Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 11 of 16
Quote:I haven't overlooked them or dismissed them. I am pointing out confounders that mess with a cut-and-dry conclusion. In other words, to reiterate my mantra, vaccination is a highly complex issue that isn't black and white. All I am doing, and ever wanted to do, was to insert doubt in vaccination dogma. All I want to do is show how that dogma (vaccination is safe and effective) is not based on hard-and-fast science, but on assumptions (which may or may not be correct) that not everyone accepts.
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- You're overlooking facts that don't fit in with your mind-set.
Quote:How do you I am not?
Why aren't you protesting these other things?
Quote:It effects my children's schooling directly. I live in one of the 2 states that does not allow nonmedical exemptions of any sort. And the state persecutes physicians who give medical exemptions that are not on the CDC list, such that even if you find a physician who sympathizes with your particular situation, it doesn't matter. The state will reject the medical exemption and start an "investigation" into the physician who issued it. It is all very tyrannical and hits home literally. So yeah, it is one of the issues I choose to fight.
Why stick at vaccination?
Quote:Well Citizen thinks it is a good thing too, but he is willing to allow choice. I don't mind that you or anyone think it is a good thing. What I mind is you or anyone putting a gun to my head saying, because YOU think it is a good thing, I can't disagree and act otherwise.
That last paper that I looked up just made me think that mandatory vaccination for school attendance is a good thing, and that's probably where I will land.
Quote:and they are all deeply flawed.
BTW- there have been countless statistical studies looking for a correlation between vaccines and autism, and they haven't found one yet.
Quote:And those are flawed too.
But they HAVE found correlations between autism and mercury.
Quote:We need a research system that uses real science, as in meets minimum scientific standards. We need a blinded funding mechanism.
We need a research system that is not funded by the pharmas.
Quote:Agreed. But it is not just because vaccinated people weren't in good health at the time of vaccination that we don't have a good reporting system. We don't have a good reporting system because physicians and the medical establishment are so emotionally vested in protecting vaccination dogma that they will not recognize adverse reactions and report them.
We need a good reporting system for vaccination after-effects.
Take my own CFS and that of others. Many of us experienced it shortly after vaccination. But I didn't report it and neither did they. Why? Because no physician would take the temporary correlation seriously, it would just get dismissed anyway, so why bother? It is the same way with other adverse events.
Quote:Well, for me, the first step in fighting the system is to make vaccination voluntary in the USA. If I can ever get that done, then maybe I will consider other fundamental reforms. But for me, there is nothing more fundamental than the right to informed consent to medical treatment, intervention, and experimentation.
If effort is to be expended in fighting the system, I think it should head in a more fundamental direction.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig,
Here is an example of how adverse events don't get reported.
Quote:
On May 31, 2003, Jackson Presley Diamond was born to Chaney and Lee Diamond, of Chicago. A healthy 9 pound boy at birth, his Mom nursed him for eight months and she said "he slept well, ate well, grew well, never cried too much." Jackson met all his developmental milestones during the first 18 months of his life, and he loved to dance, pretend to talk on the phone and have his parents read his favorite books to him. Jackson was an energetic, high functioning toddler right up until Dec. 8, 2004, the day he went to his pediatrician's office for a well- child check-up and got vaccinated.
Within 24 hours of his vaccinations, which included the DTaP shot, Jackson suffered a collapse/shock and stopped breathing. Brain inflammation and seizures followed. During his hospitalization, doctors denied the vaccinations he received were responsible. His mother said: "Every time we would see a new doctor, we would make sure they knew about the vaccinations Jackson had the day before. When we would ask each doctor if they thought it could be a reaction to the vaccinations, they would dismiss the idea very quickly without a second thought. 'Vaccination reactions don't happen this way' one of them told us. " A reaction would happen weeks after, not the day after."
Jackson's parents encountered a typical response by doctors who are not taught in medical school how to recognize a vaccine reaction. Unfortunately, because most medical doctors have been misled by the rhetoric of CDC and AAP officials denying the reality of vaccine induced brain and immune system injury, out of ignorance many doctors end up misleading parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury. Therefore, many parents do not know why their children regressed physically, mentally and emotionally after vaccination until they do their own research and become educated about the risks and complications of vaccines.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 makes it clear that brain inflammation, which occurs within 72 hours of DTaP, DTP, DTP-Hib vaccination, is presumed to be caused by vaccination when no other cause can be found. Jackson's collapse/shock and brain inflammation, which ended in serious brain injury, fits the classic post-DPT and post-DTaP vaccine reaction profile. In the absence of another credible scientific explanation, Jackson is presumed to be vaccine damaged.
Source: email newsletter from NVIC, website at NVIC.org
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To further tease apart CTS's rhetoric:
CTS claims to be 'pro-choice'. If the argument put forth was that vaccines work for some, but not all, that claim would stand. But CTS goes further to say that vaccines don't work in the general case. (See "Summary: getting vaccines is more dangerous than disease" and 'the myth of eradication'). These aren't personal arguments, they are global arguments meant to apply to all vaccines and to everyone.
Conclusion: these statements are patently anti-vaccine in the general case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a further analysis of flaws in CTS's arguments, consider 'if vaccines work, vaccinated people have nothing to fear' (a small sampling of CTS's oft-repeated 'argument' is below).
No knowledgeable person has claimed vaccines are 100% effective. Furthermore, knowledgeable people know vaccines can fail due to the state of the recipient, and not because of a manufacturing 'scam'. But even after having this pointed out, CTS went on to repeat the argument over a dozen more times.
1) Either this argument is made out of deliberate closely-held ignorance or
2) it's a straw man argument, arguing against a position no one promotes.
Either way, it's a dishonest argument and presented solely to buttress an anti-vaccine agenda.
Conclusion: anti-vaccine agenda.
Quote:
Vaccines are supposed to cause immunity so that WHEN EXPOSED to the disease, you don't catch it. (If you're never exposed, then vaccines are superfluous.)
If your children are vaccinated, and vaccines work, your kids are protected, period. No amount of exposure can hurt them. If vaccines work, the only people that need to be afraid of diseases are unvaccinated kids. So not vaccinating does not threaten the "rest of you."
For the people who got vaccinated but scammed, well, that is the fault of the manufacturer, not the unvaccinated.
compensating for these people's resistance to immunization is still not the responsibility of the unvaccinated
Assuming herd immunity works
This argument rests on the assumptions that the vaccine in question is both effective (confers immunity) and safe (doesn't confer anything else).
If vaccines work, and the majority is immunized, they should have nothing to fear. Isn't that the point of vaccines, to protect in event of exposure? Why should protected people be afraid of exposure then?
How can "we" start an epidemic if most of "you" are immunized and protected? At worst, all unimmunized people will get sick, but that would hardly constitute an epidemic, since there are so few of "us."
Studies showing that vaccines produce "immunity" in the "vast majority" have been challenged as methodologically flawed.
I have to date seen no studies proving vaccines to be either effective or safe in the "vast majority" of recipients.
Bring it on. Give me a study that you believe is conclusive proof of effectiveness and I'll tell you what is wrong with that conclusion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep.... still not going to get me to shoot it in my veins or my family's, barring my consent while not under duress.
The whole idea is just scary, if only because of the prescedent that would set and the doors that will open for big Government to further micromanage our lives.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I refuse to drink chlorinated water! I don't care what they say. Nature has mechanisms to keep me healthy and besides, it's my right to drink dirty water! Government will never MAKE me do anything ! NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH !
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You jest, but there are those of us who choose to boil their own water, rather than drink the chemicals. I don't take it that far, but simply because I'm too lazy when I got it on tap.
Everything is about the bottom line in capitalism. This doesn't just pertain to business but the Government as well, as it is the largest business the world has ever seen. To think that our health and safety were primary concerns before the bottom line is foolish. Unless what they were putting in our water to clean it was noticable for causing people to be seriously ill or die, they would certainly accept a substance which may shave 10 years off of our lives on average if it meant the alternative was using an ultra-pure cleaning agent that cost 100 times more. They have teams of lawyers, researchers and analysts that figure out these cost/risk ratios.
This isn't even due to any conspiracy theory or beliefs that the Government is evil. This is just business and, one would imagine, common sence. The difference between water and the subject at hand is that our bodies need water to survive, yet at the same time, we don't need to go to our Government to get water. We can go anywhere that there is a body of water and purify it on our own. We can even take the water we have in our own homes and purify it even further to our hearts content. Nowhere is it stated by law that we are forced to drink their water. No kids are being denied entery to school due to their parents beliefs that the water supply is no good for their families.
The water issue is simply a good example of how Government should operate. It is serving the people by reclaiming water and making it available again for consumption. It is not making unconstitutional demands of it's citizens here. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I refuse to drink chlorinated water! I don't care what they say. Nature has mechanisms to keep me healthy and besides, it's my right to drink dirty water! Government will never MAKE me do anything ! NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH !
Well I'm convinced. What a cunning, thought-provoking, mature and well thought out argument. I can't believe I didn't agree with this side before this moment, as they are so persuasive.
Basically Rue, you are doing a whole lot of talking without saying anything new. We've heard all this rhetoric, as you put it, in every post you've made sinse the outset of this argument. You dime out CTS for repeating himself, but what exactly is it you think you're doing?
The issue at hand is not the effectiveness of vaccines, nor is it in the creation of new studies to document that effectiveness. The issue at hand is our freedom of choice, and I wonder why you are so willing to give it up. In your mind, you might rationalize this as a minute thing, but it's not, and it'll set us on a slippery slope. True, the government might honestly be making vaccinations mandatory for benevolent intentions and not for money. Well, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions and if that were the case, all mandatory vaccines would be free.
Our desire to prevent vaccinations from being mandatory does not stem from some anti-government propoganda, even if it was the schools with no government involvement we'd still have a problem with it. Nor are any of us anti-vaccine, we are anti-mandatory vaccination, and there is a very distinct line between the two. All patronizing aside (I'm refering to my initial comment here, I just couldn't help myself, and admit it, that was immature), you need to ask yourself at what point does taking the decisions out of the hands of the people become a problem. Because when you give them an inch (and by 'them' I am refering to everyone in the world) they will take a mile. It might be vaccines now, but what decision will they take out of our hands in 5 years? In 10?
I am smart enough to understand that the concept of 'total freedom' is a nice way of putting anarchy. We, as a people, need guidance, that's why we created governments and religion. But the laws that are in place to not drive on the other side of the road, or to not kill, to not steal, those are laws that we can follow without incident, and are something that only an idiot, disturbed or desparate individual will do. But to mandate laws that allow them to put something in my body is a whole different monster. And that's a precedent I do not want to set.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You haven't been reading my posts then. All I've done is point out the utility of vaccination programs.
And I have to say some of you look really, really silly. The government has already made you do things for your own good and the good of society, and is making you do them even now. And you go along without a single peep.
Have the courage of your convictions, man! STAND UP for your right to drink contaminated water ! STAND UP for your right to crap in the street ! STAND UP for your right to eat uninspected and undercooked meat !
After all, what's the difference between one government intrusion and another, right ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's actually a big difference. The government has set up laws for our own good that restrict us from indulging in what would be considered unhealthy behaviour, but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body. If you had read my entire post you'd know that I'd mentioned that. But you'd rather simply throw up more smoke and mirrors to detract from the issue at hand. As far as your rant about standing up for my rights to do a bunch of rediculous stuff, I have to chuckle and shake my head. What you use to try and debase my argument, everyone's argument, here is completely unreasonable. No reasonable human being would do any of those things, but except for crapping in the street, we have the right to do them. It's our choice to accept the risks involved with our actions, based on what we believe and what we know to be true. And the purified argument is rediculous as there are many communities (i happen to live in one) that still use well water. And there are some comunities where that water is still pumped directly from the ground into your tap. There is no law saying we have to drink purified water, there is no law saying we cannot drink unprocessed water, and there should be no law saying we have to get injected. End of story.
And your continued desire to completely try and debase our side of the argument by using childish, unrelated arguments and insult the intelligence of the opposition simply because they disagree with you shows you've become unable to discuss this topic in a civilized, rational matter. So I will politely bow out of this topic because, frankly, I'd accomplish more talking to a wall than trying to reason with the unreasonable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME