Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 2 of 16
Frem,
I share your disgust with the FDA. It is now run by business for business. Any pretence at being an public agency charged with protecting citizens has been erased. But it wasn't too long ago that the FDA stood for something good. Do you remember David Kessler?
"His supporters, including public health advocates, contend that he has made FDA a more effective agency in protecting consumer safety and health. Detractors, such as those in the tobacco and medical device industries, argue that Kessler has favored too much government regulation, delaying drug and medical device development. Many in Congress agree with them and have launched efforts to reform FDA."
The anti-government, anti-regulation, pro-business fervor of the republican congress gave you everything you hate: good science and public policy killed in favor of private profit.
And as a further assault on science, university researchers who get pharmaceutical money are muzzled by their grantors.
And meanwhile, supplements are completely unregulated - you have no idea if they're pure, or safe, or effective. How's that for a complete abdication to profit?
----------------------------
BTW - have you noticed a big shift in medical drug policy since drug manufacturers have been allowed to directly plug their wares to you and me? ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT ...
... sotto voce (our bottom line).
And news openly reports on companies looking for the next big 'blockbuster' medicine - not one that necessarily solves an vital medical problem, but one that is under patent.
-----------------------------------------
No wonder you are cynical - companies are looking after their profit, and government is looking after the companies, and consumers are 'free' to chose whatever they want based on ads and propaganda.
---------------------------
There ARE some vaccines that are absolutely vital - rabies vaccines, polio vaccines (in areas where outbreaks still occur), tetanus and others. Unfortunately, because of the FDA's current perversion, you and I will have to rely on studies done in Europe and elsewhere - away from corrosive US business interests. There is probably no good information on new products, not just in terms of effectiveness studies, but safety studies as well.
-----------------
PS I think Congress's gutting of the FDA was a good model for Bush's gutting of HHS, NIH, NASA and especially the EPA. If you don't like the science - de-fund the agency, sack employees who don't go along with the 'proper' agenda, and restrict the rest.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit ?
Whafu ?!
Go back and READ what you just wrote, in light of your previous post!
Not to mention you originally demanded full evidence to back every statement, and then when I make comments related to that evidence, you dismiss the comment out of hand because you "didn't get around to looking at" the very evidence you demanded I provide.
Find your own damned links in the future.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, the issue really boils down to a single word.
Credibility.
And given their actions past and present, Big Pharma scores a flat damn zero with me.
With most people in fact, go ask em.
And so when Big Pharma says "but you need this unresearched, potentially dangerous medication!" and the Medical Care Industry says "Yes, you do, otherwise Big Pharma will go broke and then where will we be ?!"...
They can jam that medication up their ass, cause I ain't goin anywhere near it.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, what is your solution?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Informed choice, same as prettymuch everything.
Think about it, your doctor, when you set up a medical procedure, sits down with you and fully explains the risks, benefits, possible complications, ect.. to you, and YOU make the call.
You don't have to look up or research jack shit, that's what you pay HIM for, that's why he deserves the substantive income he gets.
(Although, nothing wrong with backchecking for yourself, everyone is human and falllible)
Most docs are gonna play it 100% straight with you, the threat of a lawsuit (or in the case of one doc in particular, a bit more personal than that..) is enough to keep them pretty damned honest.
Same with medication or vaccines - they sit down with you, inform you to the best of their ability, and YOU make the call.
Anything else is asinine - and when the word "Mandatory" pops up, they've taken a patient-doctor decision out of the hands of the very people who need to be making it, and handed it to the unholy trinity of The Medical Care Establishment, Big Pharma, and The Government, three forces I wouldn't trust to pour piss out of a boot if the directions were stamped on the heel.
Add in collusion for mutual financial gain, and I would say you have a damned serious collision of ethics (which not one of the three even truly has in the first place, as being establishments rather than people) with a purely financial agenda.
Ergo, as soon as the word "Mandatory" enters the equation, I go anarchic-ballistic, because I know damned well abuse will follow.
Ain't the states decision, hell, ain't even the states goddamn business, it's between me and my doc, period.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
"Think about it, your doctor, when you set up a medical procedure, sits down with you and fully explains the risks, benefits, possible complications, ect.. to you, and YOU make the call."
From whence do those impartial facts come?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, it's been my experience, as a general rule, that Doctors ain't stupid, and most of mine are actually better than me at sorting which studies are bullshit or invalid due to poor research, skewed sampling, etc.
Realistically, they read this stuff all the time, the frankensteins I have on my short-list do, and I say frankensteins as a compliment, when you're only 78% OEM parts, and have been written off by the medical establishment more than once, you really do want arrogant, well informed docs of a cussed, skeptical nature..
But I digress.
It's not that they're kind, benevolent human beings, only one really seems to be that, it's the full awareness that the consequences of shovelling bullshit aren't going to land on the head of big pharma, or the gov, those consequences are going to land on THEM, and they know it.
So pure self-interest is going to drive them to cover their ass as effectively as possible, the same principle behind giving two people a cake and telling them one gets to cut it, and the other takes piece of choice.. self interest LOOKS like cooperation or decency in such a case, but it ain't.
A lot of times you can turn human nature on itself to protect you, and this is one of em - the same way a brake mechanic isn't gonna do a halfass job because the consequences outweigh the risk, neither would any of the doctors on my short-list.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No you reread what I wrote, because your hearing what you want to hear just as you did with the quote I responded too. I don't need to read everything you wrote because I read everything pertinent to what I responded too, expecting me to read everything in your post in order to respond to one sentence is dishonest at best.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Go back and READ what you just wrote, in light of your previous post!
You took a quote (which I read) that essentially said "it's half as effective in young children so if you want full effect you need double the dose" as saying "It doesn't work at all so pump'em full of the stuff and pray!" I had no further thing to say on the rest of the evidence very much because I haven't read it. I merely pointed out your propagandising of a sentence and your twisting of it to say something you should know it doesn't say.
I quoted everything I was replying to and dealt with it directly in my post, because I didn't want to let lie such blatant propagandising while I dealt with the other evidence. You want to forcibly reinterpret that as dismissing your entire post go ahead, but I won't let you get away with propagandising quotes from me any more than I'll let you get away with it in the instance I replied to.
Quote:Not once did I dismiss 'out of hand' all your evidence because I 'didn't get round to looking at' it. I took one sentence and one quote and said that what you portrayed the quote as saying was completely not what it was saying. You respond by doing the exact same thing again to me, taking what I said and portraying it as saying something completely different, is it deliberate? Did you bother to read the quote and lines of clarification before the sentence “No where does it say it doesn't work.”? I rather think not, since those outlined exactly what I was replying to and why, a simple fact you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp.
Not to mention you originally demanded full evidence to back every statement, and then when I make comments related to that evidence, you dismiss the comment out of hand because you "didn't get around to looking at" the very evidence you demanded I provide.
Quote:I do, to back up my own argument. If you don't want to back up your own damn arguments in future that's your choice, and it'll hit your argument and your credibility, not mine so why should I give a damn?
Find your own damned links in the future.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Isn't that usually the case? ; )
Originally posted by rue:
CTS - I'm not quite sure what you're saying.
I am saying, the same clinical disease as smallpox is still going around. One may make the case that smallpox (the virus) has been eradicated, based on a technicality. For practical purposes, the disease has NOT been eradicated.
This eventually begs the question, can diseases be genuinely eradicated through the use of mass vaccinations? Even if specific viruses are no longer in circulation, it appears there are plenty more to take their place.
Kind of like deposing a dictatorship in Iraq or Afghanistan. You send good soldiers who die for the war, and there are dozens of dictator-wanna-bes in the waiting. Is toppling third world dictators worth the effort, let alone a compulsory conscription into the war?
Quote:I have read speculation of this. But what's the evidence for this theory? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks.
It wiped out an estimated 95 - 99% of Indians.
Quote:I would love to read anything about how the variola virus only has proteins to attach to only humans. If you have a reference, please post it. Thanks.
As we know from 'bird flu', viruses need to attach to cell receptors to infect the host. If the virus has the (genetically determined) proteins to attach to only one species its range of hosts will be limited. That is why smallpox virus (as determined by PCR) infects only humans.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Doctors are worse than drug dealers--they do it with such piety.
--Emma Holister
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is my humble opinion that there ARE no impartial facts when it comes to vaccines. All information out there is part of a global marketing and religious campaign on behalf of vaccines ("if we all vaccinate, we can get to eradication heaven"), or part of a bitter vaccination backlash. (As Michael Crichton said in "State of Fear": "Everyone has an agenda--except me.")
Originally posted by rue:
From whence do those impartial facts come?
Parents have to sort through a lot of muddled, distorted, and biased information to tease out what they believe would be best for their children. That is why they need to be able to choose, and not let the manufacturers or the retailers of the product choose for them. That is why they cannot let the government, who we all know has been corrupted by the manufacturers and retailers, choose for them either. None of them have the best interests of the children at heart. PARENTS have to choose for the best interest of the children. No one else.
Michael Crichton actually has a lot of interesting things to say about global warming at the end of his book (State of Fear). I found myself agreeing with almost everything (including his proposal of a blinded funding mechanism for research). His position is simply: No one knows. I find this same position applicable to vaccine research, which appears to be every bit as politicized as global warming. No one knows.
There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving that vaccines are highly effective and highly safe. There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving that vaccines are completely ineffective and highly dangerous. In absence of conclusive evidence, people should be allowed to judge what evidence exists for themselves.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME