1PM's BIG QUESTION: If voluntary immunization has worked and continues to be effective, why move towards force?
Because of people like you.
Because of people like you.
Forced Vaccination is Wrong
- Thread starter 1PeaceMaker
- Start date
1PeaceMaker
New member
Elaborate. :think:
Because he can't stand people like you :chuckle:
1PeaceMaker
New member
:chuckle:
Well that tactic sure isn't gonna help....
I wonder how he'll like my kind when we are feeling less like accepted members of society and more like persecuted outcasts.
He won't like it and so he will elect people to throw you in jail.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Meanwhile, he'll take all the risks he wants, even if it includes activities that are non-essential and dangerous, like owning and riding horses. Which I'd have no problem with, if he'd leave the non-vaxing families alone.
You're a smart girl, figure it out.
Last edited:
Remember, I don't care that your kids aren't vaccinated. That is your risk, not mine. As to liking your kind, I neither like nor dislike you based on your kind. I neither like nor dislike you based on your choices. I do think that society as a whole has concerns that are greater than any single individuals personal choice so support schools being able to require vaccinations as a condition of admission. The only exceptions should be medical.
Tyrathca
New member
My mistake I assumed than you knew what you were talking about. FYI "SUDS" is a rarely used term that by is generally used for adults and is essentially the same as SIDS. All it really means is that they died without definitive cause.SUDS, not SIDS. And no, I was honest. I just read that particular case.
It wasn't diagnosed as SIDS.
Regardless all my comments still stand. There was an infant who died after a period of being apparently inconsolable with significant localised soft tissue inflammation and extremely concerning altered neurology. This infant apparently did not receive any medical follow up of these signs. I would be interested in what the coroner thought of the case even if they couldn't definitively name the cause of death.
A parent would reasonably be expected to have their infant checked if they were constantly distressed for days and especially with twitching and drooping. They hadn't been told to expect it and if they hadn't had a vaccine recently would they have sought review?
Addit: I say this as I doubt the accuracy of the story, not to blame the mother.
Who knows what this infant child of? Without a coroners report that finds something obvious we'll never know but to assume it must be the vaccine is bad medicine and bad science.
As with all medical interventions. Everything has a failure rate, whether they admit it or not is another. That is why we don't just rely on any one intervention, immunisation is just one of many different methods (albeit an important one)
Look at any chart of a person with an infection and you will see them get fevers intermittently. That is why doctors say someone "spiked" a fever, it looks like a spike on the temperature chart! This varies to a degree, some have fevers continuing for longer than others but this is in general common. People will even describe peroids of having felt too ht or cold, shivering then periods off not.
Try taking your child's temperature hourly when they are sick and you might see the same!
This is basic stuff.
Because there are growing number of ignorant people duping each other. The more of you there are the greater the risk for everyone (both vaccinated and non-vaccinated)
Last edited:
1PeaceMaker
New member
Your grammatical mistake in sentence 1 is confusing. Her baby didn't die of SIDS, ironically, because she tried to avoid vaccines until that window passed, only to have him perish anyway, labeled as SUDS.
The neurological signs would have freaked me out. I am aware, though, that most Americans fall on the clueless side. Even the Canadians I know... Maybe just the people I know... :idunno:
I don't know this gal, but an atheist mom-friend of mine way back when I was newly pg with my 4th, I knew her when her baby died of SIDS. 10 days old. Only friend of mine that's happened to.
For her, she found out, through hair sampling, that both she and her husband had high levels of mercury and aluminum. They both were vaccinated but their bodies didn't eliminate it. (Some American shots have 100X the level of mercury in marketable ocean fish.) Her babe wasn't vaxed. But she read his autopsy, and it was that which spurred her to check for heavy metals in her system.
He didn't die in his sleep. He died looking up at his mother from his sling in her arms, struggling to breath until she laid him down on the floor and started CPR while speed dialing husband and ambulance. She had seen he was acting weird earlier and almost took him in but the husband thought she was over-mothering. She was at first furious he was diagnosed as SIDS. She felt the autopsy indicated more specifics with his neurology.
That was a situation where he was toxic at birth and it got worse while breastfeeding, not better. Kinda like the whales we are losing in the oceans at infancy these days. (She also ate tuna (or did she say salmon? I thought tuna.) sometimes during that pg, which didn't help.)
She read that babies fuss and react to vaccines. I think she would have been more worried if that lump appeared out of nowhere and caused all that mayhem. Probably she would have suspected a venomous spider was to blame or something.
Unless she blocked it out it would be a PTSD inducing experience with "flash-bulb" type memories, don't you think?
Not when the child was obviously smiling, healthy and then comes a giant welt that was excruciating with constant crying, fever, pain, etc. I'd have to treat Occam's Razor as disposable to guess otherwise.
In your world, maybe, but in CM's world, he can have and transmit viruses willy-nilly because he's been vaxed and that's all the prevention he's concerned with.
While that is true, at least with all fevers I've seen there is a baseline that the body keeps going. First thing in the morning and during brief dips, according to the circadian cycle, but still elevated. Besides so what if there's a small chance of slipping through? This time it's not about individuals but trends and herds, right? Your vaccines can't even live up to that stringency in your believing minds.
Going to school? Check your temp. If you pass, you generally are going to be good to go. We are just shaving margins off margins, anyway.
BTDT. They still had a fever, even when it wasn't spiking. Seems like you are just grasping.
Indeed. You are trying to make it seem overcomplicated so laymen are intimidated about fever tracking. It appears.
You guys could keep winning by sounding less fascist and more reasonable. 20% of Americans aren't trusting of their physicians. You alienate them when you turn vaccines into a fascist agenda, because still 3/4 of those less trusting parents were still vaccinating their kids until this all started. Now there is a real risk of losing their support.
In other words, you spawned your own opponents.
I wouldn't even have this thread going without the war against natural immune systems and informed consent.
Last edited:
1PeaceMaker
New member
So you should be anti-force, unless it's not really me you want to control.
Right, but your daughters .... It would help to have mandates to control them if they disagree...
If that's true then you don't want to cause a culture war and divide society over the vaccination issue.
If you insist, however in supporting the culture war against us, then you can expect us to object to your horses.
We need a culture war to ban horses. Until you get the point.
As noted, I sport required vaccinations for attendance at public schools.
My daughters, particularly my oldest, understand this issue quite clearly. They will do what will keep their children protected from infectious diseases.
I REALLY hope you are not trying to teach your kids history. I would love to see you start up a culture war to ban horses in America. That would be richly entertaining. Any idea why that might be so?
Here is something for you to think about. Lets take 100 people. In Colorado, our vaccination rate is about 88%, the lowest in the country. That means that of those 100 people, 12 are not vaccinated. Vaccines are about 95% effective so of the 88 people who are vaccinated, 4.4 are not protected. We will round that down to 4 in accordance with rounding rules. That means 16 are not protected from measles.
Now lets take those 100 people and give them a significant exposure to measles. I cannot find any stats on this, but some people will not get sick when exposed to measles so, for the sake of argument, lets say 5% of the people will not contract measles. So, in sample population of 100, 88 people do not get sick thanks to being vaccinated. Of the 16 who are suitable to the disease, 0.8 or 1 person will not get sick leaving 15 people that will get sick with the measles. That means 15 people get sick.
Take that same group of 100 people with no vaccinations and give them the same exposure. Of those 100 people we would expect about 5 to not get sick based on the assumptions above. That means 95 people get measles. That is a difference of 80 people who get sick that wouldn't have had they been vaccinated.
This is analogous to what happened at Disneyland. Many people were exposed but only those who were not vaccinated or those form whom the vaccine didn't work got sick. That is why I support vaccinations. They work even when we have no possible way to know that an exposure to measles has occurred.
Anyone who has really owned and ridden horses long enough has the scars to show for it. Perhaps we should enact legislation to protect them from themselves.
Two of us have been in the hospital, we have some pretty good scrapes and bruises going right now, but no major scars yet. Yet.
Better include football players. And competitive cheer leading. And riding bikes. And driving your car to work. And taking a shower. All of those are inherently dangerous.
Just wait until you start using them to work rough stock.
... and that was my point. As each year passes we have more and more laws that seek to prevent us from making what the insurance industry considers bad decisions. I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with this situation and I suspect whether or not one is comfortable with this situation depends upon whose ox is being gored.
Said another way, should you be prevented from riding horses altogether or should you be "properly insured" before undertaking this obviously dangerous pursuit? And while we are on the subject, should you be allowed to expose your children to this danger?
No interest in working stock. Endurance and mounted shooting for sure, maybe Extreme Cowboy.
As there is absolutely no analogy between risks associated with activities and risks associated with infectious diseases, there is no point in discussing this in this thread.
I did ask a similar question several pages ago, that was pointedly ignored, dealing with insurance contracts. Insurance is a private contract. Does an insurer have the right to refuse coverage for certain activities and lifestyles that they find risky? This is a hugely interesting can of worms to open.
drbrumley
Well-known member
No On The No Vaccine Exemption Campaign
The following scenario may not be too far off in the future for American families:
Knock on front door
Parent: Yes, hello
Uniformed officer: Yes, we are with the U.S. Vaccination Corps and we need to see your children’s vaccination papers please.
Parent: We don’t have them here. They were lost in a fire at our old home before we moved here.
Uniformed officer: Well, we will have to take your children away to a quarantine center where they will be tested for antibodies. Please put the children in these hazmat suits and immediately present the children in this house for transport to a quarantine center.
Parent: Wait. You have no right to remove our children.
Uniformed officer: You have no right to expose other children to infectious diseases. The hazmat team will be here to transport your children to the quarantine center where they will be monitored by board certified doctors with the American Academy of Pediatrics. If you resist, you will be jailed.
Let’s pray the above scenario never happens in America.
The following scenario may not be too far off in the future for American families:
Knock on front door
Parent: Yes, hello
Uniformed officer: Yes, we are with the U.S. Vaccination Corps and we need to see your children’s vaccination papers please.
Parent: We don’t have them here. They were lost in a fire at our old home before we moved here.
Uniformed officer: Well, we will have to take your children away to a quarantine center where they will be tested for antibodies. Please put the children in these hazmat suits and immediately present the children in this house for transport to a quarantine center.
Parent: Wait. You have no right to remove our children.
Uniformed officer: You have no right to expose other children to infectious diseases. The hazmat team will be here to transport your children to the quarantine center where they will be monitored by board certified doctors with the American Academy of Pediatrics. If you resist, you will be jailed.
Let’s pray the above scenario never happens in America.
Here's a chance to test your theory. Try driving without insurance. Then tell me how private your encounter with the police was.
... and once again you ducked every one of my questions. Wassamatta ... was the fit a little too snug?
Insurance is a private contract. Legally, you must have auto insurance with certain minimum coverages. If you have enough traffic violations, you will be forced to purchase some pretty expensive insurance and several providers WILL NOT insure you. You are REQUIRED to carry insurance. Insurance companies ARE NOT REQUIRED to sell you insurance.
But try going to a hospital without insurance and see what happens.
I pointed out that your questions were unrelated to the thread topic so I wont be answering them here. If you wish to discuss insurance, open a new thread. As previously noted, it would be a fascinating can of worms to open.
Nor does this thread deal with the risks to ourselves or our children based on the activities we choose to participate in. That was a red herring 1PM threw out to hide the fact that she can't deal with this topic in a logical, consistent and well reasoned fashion. Seriously, how are vaccinations and horse back riding related when discussing infectious disease prevention?
You know, I used to get really annoyed at some of the things you said until I realized you are completely oblivious to the inanity of much of what you say.
If the state makes you buy insurance then that transaction involves a third party; you, the insurance company and the state. In Texas this is illegal, according to the Uniform Commercial Code which supersedes all other state law. If you think that is private then I'm sure you won't mind the state directing your traffic the next time you wish to exercise your masculine prerogative with your wife.
Tell 'em I said hi. :wave: