatives that have been vaccine damaged on both sides (husband's side and mine) and we do not live in an absence of disease prevention. There are reasonable alternatives to vaccination. They just aren't popular, and are typically implemented by country-dwellers in low density populations. Probably better implemented in the country, too.

In your view anything which disagrees with you is due to corporate corruption

Lazy. Not fair.

I suppose I could say the same if you raised your objection to fracking, drilling in the Great Barrier Reef or the many banking scandals that have impoverished many nations.

but anything which agrees is OK.

Anything that is ethical, you mean. I don't have to agree if it's ethical.

I can cite studies till the end of days and it would do nothing to convince you since you'd dismiss every single one of them out of hand due to "corruption" without further thought and there is nothing I can think of that would change that even if it were false.

Again, you yourself don't want universal healthcare because you know it opens the door to abuse. Mandating any kind of health care poses that risk of creeping tyranny.

Keep reasonable alternatives open.

Or let your body be like the car at the mechanic's shop that keeps getting oil changes too frequently because you're too gullible to stay informed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

A new study for the record.

A new study for the record.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/health/mmr-vaccine-autism-study/index.html

 

[1PeaceMaker]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/health/mmr-vaccine-autism-study/index.html

It's not even published yet. lain:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

http://www.infowars.com/california-one-vote-closer-to-forced-vaccination/

:nono:

 

[CabinetMaker]

It's not even published yet. lain:

NOt yet but, the study was based on 95,000 children instead of 12.

 

[HisServant]

If you don't get your kids vaccinated and your kids get someone infected that cannot take the vaccine for other medical reasons and suffers injury, you should get sued for damages and suffering... because it was preventable. In your ignorance, you harmed someone else.

 

[Rusha]

If you don't get your kids vaccinated and your kids get someone infected that cannot take the vaccine for other medical reasons and suffers injury, you should get sued for damages and suffering... because it was preventable. In your ignorance, you harmed someone else.

:first:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

NOt yet but, the study was based on 95,000 children instead of 12.

So it's a bigger strawman.

Tell me, what kind of "smoking gun" do you think Andrew Wakefield would have had with what he discussed?