Manadatory vaccination (Part 3)

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 05:16
VIEWED: 3424
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:47 AM

"... it seems these things are less and less effective then they have been advertised as, really."

If faced with either being 'exposed' to polio or the vaccine, I'd pick the vaccine any day.

I have some recent studies from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) showing vaccinations to be both safe and effective but I'd need to find them.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 3:32 PM

Not my point Rue, my point was that the credibility of the folks pushin these things isn't so hot, and gets worse the more ya study it.

Do me the favor of askin a straight question, and i'll give a straight answer, just don't follow chit's example and deny i ever said it when i give it to you, please, cause that was just fuckin ludicrous.

Also, remember my employment and it's nature requires me to assume more risk in this matter than your average member of the public, so i don't exactly have as much choice there - but if i am to take such risks, some assurance of actual protection being worth it is important to me, so primarily my issues in this are pure risk/benefit analysis from a public/employment standpoint.

Personally, i'm with Jack about the whole concept, but in my work i bear a certain responsibility for other people, not only to not wreck the cab and injure them, but also to not catch anything from them, or pass anything to them, you see ?

If the protection offered is significantly less than claimed, and the credibility of those making said claims is utterly abysmal, i gotta factor that into consideration here.

-Frem

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 4:51 PM

FremD,

I'm curious why you say the credibility of people making claims FOR vaccination is low.

For example, I'm reading the Simpsonwood pdf (not the story from Salon, but the actual transcript of the meeting). It was suppose to be the definitive expose about thimerosal in vaccines. The story painted it as a small secret meeting of government and industry to cover up the problem. The main CDC investigator 'mysteriously' changed his testimony a year later. And other similar claims.

I found nothing of the sort in the transcript. I found no caution to anyone to keep it secret. The list of attendees was quite large and stacked with independent doctors from hospitals all around the country, not secretive heads of corporations and government. The main investigator found a negative (but not statistically significant) correlation between the thimerosal levels and autism. And so on. (I'm not done reading it yet, but I did skim the balance of the transcript and found no substantive issue.)

While CTS has been painting this monstrous picture of anyone involved in vaccination policy, I find nothing like that in the actual data.

So if you could explain your opinion and what it's based on, I'd appreciate it.

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 5:06 PM

As an afterthought, I want to point out that what CTS has done very effectively is spread misinformation about the topic and about people on this forum.

For example, I do not believe that vaccinations should be mandatory just because they're there. I've stated that many times. I've also never supported mandatory vaccination as a general rule. OTOH I don't think mandatory vaccination as a tool should be ruled out entirely either.

My main goal in posting has been to correct the lies she spreads about vaccinations, vaccinating, and the people involved, and replace them with something closer to the truth.

Does that make me the vaccination Nazi she has portrayed me as?

Oh, and may you "FARE" well in 2007 !!

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:
Aren't you scientists? Don't you believe in survival of the fittest?

That survival of the fittest occurs is a scientific observation. Whether the survival of the fittest *should* occur is a moral question that has nothing to do with science.

Personally, I want ALL my kids, from the fittest to the most vulnerable, to survive. Likewise, I would like to see every human being, from the fittest to the most vulnerable, to survive (unless they have committed heinous crimes, which is a different moral dilemma altogether). I don't think this is a scientific question, but a ethical/moral/religious one. I believe in social responsibility as well as personal responsibility.

The difference between me and normal bleeding heart liberals is that I believe in VOLUNTARY social responsibility, as opposed to government enforced social responsibility. I am just not a big fan of force.

As far as vaccinations go, there are various ways to fulfill one's social responsibility to not infect others. For example, live a healthy lifestyle to boost immune system functions, take hygienic precautions in public, and quarantine yourself when necessary.

I have no problems with man fighting the darker side of "nature." I do have problems with someone drafting my children to fight a specific war with specific weapons at THEIR risk and expense.

And a holler to Frem * : )

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 12:31 AM

Quote:
I'm curious why you say the credibility of people making claims FOR vaccination is low.

Compare the claims, with the realities.

Bear in mind, I am speaking of the "Medical Establishment" in general, and if you check any of their claims in detail, welll...

So, Thaliomide (sp?) is safe, right ?
DDT is harmless, yes ?
SSRI's help depression, not cause it..

From my perspective, considering the source of those claims, damned right i am skeptical, and now with this topic thrashed out in detail, the facts from both sides do indeed show these vaccs as being in general significantly LESS effective than claimed.

Not makin no points over whether they're effective enough, herd immunity, what have you, the single, strident, ONLY point i am making here, is that the credibility of the medical establishment is nowhere near what it should be if you want a skeptic to trust them.

I've said my piece, in previous threads and post, despite the fiction that I never said half of it, it's present for the reading... I just don't see why there's an almost automatic trust in an establishment known to have credibility issues, you see ?

The word of a single scientist who's done his homework, that can be trusted, but when you get a collective of the "Medical Establishment" together, things get tetchy - at least, that's how i am seein it here.

And in all honesty, I have indeed seen misrepresentation from BOTH sides of the issue, and a lot of it, so if one is going to throw mud, remember it sticks to all parties involved.

-F

RUE

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 12:49 AM

Hi FremD,

Glad to see you around.

"The facts from both sides" are equally invalid?

Which facts do you find invalid when it comes to vaccination? I'm very curious about your thoughts.

I know I had many assumptions about vaccinations until I was about 15 years old. Then our cat had symptoms of rabies (though it wasn't). At that time we found out that vaccines weren't 100% (rabies ~ 95%) and so she had to be tested even though she was fully vaccinated. But we were never told by any public health official at any time in any way that vaccines were 100%, just that they were important in our area, b/c wildlife rabies was epidemic. So I never felt misled, or lied to, just embarrassed at making silly assumptions.

So anyway, thanks ahead of time for your reply.

RUE

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 1:05 AM

Hi there 6-string !

Weird and good, yes we do agree on things, which I never would have expected.

I am in early mourning for this planet. As far as I'm concerned, the loss of the human species would be no tragedy. I guess that makes me a "homo"phobe where "homo" means the not so sapiens species. But to take this planet down with us - pisses me off no end.

So I hope, and work hard at, trying to keep this place; and pointing out that maybe, just maybe we can learn from societies that DID get it right. Presuming our fate is driven by some notion of human nature we are for sure doomed; and this planet with us.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 3:32 AM

I used to spend a lot of time worrying about what we do to the planet, but I figure since that's probably out of our hands until we've made it so bad where we're forced to make changes I've stopped obsessing about it so much.

"homo"phobe was pretty funny. Gave me a laugh that I think I needed today.

I think we had it right in our society up until a while before I was born in good ol' 1979. I can't say for sure, because I wasn't here, but I think there was a time where we weren't so materialistic and decadent as a society. Just another reason that I can't simply dismiss the writings of the Bible and believe in the Spagetti Monster. One of the few stories I have read was Job and he was closest to God when he had nothing. We've been living in surplus for such a long time here, as long as I've been alive at least anyhow, and according to the Book, that's the easiest way to find yourself in the Devil's pocket. Take a look around and tell me that the current state of affairs here wouldn't at least fit the basic structure of that story.

Like I've said before, I'm not sure where I throw my chips when it comes to that stuff, but it's getting harder and harder for me to just live life without consequence and pretend that that way of thinking doesn't at least hold some merit.

My Grandmother said that her preacher said something to her a few years back that kind of stuck with me. It was along the lines of "People need to follow something. People need to believe in something. If it's not God, they will find something else to believe in and follow." Even before she said that to me I had thought on several occasions that no matter what I believe in, it was always kind of nice that there were a lot of other people who had faith around me. (This was when the church first came under heavy fire for the Priest and altar-boy scandals, and started taking the media assult that it's been taking ever since). Right now I see a lot of people putting a lot of faith into BigGov and after reading 1984 and Brave New World, that kind of scares the crap out of me. Putting decisions like mandatory vaccine legislation in BigGov's hands and people just going along with it without any questions really unnerves me. There are, of course, many other examples of this type of thing that I see happening every day. I really believe that this collective way of thinking and doing wouldn't be allowed if we still had small communities who looked out for themselves still and we didn't have all of the good feelings and pretty lights and pill popping to distract us from the important things like we do today.

{/Preaching}

I wouldn't worry too much about the planet. I used to think that we would destroy the planet, but I don't think that anymore. I could be wrong, but I think we're pretty arrogant if we believe that we're going to be a force strong enough to do that. I think we'll be gone long before we do so much damage that she can't heal herself over an era's time.

Happy New Year, by the way. Maybe we'll actually get a few things right this year and we can put 2006 far behind us.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So, Thaliomide (sp?) is safe, right ?
DDT is harmless, yes ?
SSRI's help depression, not cause it..

For me, the SV-40 contamination of the polio vaccines was a major credibility slayer. They knew about it, chose not to tell the public, and chose not to recall the contaminated product. They didn't want to undermine public confidence in the fledgling vaccine industry.

SV-40 is a known carcinogen in rodents, often given to experimental animals to cause cancer (brain tumors, bone tumors, lymphomas, and mesotheliomas) for research purposes.(1) It has been linked to mesotheliomas (1) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (2) in humans. All polio vaccines from 1954 and 1963 are now acknowledged to have been contaminated with SV-40. When they officially found out about the contamination in 1961, they (manufacturers and govt) chose to hush it up and allowed millions of Americans to continue taking a vaccine that was contaminated with a known carcinogen in lab animals and a possible carcinogen in humans.

Now their argument is that there is no hard scientific proof that SV-40 causes cancer in humans. Without being able to do unethical experiments in humans, that is correct. (Funny how they know all about confounders and scientific skepticism when it suits them.) However, there is hard scientific evidence it causes cancer in rodents. As soon as they found out, they really should have recalled the product, simply on precautionary principles. At the very least, the ethical thing to do is to immediately inform the public of the contamination and of currently known facts about SV-40, and allow the public to make an informed choice. But no. They simply and silently continued to administer a potentially carcinogenic contaminant into a public that trusted them.

It has been alleged that the manufacturers knew this as early as the 1955-57 clinical trials in Russia. I heard an audiotape of an alledged conversation of pharmaceutical decision makers who joked that the it was a good thing the clinical trials were taking place in Russia, because it would help the USA win the 1958 olympics when the Russians were too burdened with tumors to win. Now I don't know if this tape would pass mustard or not in court (probably not) but it certainly casts suspicion on these people.

Remember the ingredient list I posted earlier? That is just the ingredients they want you to know about. Given their history, should a vaccine become contaminated again, can I trust these people to let me know what exactly I am injecting into my children?

For more info:

http://www.sv40foundation.org/Chronology.html

http://www.thevirusandthevaccine.com/factsheet.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/default.htm

(1)Inhal Toxicol. 2006 Nov;18(12):995-1000. The role of SV40 in malignant mesothelioma and other human malignancies. Pershouse MA, Heivly S, Girtsman T.

(2)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673602079503/
fulltext

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

-------
Cheat me once, shame on you. Cheat me twice, shame on me.
-- Source unknown

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE