# To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate



## Darlene

With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?

I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## konradv

Some people do have bad reactions, but the chances of bad outcomes from vaccinations are much, much lower than from the diseases, themselves.  Get your children vaccinated.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The public safety issue trumps parental rights.

Remove children from the home to never return if the parents refuse even once.


----------



## Katzndogz

Parents must have their children rescued from parental ignorance.    Too bad parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated can't be sentenced to visiting a part of the world where there are no vaccinations and see what happens to children.


----------



## Darlene

Katzndogz said:


> Parents must have their children rescued from parental ignorance.    Too bad parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated can't be sentenced to visiting a part of the world where there are no vaccinations and see what happens to children.


The quality of living conditions plays a huge role as to what illnesses prevail in a society. Those who are hygienic and live a healthy lifestyle are ten times less likely to become ill than those who live in poverty and/or poor living conditions.

Did you notice that the decrease in major diseases also came around the time when the living conditions in America were improving?

I think its a bit biased to think that parents should have their children removed because they don't believe in doing everything the government wants them to do (the medical society is part of the government).


----------



## TheOldSchool

Have you ever walked around in the U.S, or any other modern nation and noticed the lack of sick people dying in the streets?

Thank vaccinations for that.  Vaccinate your kids Darlene.  Space the vaccinations out if it makes you feel better.  But vaccinate them or you're barely better than Christian Scientists who'd rather their kids die than give them medicine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Of course it's biased.  I don't want unvaccinated children around my grand children.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.


----------



## Darlene

TheOldSchool said:


> Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.


I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
Malikai was doing just fine until then.

Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Darlene, then please (and I am saying this nicely) keep an eye on your child's health, very closely.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Darlene said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
> My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
> He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
> I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
> Malikai was doing just fine until then.
> 
> Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
> I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.
Click to expand...


Well then you're in the vast minority.  Like I said before; best of luck to your family.


----------



## Darlene

JakeStarkey said:


> Darlene, then please (and I am saying this nicely) keep an eye on your child's health, very closely.


I do. That's why I make sure he eats organic, gets all his nutrients, and I mix my milk with his baby food for the extra boost.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good luck.


----------



## Noomi

What happens if your child gets Whooping Cough, Darlene? Which could have been prevented by having him vaccinated?


----------



## auditor0007

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?





Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



I'm going to be blunt here.  I think you are being influenced by the few which is a dangerous thing.  If one or two people choose not to vaccinate their kids, it isn't a big deal, but if 10% choose not to vaccinate, all of a sudden we now have a significant number of people who are susceptible to being infected, and once one is infected, the spread of any number of these diseases can spread quickly.  We have  vaccines to prevent this from happening but now we have people like you who think taking the risk is a good idea versus the alternative.  I just don't understand it.  You may end up killing your own child along with many others by making such a decision.  Then what?

Anti-Vaccination Movement Causes a Deadly Year in the U.S.



> *When Pseudoscience Becomes the Norm*
> In 1998, British journal _The Lancet_ published research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that purported to show that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines caused autism in some children. The study was widely reported and the information spread like wildfire among parents, especially those with autistic children.
> 
> One of the loudest broadcasters of this supposed link between vaccines and autism is actress Jenny McCarthy, who has campaigned in support of Wakefield's findings as recently as 2011.
> 
> The problem with Wakefield's study, however, was that it relied on faulty data. Later investigations have shown that Wakefield was set to benefit from lawsuits based on his research. The study was retracted after numerous other scientists could not replicate his findings.
> 
> Since then, no other medical research has shown a link between vaccines and mental disorders. Nevertheless, many parents still hold reservations about vaccinating their children. Wakefield’s paper has been linked to declines in vaccination and a corresponding increase in measles cases.
> 
> In March, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a study showing that an aggressive vaccination schedule does not contribute to an increase in autism incidence.
> 
> Read What the CDC Has to Say About the Autism-Vaccine Link »
> 
> There are, however, a few real reasons why certain children should avoid vaccinations; specifically, those who are undergoing medical treatment or are still too young.
> 
> *Outbreak Clusters Appear Among the Unvaccinated*
> Earlier this year, researchers confirmed that a 2010 whooping cough outbreak in California, the nation's worst in over 50 years, was spread by children whose parents applied for non-medical exemptions to school vaccination requirements, many for religious reasons.
> 
> The study showed that more cases of whooping cough occurred in the clusters of unvaccinated children than not, resulting in 9,120 instances of the disease and 10 deaths. In San Diego county alone, there were 5,100 exemptions and 980 whooping cough cases.
> 
> In August, the Texas megachurch Eagle Mountain International Church made headlines after 21 members of its congregation contracted measles. Coincidently, the outbreak occurred during National Immunization Awareness Month.
> 
> Following the outbreak, the church hosted vaccination clinics and urged its members to attend.
> The church, part of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, advocated abstaining from vaccinations over fears that they can cause autism. The outbreak was traced back to a church member who had traveled abroad on a mission trip and then spread measles among the unvaccinated congregation.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Darlene said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents must have their children rescued from parental ignorance.    Too bad parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated can't be sentenced to visiting a part of the world where there are no vaccinations and see what happens to children.
> 
> 
> 
> The quality of living conditions plays a huge role as to what illnesses prevail in a society. Those who are hygienic and live a healthy lifestyle are ten times less likely to become ill than those who live in poverty and/or poor living conditions.
> 
> Did you notice that the decrease in major diseases also came around the time when the living conditions in America were improving?
Click to expand...


You know what I noticed? When I get up in the morning the sun rises only a few minutes later. I think that my getting up in the morning actually causes the sun to rise.

You all had better hope that I never sleep in or you guys are doing to have dark days to deal with.


----------



## Rikurzhen

auditor0007 said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to be blunt here.  I think you are being influenced by the few which is a dangerous thing.  If one or two people choose not to vaccinate their kids, it isn't a big deal, but if 10% choose not to vaccinate, all of a sudden we now have a significant number of people who are susceptible to being infected, and once one is infected, the spread of any number of these diseases can spread quickly.  We have  vaccines to prevent this from happening but now we have people like you who think taking the risk is a good idea versus the alternative.  I just don't understand it.  You may end up killing your own child along with many others by making such a decision.  Then what?
> 
> Anti-Vaccination Movement Causes a Deadly Year in the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When Pseudoscience Becomes the Norm*
> In 1998, British journal _The Lancet_ published research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that purported to show that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines caused autism in some children. The study was widely reported and the information spread like wildfire among parents, especially those with autistic children.
> 
> One of the loudest broadcasters of this supposed link between vaccines and autism is actress Jenny McCarthy, who has campaigned in support of Wakefield's findings as recently as 2011.
> 
> The problem with Wakefield's study, however, was that it relied on faulty data. Later investigations have shown that Wakefield was set to benefit from lawsuits based on his research. The study was retracted after numerous other scientists could not replicate his findings.
> 
> Since then, no other medical research has shown a link between vaccines and mental disorders. Nevertheless, many parents still hold reservations about vaccinating their children. Wakefield’s paper has been linked to declines in vaccination and a corresponding increase in measles cases.
> 
> In March, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a study showing that an aggressive vaccination schedule does not contribute to an increase in autism incidence.
> 
> Read What the CDC Has to Say About the Autism-Vaccine Link »
> 
> There are, however, a few real reasons why certain children should avoid vaccinations; specifically, those who are undergoing medical treatment or are still too young.
> 
> *Outbreak Clusters Appear Among the Unvaccinated*
> Earlier this year, researchers confirmed that a 2010 whooping cough outbreak in California, the nation's worst in over 50 years, was spread by children whose parents applied for non-medical exemptions to school vaccination requirements, many for religious reasons.
> 
> The study showed that more cases of whooping cough occurred in the clusters of unvaccinated children than not, resulting in 9,120 instances of the disease and 10 deaths. In San Diego county alone, there were 5,100 exemptions and 980 whooping cough cases.
> 
> In August, the Texas megachurch Eagle Mountain International Church made headlines after 21 members of its congregation contracted measles. Coincidently, the outbreak occurred during National Immunization Awareness Month.
> 
> Following the outbreak, the church hosted vaccination clinics and urged its members to attend.
> The church, part of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, advocated abstaining from vaccinations over fears that they can cause autism. The outbreak was traced back to a church member who had traveled abroad on a mission trip and then spread measles among the unvaccinated congregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Then she can say "I'm sorry I murdered your children" and her conscience will be clear.


----------



## sameech

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



Do whatever works for you.  I have no strong opinions on it one way or the other.  I never had a problem with vaccinations but one of my siblings got sick as a dog off the MMR.  I think some people are more sensitive to them than others.  Kind of like allergies--I am not allergic to anything really thus far other than dopey hayfever/sinus stuff.  Most of my sibblings and my mom had allergies to some meds, but my dad and I pretty much could take shots of low level radioactive waste I think.


----------



## FA_Q2

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course it's biased.  I don't want unvaccinated children around my grand children.


Yes because your dictatorship and wants should absolutely trump others freedoms 

Here is yet even more proof (if that was needed) that you simply cant stand freedom in general.  Take kids away because of a parenting decision that you don't like?  Hell no.  YOU don't get to dictate how we live our lives.

Those 'sick' children, btw, do NOTHING to endanger yours of you got them vaccinated.  What, exactly, then is your problem?


----------



## FA_Q2

Darlene said:


> I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
> My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
> He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
> I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
> Malikai was doing just fine until then.
> 
> Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
> *I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.*


Tough, you don't get to decide that.  Unfortunately, we are bombarded with foreign substances at a constant, unrelenting rate.  That is a simple fact and there is absolutely nothing that you or anyone else can do to stop it.  That is EXACTLY how our immune system works.  You are acting as though a vaccine is something that is unnatural and foreign when it is entirely the opposite case.  A vaccine is meant to stimulate your bodies NATURAL immune process.  With the stripped down vaccine, you might get some cold symptoms (because that is actually your body causing that, not an illness).  Without it, you might die.  

That is an easy decision for me - there is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines present any significant harm.  like everything, you can have a bad reaction but you are more likely to die on the way to the hospital in a car crash.  You are WAY more likely to die from the illness that the vaccine protects against no matter how clean you think you are.


----------



## Rozman

When the statistic is 1 in 100,000 kids will get autism....
I would be freaking out.
I am so glad I never had children.
I would be so out of my mind about vaccinations.


----------



## rdean

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



The only debate is from ignorant right wingernuts.  And that debate makes as much sense as Obama's birth certificate.


----------



## rdean

Rozman said:


> When the statistic is 1 in 100,000 kids will get autism....
> I would be freaking out.
> I am so glad I never had children.
> I would be so out of my mind about vaccinations.



Which, of course, has nothing to do with vaccines.


----------



## Rozman

rdean said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the statistic is 1 in 100,000 kids will get autism....
> I would be freaking out.
> I am so glad I never had children.
> I would be so out of my mind about vaccinations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, has nothing to do with vaccines.
Click to expand...


The ones loaded up with mercury?


----------



## konradv

The worst happens when the parent of a child who does have a reaction gets on a soapbox and convinces other parents to not get their kids vaccinated.  We feel for your pain, but don't add to it by setting up other kids for the disease the vaccine would have protected them against.  What you experienced is a fluke, NOT the norm.


----------



## rdean

Rozman said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the statistic is 1 in 100,000 kids will get autism....
> I would be freaking out.
> I am so glad I never had children.
> I would be so out of my mind about vaccinations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, has nothing to do with vaccines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ones loaded up with mercury?
Click to expand...

Yea, because doctors goal is to give everyone mercury poisoning.  Read about it before you talk about it.  Then you can be on the side of knowledge, not on the side of Republicans.

Thimerosal in Vaccines


----------



## FA_Q2

Rozman said:


> When the statistic is 1 in 100,000 kids will get autism....
> I would be freaking out.
> I am so glad I never had children.
> I would be so out of my mind about vaccinations.


Considering that the actual statistic is zero in 100,000 I don't really find that as a concern at all.

Look up the information, there is noting at all connecting autism to vaccines.


----------



## Politico

Rozman said:


> When the statistic is 1 in 100,000 kids will get autism....
> I would be freaking out.
> I am so glad I never had children.
> I would be so out of my mind about vaccinations.


No the stats are that kids who don't have a damn thing wrong with them are being diagnosed with Autism.

As far as the OP goes, if you stop listening to the bobbleheads there is no debate.


----------



## Noomi




----------



## Noomi




----------



## Boatswain2PA

Why your child should get childhood immunizations. 

I work in emergency medicine.  I see lots of sick kids every shift.  ALMOST EVERY TIME the sick kid just has a viral syndrome and simply needs alternating doses of acetaminophen (tylenol) and ibuprofen (motrin), more fluids, and close observation by mom and dad.  If it's not a viral syndrome, then it is probably strep throat or an ear infection and they get amoxicillin (although studies show that this is unnecessary, the kiddo will get better without the antibiotic).  Rarely is it something more serious like appendicitis, but I always have to be on guard to find the more serious thing.

And then there are the un-vaccinated kids.  These kids scare the HELL out of me because I have rarely, if ever, seen some of the diseases THAT THIS KID SHOULDN'T EVEN BE AT RISK FOR GETTING.  I've never seen Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, or even mumps.  Now this mild rash on the kids leg, which is almost assuredly just a viral xanthem (a viral "cold" in the skin) just might be a meningiococcal rash which means this kid could be dead in a few hours if I don't diagnose it immediately and start intravenous antibiotics.  That cough that the 4 month old has had for 3 days might not be his first case of viral bronchitis, it may be pertussis that can have him cough so much he gets hypoxic brain damage. 

Here is a list of childhood vaccines that are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.  Next to the vaccine is the recommended age for first vaccination (most require multiple innoculations for best immunity).  Then I describe to you what this MOSTLY PREVENTABLE disease can do to your child or to others. 

*meningiococcal  (6 weeks): *This prevents a bacteria that wants to cause two different, but related diseases in your child: Meningococcemia and Meningitis.

  Meningococcemia is a bacterial infection of the blood.  It often starts with flu-like symptoms.  A fever, nausea, body aches, headache, and tiredness.  Sounds like the viral syndrome that every healthy kid gets several times a year.  That rash on your child's leg may look just like a viral xanthem when you bring them to see me in the ER.  We give him acetaminophen in the ER, tell you to alternate with ibuprofen, push fluids, watch him closely, and bring him back if anything gets worse.  The acetaminophen brings the fever down and you put him to bed.  The next morning you go to wake him up and notice he is burning hot, his legs are all splotchy, and he doesn't want to wake up.  You rush him back to my ER where he is diagnosed with Meningiococcmia, started on intravenous antibiotics, put on a ventilator, and admitted to the ICU.  If we are lucky your child will survive, although he will likely lose his legs. 

  Meningitis is an infection or inflammation of the lining around the brain and spinal cord.  It can be caused by many different viruses or bacteria.  Bacterial meningitis commonly has a much worse outcome in terms of death and long term disability than viral meningitis.  Until the development of meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines the most common cause of meningitis were these bacteria.  Meningitis can also start with flu-like symptoms of fever, nausea, body and headaches, and fatigue....looks very much like that viral syndrome that your child gets several times a year.  Bacterial meningitis however, can quickly move from these benign symptoms to permanent brain damage or death in a matter of hours.

  Here are some links to videos of Meningococcemia and Bacterial Meningitis: 

  (in spanish, but pictures in the first two minutes tell the story)


  (the caption states this was viral meningitis, but I doubt it was due to the need for amputation).

*pneumococcus (2 month)  *covers 13 of the worst serotypes of Streptococcus pneumoniae which are the second leading cause (next to Meningococcal) of bacterial meningitis.  Strep pneumoniae is also a primary cause of ear infections and systemic blood infections.  Some statistics say that, in developing countries, pneumococcus kills more kids than malaria, AIDS, and measles combined.  Of course, as it's name implies, it also is a primary cause of pneumonia. 

  Here's what can happen to your child:


*Pertussis (2 months*)  Your kiddo comes home from school with a mild fever and a cough.  This is going to happen a few times every school year, and you're sure he will get better.  If he's vaccinated, he probably will.  If he's unvaccinated, you need to worry, because I certainly will in the emergency department because this may be whooping cough.  No big deal if you bring him to see me because if I suspect it then I can treat it easily with an antibiotic.  But the much bigger deal is your younger children, or your younger nieces and nephews who are not old enough to be immunized.  Your unvaccinated child may have been carrying, and spreading, pertussis for as long as a MONTH before he started coughing.  Now all of those unimmunized babies your child has been around may wind up in the pediatric ICU looking like this baby.




Haemophilus Influenza B (2 months).  Or that mild fever and cough could progress into something else, like epiglotittis.  This is an inflammation of the epiglottis, which is the flap that covers your windpipe when you swallow so that food doesn't go down it.  What happens when your epiglottis gets inflammed?  It covers that windpipe and you can't breathe.  This can happen very quickly and is an absolute emergency. 

Epiglottitis - YouTube

  What happens when your child can't breathe due to epiglottitis closing off his windpipe and you bring him to my ER?  I have to cut a hole in his throat so he breathe through it.  Here is a video of that procedure, although this is done in the operating room.  If I have to do it in the emergency department it is a lot faster, messier, and bloodier. 

  Imagine watching me do this to your child in the emergency room:  TRACHEOSTOMY - YouTube

  By the way, I've never done one of these in the ER.  If you don't get your child immunized with the HIB vaccine, your child may be the first one I do. 

Diphtheria (2 months):  Fever, chills, fatigue, cough, headache....sounds like the viral syndrome again doesn't it?  And it probably is, but if your child isn't vaccinated it could be diphtheria.  Your child's lymph nodes in their neck may swell up so much that I have to put a tube down their throat so they can breathe.  If I can't get the tube down their throat, I may have to again cut a hole in your child's throat so they can breathe.  Diphtheria is fatal in upwards of 10% of cases, and possibly as high as 20% in the very young or elderly. 

Polio (2 months):  The poliovirus wants to attack the nerves that control your child's muscles.  Polio is almost wiped out from the planet due to the vaccines...but we could have said the same thing about Diphtheria 15 years ago before it's resurgence.  I've never seen a single case of it.

Hep B (birth) - Very infective.  Causes hepatitis which can lead to permanent liver damage, and sometimes death. 

Hep A (1 year) - Similar to Hep B. 

Rotavirus (2 month) - Very infective horrible diarrhea that can lead to severe dehydration and hospitalization.  In America this has a very low death rate, but very uncomfortable for the child and parents. 

tetanus (2 month) -  If your child gets tetanus their muscles can cramp up so much that they break their own bones.  Yes, your child can cramp up so much that they break their own bones.  We can prevent that with tetanus vaccine. 

Measles (1 year)  - Fever, fatigue, body aches, and a rash everywhere.  While not typically a fatal disease, it often progresses to a serious pneumonia that can require hospitalization. 

mumps(1 year)  Fever, fatigue for few days.  Swelling in the throat.  Usually goes away without any big deal.  Unless you are a male who is past puberty, then you are at risk for inflammation of your testicles which can lead to infertility.  Women too can have inflammation of her ovaries and infertility issues.  And then there is the nearly 30% chance of spontaneous miscarriage if a pregnant woman contracts mumps.

rubella(1 year)  Not commonly a significant disease for your child.  But if your child gives it to a pregnant woman then the pre-born child is at high risk for congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).  This results in a miscarriage approximately 20% of the time.  The surviving babies have significant risk of being born with a wide range of deformities including mental retardation, deafness, cataracts, retina problems, congenital heart problems, small head, etc etc, etc.

  This is what rubella vaccine prevents:  Congenital Rubella Syndrome - Ian s story - YouTube

Varicella(1 year)  Yeah, I know, it's only chickenpox.  You probably had chickenpox when you were a child and you don't think it's a big deal.  It usually isn't.  It can RARELY cause swelling around the brain, but that's very rare.  However the bigger consequence of chickenpox happens 30-60 years AFTER they go away because, you see, the virus never really goes away.  It just hides in a nerve root for decades until it comes back as shingles which is an incredibly painful rash.  I've had to put people into the hospital before just to control their pain. 

HPV (11 year) prevents most of the papilloma viruses that cause the most aggressive forms of cervical cancer.  While cervical cancer can be detected early by annual pap smears, these pap smears on detect the cancer, they don't prevent or treat it.  Furthermore many young woman do not get the pap smears, and don't go to the doctor until they have symptoms.  But in that respect cervical cancer is like colon cancer; once you have symptoms, you probably have very advanced disease.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

Darlene said:


> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.



What kind of "research" have you done?  Would you care to share that with us?  Research is only valid if it is repeatable, meaning other people can do the SAME thing with their research and come up with the same results.  

The CDC doesn't tell you the way vaccines are made?  Are you kidding me?  Open a basic immunology/microbiology textbook and you will see several examples of how various vaccines are made.  Furthermore, the CDC isn't involved in the safety/efficacy, that is the role of the FDA, which has unbelievably high requirements for any kind of medication that I prescribe (including vaccines).   




Darlene said:


> The quality of living conditions plays a huge role as to what illnesses prevail in a society. Those who are hygienic and live a healthy lifestyle are ten times less likely to become ill than those who live in poverty and/or poor living conditions.
> 
> Did you notice that the decrease in major diseases also came around the time when the living conditions in America were improving?



That's because TWO public health measures grew up at about the same time:  Clean potable water and vaccines.  Clean potable water helped (mostly) eradicate cholera, and vaccines have helped eradicate such things as smallpox. 

An analogy to your flawed thinking is "I can drive 100 mph as long as my kid is seatbelted"....how about you buckle them up AND drive safe?



rdean said:


> The only debate is from ignorant right wingernuts.  And that debate makes as much sense as Obama's birth certificate.



And here comes the big serving of partisan fruitcake.  Who pays you to come on these boards all day/every day and spew your communist propaganda??



Rozman said:


> The ones loaded up with mercury?



Try again.  No vaccines are "loaded" with mercury.


----------



## ShackledNation

If it weren't for widespread vaccination, smallpox would still be a threatening disease. Polio would be a larger problem. I typically don't get flu vaccinations and the like, but for more serious illnesses I think vaccination has helped saved countless lives.


----------



## Darlene

ShackledNation said:


> If it weren't for widespread vaccination, smallpox would still be a threatening disease. Polio would be a larger problem. I typically don't get flu vaccinations and the like, but for more serious illnesses I think vaccination has helped saved countless lives.


I'm not completely opposed to vaccines. Some aren't necessary though.


----------



## Darlene

I'd also ask for a complete list of adverse reactions and ingredients. If the doctor refuses, then you know something is up.


----------



## rdean

FA_Q2 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the statistic is 1 in 100,000 kids will get autism....
> I would be freaking out.
> I am so glad I never had children.
> I would be so out of my mind about vaccinations.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the actual statistic is zero in 100,000 I don't really find that as a concern at all.
> 
> Look up the information, there is noting at all connecting autism to vaccines.
Click to expand...


Michelle Bachmann connects autism to vaccines.


----------



## Valerie

Darlene said:


> I'd also ask for a complete list of adverse reactions and ingredients. If the doctor refuses, then you know something is up.




VIS Vaccine Information Statements are required by federal law...


Vaccine Information Statements - VISs - CDC information sheets for patients


----------



## Valerie

Valerie said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also ask for a complete list of adverse reactions and ingredients. If the doctor refuses, then you know something is up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VIS Vaccine Information Statements are required by federal law...
> 
> 
> Vaccine Information Statements - VISs - CDC information sheets for patients
Click to expand...





_Vaccine Information Statements (VISs) are information sheets produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

VISs explain both the benefits and risks of a vaccine to adult vaccine recipients and the parents or legal representatives of vaccines who are children and adolescents._
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
*Federal law requires that VISs be handed out whenever certain vaccinations are given (before each dose).*


----------



## Boatswain2PA

Darlene said:


> I'd also ask for a complete list of adverse reactions and ingredients. If the doctor refuses, then you know something is up.



No, it doesn't mean "something is up."  If you come to see me with pneumonia I may prescribe for you azithromycin.  I know the medicine, I know how it works, I know it's common and (most of) it's uncommon side effects.  I know what it's used for, what it's not used for, and when not to use it.

I don't know the complete list of adverse reactions (most of which are so incredibly rare that, statistically, I will never see them), and I don't know ANY of the ingredients in it other than azithromycin.


----------



## koshergrl

Vaccinations for things like measles, the flu, pertussis, tetanus, diptheria, polio...absolutely it's foolish not to be vaccinated (adults too). Because although you might not be felled by the flu, the 6 month old baby next door could very well die of it, and quickly. 

The stupid HPV *vaccine* for girls...they push that every time I take my daughter to the doctor's office, and it's hogwash. They're pushing a vaccine that may or may not help the like 4000 cases of cervical cancer per year in the us. 

I don't see the justification for it at all. When a vaccine works, there's no question that the rate of infection decreases. I don't think there's any evidence whatever that the rate of infection/the cancer rate is affected at ALL by that particular "vaccination".

And I'm tired of the nurse trying to push it on us.


----------



## Darkwind

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


YOU are anti-vaccine.  BUT you want other peoples thoughts.

Then why did you word you poll in such an insulting manner?


----------



## boedicca

Her poll is a good example of how biased questions are designed to drive results towards desired outcomes.


----------



## koshergrl

She's anti-vaccine because she's never seen a family member struck down by any of the diseases that wide-spread vaccination has made rare. The arrogance of the safe and protected....who ultimately will disdain the very things that provide their safe and protected status.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

koshergrl said:


> Vaccinations for things like measles, the flu, pertussis, tetanus, diptheria, polio...absolutely it's foolish not to be vaccinated (adults too). Because although you might not be felled by the flu, the 6 month old baby next door could very well die of it, and quickly.
> 
> The stupid HPV *vaccine* for girls...they push that every time I take my daughter to the doctor's office, and it's hogwash. They're pushing a vaccine that may or may not help the like 4000 cases of cervical cancer per year in the us.
> 
> I don't see the justification for it at all. When a vaccine works, there's no question that the rate of infection decreases. I don't think there's any evidence whatever that the rate of infection/the cancer rate is affected at ALL by that particular "vaccination".
> 
> And I'm tired of the nurse trying to push it on us.



As per the CDC there were 12,109 new cases of cervical CA reported in the US in 2011.  There were 4092 deaths.  

That's one in three who die from it folks.  

The bad thing about cervical CA is that it often goes unnoticed until there is peri-menses or peri-coital bleeding, which is often ignored for a long time.  When cervical CA is found, it has often metastasized and it's too late.


----------



## koshergrl

4092 deaths...I think that's what I was referring to but meh.

And I don't believe there's any evidence at all that the innoculation has reduced the rate of death.


----------



## koshergrl

At least, there was no such claim in the required reading I was provided a month or so ago when I was in the doctor's office with my daughter.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

It is too soon to expect the vaccine to reduce the mortality rate.  I don't know of any statistics to show that it has reduced the morbidity rate, but I would expect that to come out soon.

The side effects are minimal, and most likely not actually linked to the vaccine itself but rather linked to the age of those getting the vaccine and the actual physical injection.  

If it does reduce cervical CA (and it probably does), then it's a good thing.  Cervical CA sucks.


----------



## koshergrl

Exactly.

Nobody knows. So why take it?


----------



## boedicca

koshergrl said:


> She's anti-vaccine because she's never seen a family member struck down by any of the diseases that wide-spread vaccination has made rare. The arrogance of the safe and protected....who ultimately will disdain the very things that provide their safe and protected status.



I commented to her in another thread that she can only afford to not vaccinate because so many others keep disease at bay by being vaccinated themselves.

It's a First World Luxury to disdain life-saving vaccines.   The attitude is quite similar to coastal elites who are Anti-Fossil Fuels and Anti-Development because the already have "theirs".


----------



## koshergrl

With influenza vaccines, small pox vaccines, rubella vaccines...the effect was IMMEDIATELY evident.


----------



## HenryBHough

It's mostly barking mad liberals wot rail against vaccination when they are still alive because their parents had THEM vaccinated.  Given the possibility that liberalism might be inherited, it may be a good thing that they are leaving their git unprotected.  Sooner rid of them; better.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

koshergrl said:


> With influenza vaccines, small pox vaccines, rubella vaccines...the effect was IMMEDIATELY evident.



Not necessarily true.  Takes several days/weeks/months for full immunity of a person.  It requires various percentages of immunity within a community for the benefits of herd immunity to take affect.  

They all take a while.  HPV vaccine is the first "anti-cancer" vaccines.  Cancer takes a LOT longer to "start" than infectious diseases, so the effects of the vaccine will take longer to show itself.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

HenryBHough said:


> It's mostly barking mad liberals wot rail against vaccination when they are still alive because their parents had THEM vaccinated.  Given the possibility that liberalism might be inherited, it may be a good thing that they are leaving their git unprotected.  Sooner rid of them; better.



You're as bad as Luddy and Dean.....


----------



## koshergrl

No. What I said is that the evidence, in terms of LIVES SAVED, was immediately evident after those vaccinations were distributed among the population.

Not so with the herpes one.


----------



## Pennywise

It depends on the vaccine.


----------



## HenryBHough

Boatswain2PA said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's mostly barking mad liberals wot rail against vaccination when they are still alive because their parents had THEM vaccinated.  Given the possibility that liberalism might be inherited, it may be a good thing that they are leaving their git unprotected.  Sooner rid of them; better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as bad as Luddy and Dean.....
Click to expand...


And certain to live far longer, having been vaccinated against a horde of sicknesses plus keeping "booster" doses up to date.  This week it's the new and improved flu shot and a booster for pneumonia.  Some doctors say that's a lifetime thing; others say have it redone every 5 years.  Contrary to what suicidal libs believe, pneumonia is NOT "the old man's friend".


----------



## Darkwind

boedicca said:


> Her poll is a good example of how biased questions are designed to drive results towards desired outcomes.


Yep.  Reminds Me of a CNN/Gallup or New York Times poll.

It also reveals the agenda of some people.  After all, don't you know that we all make decisions because the doctor told us that we should.


----------



## koshergrl

"The United States recorded 206,000 cases of diphtheria in 1921, resulting in 15,520 deaths."
"Since the introduction of effective immunization, starting in the 1920s, diphtheria rates have dropped dramatically in the United States and other countries that vaccinate widely. Between 2004 and 2008, no cases of diphtheria were recorded in the United States."

The diptheria rates dropped immediately and dramatically upon vaccination of the public.

The same with the flu and measles and the other killers the whackos seem to think we're grown immune to..despite the fact that those diseases still kill with impunity in places that don't regularly vaccinate.

morons.

Diphtheria mdash Timelines mdash History of Vaccines


----------



## boedicca

HenryBHough said:


> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's mostly barking mad liberals wot rail against vaccination when they are still alive because their parents had THEM vaccinated.  Given the possibility that liberalism might be inherited, it may be a good thing that they are leaving their git unprotected.  Sooner rid of them; better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as bad as Luddy and Dean.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certain to live far longer, having been vaccinated against a horde if sicknesses plus keeping "booster" doses up to date.  This week it's the new and improved flu shot and a booster for pneumonia.  Some doctors say that's a lifetime thing; others say have it redone every 5 years.  Contrary to what suicidal libs believe, pneumonia is NOT "the old man's friend".
Click to expand...



Infectious diseases aren't anyone's friends except for Statists who want to eliminate the unproductive population.  Shortening the lifespan so that people die more quickly after they are no longer net contributors to the tax machine is very Utilitarian.


----------



## Uncensored2008

When I was young, the scourge of an earlier era was still around, People in wheel chairs or with leg braces. The cause? Polio. Jonas Salk found a way to vaccinate against this disease and improved the lives of generations to come.

Now some question whether or not vaccinations should be used? If only the people of the 30's and 40's had this question posed to them, there would be little debate on the issue.


----------



## rdean

koshergrl said:


> "The United States recorded 206,000 cases of diphtheria in 1921, resulting in 15,520 deaths."
> "Since the introduction of effective immunization, starting in the 1920s, diphtheria rates have dropped dramatically in the United States and other countries that vaccinate widely. Between 2004 and 2008, no cases of diphtheria were recorded in the United States."
> 
> The diptheria rates dropped immediately and dramatically upon vaccination of the public.
> 
> The same with the flu and measles and the other killers the whackos seem to think we're grown immune to..despite the fact that those diseases still kill with impunity in places that don't regularly vaccinate.
> 
> morons.
> 
> Diphtheria mdash Timelines mdash History of Vaccines



You would think with such a high success rate, they would know what they are doing.  Glad you are here to teach us otherwise.


----------



## mamooth

HPV Vaccine and Rates of Genital Warts
---
Researchers analyzed a database of more than 1 million patients and found that since Australia began providing the HPV vaccine free to women ages 15-27 in 2007, the rate of genital warts fell 61% from four years before the vaccination program began.

The team from the University of Sydney saw no significant change in the rates of genital warts among other age groups not covered by the program, and other sexually transmitted infections didn’t decrease over this period. That suggests the vaccine is responsible, not a change in sexual behavior, the authors say.
---


----------



## Valerie

uh oh, i suddenly see thread tags have arrived...


----------



## koshergrl

rdean said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The United States recorded 206,000 cases of diphtheria in 1921, resulting in 15,520 deaths."
> "Since the introduction of effective immunization, starting in the 1920s, diphtheria rates have dropped dramatically in the United States and other countries that vaccinate widely. Between 2004 and 2008, no cases of diphtheria were recorded in the United States."
> 
> The diptheria rates dropped immediately and dramatically upon vaccination of the public.
> 
> The same with the flu and measles and the other killers the whackos seem to think we're grown immune to..despite the fact that those diseases still kill with impunity in places that don't regularly vaccinate.
> 
> morons.
> 
> Diphtheria mdash Timelines mdash History of Vaccines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think with such a high success rate, they would know what they are doing.  Glad you are here to teach us otherwise.
Click to expand...


Who is *they*?

I am capable of seeing with my own eyes whether something is actually making a difference or not.

There was absolutely no question that lives were saved, and immediately, by polio, smallpox, measles, and influenza vaccinations. 

Not so much, the HPV *vaccination*. 

Every now and then, "they" go on a tangent. That's when it's a good idea to have a modicom of common sense.


----------



## koshergrl

mamooth said:


> HPV Vaccine and Rates of Genital Warts
> ---
> Researchers analyzed a database of more than 1 million patients and found that since Australia began providing the HPV vaccine free to women ages 15-27 in 2007, the rate of genital warts fell 61% from four years before the vaccination program began.
> 
> The team from the University of Sydney saw no significant change in the rates of genital warts among other age groups not covered by the program, and other sexually transmitted infections didn’t decrease over this period. That suggests the vaccine is responsible, not a change in sexual behavior, the authors say.
> ---


----------



## idb

Resistance to vaccination spans the political spectrum.
The reasons span everything from resistance to putting 'un-natural' substances into the body to suspicion of governments using it to control the population.


----------



## sameech

Darlene said:


> I'd also ask for a complete list of adverse reactions and ingredients. If the doctor refuses, then you know something is up.



That doesn't concern me so much as batches.  I have asked my doctors to not use a brand new batch when they are poking me.  I knew a girl who got a dose from the same batch # as one of the meningitis outbreaks on some drug when she was having a spinal procedure.  She was on pins and needles but fortunately did not catch it.


----------



## FA_Q2

koshergrl said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> HPV Vaccine and Rates of Genital Warts
> ---
> Researchers analyzed a database of more than 1 million patients and found that since Australia began providing the HPV vaccine free to women ages 15-27 in 2007, the rate of genital warts fell 61% from four years before the vaccination program began.
> 
> The team from the University of Sydney saw no significant change in the rates of genital warts among other age groups not covered by the program, and other sexually transmitted infections didn’t decrease over this period. That suggests the vaccine is responsible, not a change in sexual behavior, the authors say.
> ---
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand how scientists word things of you think that is not solid proof that the vaccine is a good idea.


----------



## koshergrl

I understand "how scientists word things" of I think..

Just fine, lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> The worst happens when the parent of a child who does have a reaction gets on a soapbox and convinces other parents to not get their kids vaccinated.  We feel for your pain, but don't add to it by setting up other kids for the disease the vaccine would have protected them against.  What you experienced is a fluke, NOT the norm.




The only ones I've seen rail against vaccines are leftist nutjobs. democrats and the left in general are anti-science.


----------



## AquaAthena

Yes to vaccines. I would rather take my chances with them than without them.


----------



## koshergrl

But not to the extent that you'll inject any un-proven serum into your body, I hope.

I'm very interested in vaccines for those bugs you can get just by walking into a room....or perhaps sharing a drink.

I'm not so fanatical and pro-vaccine when it comes to using iffy innoculations on my pre-teen daughter for diseases that may or may not be caused by an std.


----------



## idb

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst happens when the parent of a child who does have a reaction gets on a soapbox and convinces other parents to not get their kids vaccinated.  We feel for your pain, but don't add to it by setting up other kids for the disease the vaccine would have protected them against.  What you experienced is a fluke, NOT the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I've seen rail against vaccines are leftist nutjobs. democrats and the left in general are anti-science.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's hilarious right there!


----------



## Uncensored2008

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst happens when the parent of a child who does have a reaction gets on a soapbox and convinces other parents to not get their kids vaccinated.  We feel for your pain, but don't add to it by setting up other kids for the disease the vaccine would have protected them against.  What you experienced is a fluke, NOT the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I've seen rail against vaccines are leftist nutjobs. democrats and the left in general are anti-science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, that's hilarious right there!
Click to expand...


5 to 1 the OP is an Obamabot.


----------



## idb

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst happens when the parent of a child who does have a reaction gets on a soapbox and convinces other parents to not get their kids vaccinated.  We feel for your pain, but don't add to it by setting up other kids for the disease the vaccine would have protected them against.  What you experienced is a fluke, NOT the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I've seen rail against vaccines are leftist nutjobs. democrats and the left in general are anti-science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, that's hilarious right there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 to 1 the OP is an Obamabot.
Click to expand...

Fine...I don't care.
Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.


----------



## Uncensored2008

idb said:


> Fine...I don't care.
> Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.



One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.


----------



## idb

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine...I don't care.
> Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.
Click to expand...




Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine...I don't care.
> Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.
Click to expand...

One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.

Which party has attacked GMOs?


----------



## rdean

koshergrl said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The United States recorded 206,000 cases of diphtheria in 1921, resulting in 15,520 deaths."
> "Since the introduction of effective immunization, starting in the 1920s, diphtheria rates have dropped dramatically in the United States and other countries that vaccinate widely. Between 2004 and 2008, no cases of diphtheria were recorded in the United States."
> 
> The diptheria rates dropped immediately and dramatically upon vaccination of the public.
> 
> The same with the flu and measles and the other killers the whackos seem to think we're grown immune to..despite the fact that those diseases still kill with impunity in places that don't regularly vaccinate.
> 
> morons.
> 
> Diphtheria mdash Timelines mdash History of Vaccines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think with such a high success rate, they would know what they are doing.  Glad you are here to teach us otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is *they*?
> 
> I am capable of seeing with my own eyes whether something is actually making a difference or not.
> 
> There was absolutely no question that lives were saved, and immediately, by polio, smallpox, measles, and influenza vaccinations.
> 
> Not so much, the HPV *vaccination*.
> 
> *Every now and then, "they" go on a tangent. That's when it's a good idea to have a modicom of common sense.*
Click to expand...


Who are "they"?  Well, we know it's not right wingers or Republicans giving us such a high success rate with vaccines.  Who does that leave?

Nice to know scientists and researchers have no "common sense" but you do.  Somehow knowing they introduced a vaccine that does nothing and had no research, data or study to support it.  Thanks for giving us your "teaching moment".


----------



## koshergrl

rdean said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The United States recorded 206,000 cases of diphtheria in 1921, resulting in 15,520 deaths."
> "Since the introduction of effective immunization, starting in the 1920s, diphtheria rates have dropped dramatically in the United States and other countries that vaccinate widely. Between 2004 and 2008, no cases of diphtheria were recorded in the United States."
> 
> The diptheria rates dropped immediately and dramatically upon vaccination of the public.
> 
> The same with the flu and measles and the other killers the whackos seem to think we're grown immune to..despite the fact that those diseases still kill with impunity in places that don't regularly vaccinate.
> 
> morons.
> 
> Diphtheria mdash Timelines mdash History of Vaccines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think with such a high success rate, they would know what they are doing.  Glad you are here to teach us otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is *they*?
> 
> I am capable of seeing with my own eyes whether something is actually making a difference or not.
> 
> There was absolutely no question that lives were saved, and immediately, by polio, smallpox, measles, and influenza vaccinations.
> 
> Not so much, the HPV *vaccination*.
> 
> *Every now and then, "they" go on a tangent. That's when it's a good idea to have a modicom of common sense.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are "they"?  Well, we know it's not right wingers or Republicans giving us such a high success rate with vaccines.  Who does that leave?
> 
> Nice to know scientists and researchers have no "common sense" but you do.  Somehow knowing they introduced a vaccine that does nothing and had no research, data or study to support it.  Thanks for giving us your "teaching moment".
Click to expand...


 I think I'm going to put you on ignore. I can't believe I wasted the time it took to read that.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine...I don't care.
> Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine...I don't care.
> Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.
> 
> Which party has attacked GMOs?
Click to expand...

The left.  Are you not aware of the blatantly obvious.  There is more of course such as the completely unfounded vitriol against fracking and nuclear (or ANYTHING that is energy based not solar/wind).

You find attacks against science all over the political spectrum.  It is not mired in any particular party more than the other.  It is a matter of WHAT is attacked.  Any science that does not agree with the narrative is attacked weather or not it is merited. 



In all fairness, the ‘anti science’ attack is almost always coming from the left against the right (at least here on this board).  It is one of RDeans favorite statements.  A characterization that is utterly incorrect.  Neither party does not like any facts that disagree with given policies they wish to push.


----------



## sameech

"Anti-Science" is code for "Damn Conservative Christians".  I have known people who were anti-vax for religious reasons and I have known some who were post-modern leftist free love hippies.  There is no general rule there IMO.


----------



## HenryBHough

Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.

Also my Pneumonia booster shot.

Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out!  But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.


----------



## rdean

HenryBHough said:


> Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.
> 
> Also my Pneumonia booster shot.
> 
> Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out!  But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.



I suspect it was liberals who created that shot.  Remember, flu virus "evolves".  Something right winger don't believe happens.


----------



## boedicca

HenryBHough said:


> Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.
> 
> Also my Pneumonia booster shot.
> 
> Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out!  But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.



I got mine on Saturday!


----------



## rdean

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine...I don't care.
> Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine...I don't care.
> Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.
> 
> Which party has attacked GMOs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left.  Are you not aware of the blatantly obvious.  There is more of course such as the completely unfounded vitriol against fracking and nuclear (or ANYTHING that is energy based not solar/wind).
> 
> You find attacks against science all over the political spectrum.  It is not mired in any particular party more than the other.  It is a matter of WHAT is attacked.  Any science that does not agree with the narrative is attacked weather or not it is merited.
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, the ‘anti science’ attack is almost always coming from the left against the right (at least here on this board).  It is one of RDeans favorite statements.  A characterization that is utterly incorrect.  Neither party does not like any facts that disagree with given policies they wish to push.
Click to expand...



The left may disagree with HOW the science is used.  But that's a far cry from believing science is a "faith".  Try to figure out why.


----------



## Uncensored2008

idb said:


> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.
> 
> Which party has attacked GMOs?



The party that attacked evolution was the democrats. At least in the Scopes trial.

Which party has attacked GMO's - are you kidding?

{
Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO _Real Time show_ on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.

Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change.}


{the 2012 book _Science Left Behind_ (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”}

The Liberals War on Science - Scientific American


----------



## idb

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.
> 
> Which party has attacked GMOs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The party that attacked evolution was the democrats. At least in the Scopes trial.
> 
> Which party has attacked GMO's - are you kidding?
> 
> {
> Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO _Real Time show_ on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.
> 
> Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change.}
> 
> 
> {the 2012 book _Science Left Behind_ (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”}
> 
> The Liberals War on Science - Scientific American
Click to expand...

So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.

Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?

And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?


----------



## sameech

idb said:


> So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
> Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.
> 
> Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
> There's no connection at all.
> Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?
> 
> And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
> *Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power*?



In Texas and places where it is windy they are.


----------



## idb

sameech said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
> Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.
> 
> Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
> There's no connection at all.
> Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?
> 
> And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
> *Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Texas and places where it is windy they are.
Click to expand...

Well, that's going to shake up this board when that information gets out!


----------



## Uncensored2008

idb said:


> So, which party does Bill Maher represent?



Maher is a radical leftist.



> Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.



Same house as Rush Limbaugh is in.

And seriously dude, that was pathetically weak.



> Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.



Bullshit.



> There's no connection at all.
> Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?



ROFL

You whine that I prove leftists are anti-science and the best you can do is "well THAT doesn't count."

My argument is that those who support the scientific method are guided by facts rather than voodoo. The anti-nuke, anti-GMO, Pro=AGW nutjobs follow voodoo.



> And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?



When it started chopping up eagles and hawks.

I'm anti-wind myself, good reason to oppose that one.



> Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?



Most wind farms are corporate owned. 

What it boils down to is that the fringe opposes rationality, real science is based on rational analysis. 50 years ago the right was dominated by their fringe. But today the right is mostly moderate, where the left under Obama is run by the lunatic fringe. This fringe is decidedly anti-science.


----------



## HenryBHough

I have come to feel that liberals should go with their conscience and *not* vaccinate their git against anything.  To vaccinate is to minimize the risk of fatal diseases and simply prolongs their misery.  Plus it weakens the gene pool to the long-term detriment of humankind.


----------



## idb

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maher is a radical leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same house as Rush Limbaugh is in.
> 
> And seriously dude, that was pathetically weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no connection at all.
> Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You whine that I prove leftists are anti-science and the best you can do is "well THAT doesn't count."
> 
> My argument is that those who support the scientific method are guided by facts rather than voodoo. The anti-nuke, anti-GMO, Pro=AGW nutjobs follow voodoo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it started chopping up eagles and hawks.
> 
> I'm anti-wind myself, good reason to oppose that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most wind farms are corporate owned.
> 
> What it boils down to is that the fringe opposes rationality, real science is based on rational analysis. 50 years ago the right was dominated by their fringe. But today the right is mostly moderate, where the left under Obama is run by the lunatic fringe. This fringe is decidedly anti-science.
Click to expand...

You said that one party was anti-science...there's no point trying to deflect.
You haven't been able to back your statement up, instead you point to one guy and claim that he represents Republicans - I think that's what you're claiming anyway.
If you're going to point to individuals I'm sure we can go toe-to-toe on that.

If you oppose fracking or nuclear power how does that mean you're anti-science?
You make no sense.
For example - I might oppose fracking because it contributes to CO2 pollution and I'm unhappy about that...how does that make me 'anti-science'?
You might support fracking despite the science showing that it contributes to CO2 poluution because you reject the scientific evidence that CO2 is bad for the climate - you reject the science.
Anti-science is rejecting the evidence and conclusions presented by the scientific method.

The right being mostly moderate would be news to those in Congress that are terrified of the looney, anti-science, anti-intellectual far right factions.

The arguments against wind power - including the deaths of birds - have mostly come from the conservatives on this forum...it's good to hear that they've had an epiphany.


----------



## idb

I see that the latest Republican revisionist memo has been released.
"Convince voters that we are actually the pro-science party and the opposite is true of the other side".

The truth isn't hard to find however.


----------



## rdean

Oh these right wingers.  We all know that in the 1960's the conservatives fled the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party which is why the GOP is 90% white today.  They suggest Lincoln was a confederate.  They insist it was white conservatives that ended slavery.  

You know what this reminds me of?  When Obama took out Bin Laden, Republicans rushed to claim responsibility after letting Bin Laden go.  It's outrageous.  Every one one of their failed policies they blame on Liberals and every one of their so called successful policies started with liberals.  The nerve of these people.

The Republican Party of 1930 is not the Republican anti science, anti vaccine, anti education Party of 2014.  They know it.  Who are they trying to fool?  Tards?


----------



## rdean

idb said:


> I see that the latest Republican revisionist memo has been released.
> "Convince voters that we are actually the pro-science party and the opposite is true of the other side".
> 
> The truth isn't hard to find however.



It's even easier than that:

Scientists leave GOP due to attitudes toward science The Salt Lake Tribune

And that is from the very conservative Salt Lake City Tribune.


----------



## Darlene

I see all of you are quick to assume I'm anti-science. I'm not. Science in many aspects intrigues me. I'm also not affiliated with any political party and I'm not religious. Silly people.
Anyways...
Like I've said earlier in this thread, I'd like to know more about the specific vaccines my children are going to receive (yes, I still vaccinate for some things).
Vaccines may have played a role in the decrease of diseases but you also need to remember that before vaccines and around the time they were created, there were poor living conditions.
I'm not disclaiming science altogether but I'm not going to trust it with all my heart.
Diseases of poverty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nutrition Based Diseases


----------



## Sallow

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


Vaccines have been with us for hundreds of years. It is the most successful medical procedure on the planet.

Make sure your kids are up to date on their vaccines.


----------



## Darlene

Always know what you're in for:
Vaccines Vac-Gen Side Effects


----------



## koshergrl

Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles. 

People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.

And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.

And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.

So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.

They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.
> 
> People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.
> 
> And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.
> 
> And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.
> 
> So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.
> 
> They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.


Believe what you want but vaccines aren't the "save all" that everyone thinks they are. Seems that these days, people just do what they're told, believe what all the doctors say without question, etc. Reminds me of sheep.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.
> 
> People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.
> 
> And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.
> 
> And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.
> 
> So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.
> 
> They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.


Oh and TB is a disease of affluence. It is directly connected to living conditions and most prevalent in poor areas (yes, even the areas that have been vaccinated against it).


----------



## Noomi

Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?

Get them vaccinated!


----------



## Wyld Kard

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


 
Vaccines are nothing more then a toxic cocktail of chemicals that the human body does not need.  Only by keeping people in the dark (ignorant to the ill-effects of vaccinations) can vaccination profit-levels be kept high. Parents are purposefully not given the facts concerning vaccines, or they are given altered data and only the glossy side of the pro-vaccine issues. A one-sided view is delivered to parents who are not being educated or informed, but it favors vaccinations! Ignorance may be bliss, but not in vaccination issues, where death and severe damage may ensue.

The Ten Reasons to Say No To Vaccines International Medical Council on Vaccination[/QUOTE]


----------



## Darlene

Wildcard said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines are nothing more then a toxic cocktail of chemicals that the human body does not need.  Only by keeping people in the dark (ignorant to the ill-effects of vaccinations) can vaccination profit-levels be kept high. Parents are purposefully not given the facts concerning vaccines, or they are given altered data and only the glossy side of the pro-vaccine issues. A one-sided view is delivered to parents who are not being educated or informed, but it favors vaccinations! Ignorance may be bliss, but not in vaccination issues, where death and severe damage may ensue.
> 
> The Ten Reasons to Say No To Vaccines International Medical Council on Vaccination
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
Finally, someone who agrees with me! Thank you for the article.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Darlene said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines are nothing more then a toxic cocktail of chemicals that the human body does not need.  Only by keeping people in the dark (ignorant to the ill-effects of vaccinations) can vaccination profit-levels be kept high. Parents are purposefully not given the facts concerning vaccines, or they are given altered data and only the glossy side of the pro-vaccine issues. A one-sided view is delivered to parents who are not being educated or informed, but it favors vaccinations! Ignorance may be bliss, but not in vaccination issues, where death and severe damage may ensue.
> 
> The Ten Reasons to Say No To Vaccines International Medical Council on Vaccination
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Finally, someone who agrees with me! Thank you for the article.[/QUOTE]
 You're welcome.


----------



## Darlene

Well, the when I click on the link it doesn't take me directly to the results I got.
I just used the Wonder tool on CDC to search for all the reactions caused by childhood vaccines.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=AA36B9063125E58F4AF388E0FC4EEB49


----------



## Darlene

Vaccine Information Resources Do Vaccines Disable the Immune System 
"
One answer came in a careful study of illness patterns observed in babies before and after vaccination, published in Clinical Pediatrics in 1988. If vaccines cause a weakened immune system, then we would expect to see a higher incidence of illness following vaccination. In that study conducted in Israel, the incidence of acute illnesses in the 30 day period following DTP vaccine was compared to the incidence in the same children for the 30 day period prior to vaccine. The three-day period immediately following vaccine was excluded because children frequently develop fever as a direct response to vaccine toxins. A total of 82 healthy infants received DTP, and their symptoms were reported by parents and observed by a pediatrician at weekly intervals. Those babies experienced a dramatic increase in fever, diarrhea, and cough in the month following DTP vaccine compared to their health before the shot."

"
Doctors have often stated that broadcasting adverse effects of vaccines to the public would hinder vaccine campaigns. This attitude emerged more than thirty years ago when Dr. Paul Meier testified before a congressional committee concerning the polio vaccine campaign of the 1960s. It is hard to convince the public that something is good. Consequently, the best way to push forward a new program is to decide on what you think the best decision is and not question it thereafter, and further, not to raise questions before the public or expose the public to open discussion of the issues.
The medical profession has been aware of the damaging effects of vaccines on the immune system since their introduction. For example, the ability of pertussis and DTP vaccines to stimulate the onset of paralytic polio was first noted in 1909. In every polio epidemic since then, DTP injections have caused the onset of polio disease.
In 1950, two careful studies were conducted in the state of New York to evaluate the reports of an association between the onset of paralytic polio and recent injections. The findings were published in the American Journal of Public Health. Investigators contacted the families of all children who contracted polio during that year, a total of 1,300 cases in New York City and 2,137 cases in the remainder of New York State. A history of vaccinations received in the previous two months was obtained on each child and from a group of matched controls in the same population. Those studies discovered that children with polio were twice as likely to have received a DTP vaccination in the two months preceding the onset of polio than were the control children."

"
*Autoimmune Reactions to Vaccines* An 11 year old girl received a routine tetanus booster dose and three days later developed blindness in the right eye and light perception only in the left eye. Her optic discs were swollen on exam. Two days later she had partial paralysis of her legs and loss of bladder control, then more widespread sensory loss including a lack of vibrational and positional senses. Seven weeks later she still had some vision loss and decreased muscle power. Within one year she recovered (Lancet, 1992).
A 20 year old woman experienced pain and swelling of her right wrist and fingers 4 days after a hepatitis vaccination. The pain and swelling resolved, but returned again 6 months later with more severe swelling and pain, following a second hepatitis vaccination. Nine years later, X-ray of the hands showed destruction of the bones throughout her wrist joints (Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, 1995).
A 4 year old girl developed progressive weakness of the legs, pain in the legs and feet, and gradual inability to walk 10 days after Hib vaccination. On the fifth day she had swallowing difficulties, facial weakness, and a monotonous voice. Her symptoms gradually improved, and within 3 weeks she could walk with help (Journal of Pediatrics, 1993).
A 42 year old man received tetanus toxoid on three separate occasions over a period of 13 years. Following each vaccination he developed acute nerve symptoms diagnosed as Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disease of the nervous system characterized by rapid onset of motor weakness and loss of sensation.. A nerve biopsy revealed destruction of the myelin nerve sheath. Following his last injection he continued to experience multiple recurrences, and continued to show abnormal findings on examination 15 years later (Journal of Neurological Science, 1978).
What is the effect of long-term immune suppression? Some investigators are concerned that vaccines could be disabling our body's ability to react normally to disease, and creating the climate for autoimmune self-destruction. The many reports of autoimmune phenomena that occur as reactions to vaccination provide incontrovertible proof that tampering with the immune system causes devastating disease. "

"The destructive effect of vaccines on the immune system can persist over an extended period of time. One study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases documented a long-term depressive effect on interferon production caused by the measles vaccine. Interferon is a chemical produced by lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell) that renders the host resistant to infection. Interferon production is stimulated by infection with a virus to protect the body from superinfection by some other micro-organism. In this study, vaccination of one-year-old infants with measles vaccine caused a precipitous drop in the level of alpha-interferon produced by lymphocytes. This decline persisted for one year following vaccination, at which time the experiment was terminated. Thus, this study showed that measles vaccine produced a significant long-term immune suppression."

"
Federal legislation of 1986 commissioned the Institute of Medicine to establish a Vaccine Safety Committee. The purpose of that committee was to search the medical literature for reports of adverse events associated with the vaccines routinely administered to children, and report their findings. Computer searches revealed 1,800 relevant articles. However, the committee's rigid criteria for establishing a causal relationship between vaccine and adverse event made it nearly impossible for a disease condition to make their short list. Without a case-controlled study proving a relationship, the hundreds of case reports of immune system destruction following vaccines were relegated to coincidence. Case-controlled studies are expensive. They must include tens or hundreds of thousands of children.
Even the Vaccine Safety Committee acknowledged the onset of several autoimmune diseases as a result of vaccination (Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disease that causes muscle weakness and paralysis, following tetanus and polio vaccines; thrombocytopenia, destruction of blood platelets responsible for blood clotting, following MMR; and chronic arthritis following rubella). These types of symptoms have occurred following every vaccine routinely given to children--the suppressed immune system begins to attack the body's own cells, usually the nerves and joints. Thousands of autoimmune incidents following vaccines have been reported in the medical literature and adverse event reporting systems. These autoimmune responses to vaccines have resulted in permanent, chronic disease conditions--deforming arthritis and muscle wasting and paralysis.
In their attempt to explain the repeated occurrence of autoimmune diseases that attack and destroy the myelin sheaths of nerves as a direct result of vaccines, the committee members explain:
It is biologically plausible that injection of an inactivated virus, bacterium, or live attenuated virus might induce in the susceptible host an autoimmune response by deregulation of the immune response, by nonspecific activation of the T cells directed against myelin proteins, or by autoimmunity triggered by sequence similarities of proteins in the vaccine to host proteins such as those of myelin.
Since the committee's report, a large ecological study in New Zealand revealed that an epidemic of diabetes followed a massive campaign to vaccinate children against hepatitis B. This report, published in the New Zealand Medical Journal in 1996 revealed that a 60 percent increase in childhood diabetes occurred in the years following the 1989-1991 vaccination program of children aged 6 to 16. The widespread use of the new Haemophilus meningitis vaccine has similarly resulted in diabetes epidemics. Diabetes is an autoimmune disease that has been frequently observed to occur as a consequence of mumps vaccine. Three European studies reported 22 cases of diabetes that began within 30 days of mumps vaccination. The dramatic rise in vaccine-induced diabetes has led researchers to raise a warning flag. Immunologist Bart Classen has said, "We believe the effects of vaccines on diabetes are of tremendous clinical importance and that trials need to be started immediately to address the effect of vaccines on diabetes and other autoimmune diseases."
Vaccines have become a sacred cow of our culture, unassailable to criticism. Now that we know their devastating effects on the immune system, perhaps we need to take a more cautious approach to the vaccine campaigns. "


----------



## Samson

Only a totally ignorant parent would not inoculate their kids.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

With the growth of the internet anyone can now go online and find case reports of people having apparent bad outcomes to medications.  

These things do happen.  However they are EXCEEDINGLY RARE.  Like being struck by lightening rare. I have seen more lightning strikes than I have serious consequences that could possibly be linked to vaccines.

The Israel study may be interesting, or it may be a poorly designed junk study.  I will try to look for the actual study (instead of just a news report about the study).  But even if it is a good study, there is a big difference between a child with fever/cough/diarrhea, and one with meningiococcemia.


----------



## Montrovant

Wildcard said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines are nothing more then a toxic cocktail of chemicals that the human body does not need.  Only by keeping people in the dark (ignorant to the ill-effects of vaccinations) can vaccination profit-levels be kept high. Parents are purposefully not given the facts concerning vaccines, or they are given altered data and only the glossy side of the pro-vaccine issues. A one-sided view is delivered to parents who are not being educated or informed, but it favors vaccinations! Ignorance may be bliss, but not in vaccination issues, where death and severe damage may ensue.
> 
> The Ten Reasons to Say No To Vaccines International Medical Council on Vaccination
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

That is some funny stuff right there!

Health cannot come from a needle?
Illnesses come and go?
Each shot is Russian Roulette?

Some well researched, extremely persuasive argument there.


----------



## FA_Q2

Montrovant said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines are nothing more then a toxic cocktail of chemicals that the human body does not need.  Only by keeping people in the dark (ignorant to the ill-effects of vaccinations) can vaccination profit-levels be kept high. Parents are purposefully not given the facts concerning vaccines, or they are given altered data and only the glossy side of the pro-vaccine issues. A one-sided view is delivered to parents who are not being educated or informed, but it favors vaccinations! Ignorance may be bliss, but not in vaccination issues, where death and severe damage may ensue.
> 
> The Ten Reasons to Say No To Vaccines International Medical Council on Vaccination
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is some funny stuff right there!

Health cannot come from a needle?
Illnesses come and go?
Each shot is Russian Roulette?

Some well researched, extremely persuasive argument there.

[/QUOTE]
What did you expect?

The evidence for basic immunizations is OVERWHELMING.

The OP was obviously looking for vindication as evidenced by the above posts, the actual facts be damned.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

And she got one other vapid person to reinforce her conspiratorial ideas.  There is no hope for her, however I do hope that we can limit the damage she does by preventing the spread of her inane ideology.


----------



## Wyld Kard

How Pharmaceutical Companies Hide the Dangers of Vaccines from Parents

U.S. Government Says Vaccines are Dangerous


----------



## boedicca

Darlene said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.
> 
> People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.
> 
> And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.
> 
> And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.
> 
> So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.
> 
> They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and TB is a disease of affluence. It is directly connected to living conditions and most prevalent in poor areas (yes, even the areas that have been vaccinated against it).
Click to expand...



A disease of AFFLUENCE that is most prevalent in POOR areas.   

You really do suffer from cognitive dissonance.


----------



## boedicca

Affluent Subsahara Africa and Asia have the highest rates of TB!





 

Tuberculosis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl

boedicca said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.
> 
> People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.
> 
> And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.
> 
> And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.
> 
> So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.
> 
> They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and TB is a disease of affluence. It is directly connected to living conditions and most prevalent in poor areas (yes, even the areas that have been vaccinated against it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A disease of AFFLUENCE that is most prevalent in POOR areas.
> 
> You really do suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


Where the hell did that gem come from? I've never even heard it before..tb a disease of AFFLUENCE? That must be why it swept a wide path through the natives in the far north, and still prevails in third world countries today.


----------



## koshergrl

boedicca said:


> Affluent Subsahara Africa and Asia have the highest rates of TB!
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 32104
> 
> Tuberculosis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



That's because they're AFFLUENT!

It's still quite common in the South and in Mexico too..probably because the blacks of the South and Mexicans are so freaking affluent.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.
> 
> People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.
> 
> And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.
> 
> And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.
> 
> So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.
> 
> They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and TB is a disease of affluence. It is directly connected to living conditions and most prevalent in poor areas (yes, even the areas that have been vaccinated against it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A disease of AFFLUENCE that is most prevalent in POOR areas.
> 
> You really do suffer from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where the hell did that gem come from? I've never even heard it before..tb a disease of AFFLUENCE? That must be why it swept a wide path through the natives in the far north, and still prevails in third world countries today.
Click to expand...


To be fair to Darlene, I think she meant it is a disease avoided by affluence.  She did go on to point out that it is more prevalent in poor areas, so calling it a disease of affluence was probably just terrible wording.  The comment seemed to be saying TB is about poor living conditions.


----------



## boedicca

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.
> 
> People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.
> 
> And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.
> 
> And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.
> 
> So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.
> 
> They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and TB is a disease of affluence. It is directly connected to living conditions and most prevalent in poor areas (yes, even the areas that have been vaccinated against it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A disease of AFFLUENCE that is most prevalent in POOR areas.
> 
> You really do suffer from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where the hell did that gem come from? I've never even heard it before..tb a disease of AFFLUENCE? That must be why it swept a wide path through the natives in the far north, and still prevails in third world countries today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair to Darlene, I think she meant it is a disease avoided by affluence.  She did go on to point out that it is more prevalent in poor areas, so calling it a disease of affluence was probably just terrible wording.  The comment seemed to be saying TB is about poor living conditions.
Click to expand...



I appreciate your analysis, but think you are giving Darlene too much credit.


----------



## Katzndogz

The descriptive term for people who don't vaccinate their children is "grieving parents ".


----------



## HenryBHough

Just read on a blog that evil Republican pharma has come up with a poison that's fatal to liberals.  It's mixed into every dose of the 2014 flu vaccine so, liberals, please DO NOT get vaccinated!

(/wishful thinking off)


----------



## koshergrl

Sadly, they don't die themselves, they just carry the viruses around and infect every infant and old person that comes into contact with them..and then THOSE people die.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Michelle Bachmann says that you should not be vaccinated. As far as I am concerned, that is reason enough to do it....


----------



## koshergrl

Really? When?


----------



## koshergrl

Vandalshandle said:


> Michelle Bachmann says that you should not be vaccinated. As far as I am concerned, that is reason enough to do it....


The party of *science* speaks.


----------



## Darlene

Please remember the rules for CDZ when replying to this thread:
*A new forum has been added to the board with the intent of having civil debates or discussions on a wide variety of topics without the flames, name calling, trolling, hijacking, etc.

This forum will be heavily moderated to protect the integrity of the content within.

Warnings, infractions, and bannings will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. A 3 strike rule will apply. After 3 warnings for failing to follow the guidelines posted below a members privileges will be PERMANENTLY revoked in this forum section. This is done to protect the integrity of this forum.* *Do NOT respond to a member who violates the guidelines with a like minded post; REPORT IT.*
*No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping*


----------



## koshergrl

Whoops, had no idea I was in the CDZ. I'm not interested in posting here, adios.


----------



## Darlene

Why do you think I put this thread in the CDZ? I didn't want to be insulted for going against what has been brainwashed into society.


----------



## Darlene

And I had misread the article about diseases of affluence. That is my mistake. Diseases of poverty is what I meant (diseases primarily due to poor living conditions; not only in third world countries). Diseases of poverty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl

Er..that's a flame.

So you put it in the CDZ so you could insult the people who disagree with you, and then if you feel insulted, you can post the cdz rules and tell them to knock it off.


That's why I don't post here.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> Er..that's a flame.
> 
> So you put it in the CDZ so you could insult the people who disagree with you, and then if you feel insulted, you can post the cdz rules and tell them to knock it off.
> 
> 
> That's why I don't post here.


I haven't insulted anyone in this thread.


----------



## TheOldSchool

koshergrl said:


> Really? When?



 "I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter." –Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), on the HPV vaccine, Fox News interview, Sept. 12, 2011


----------



## koshergrl

"


Darlene said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er..that's a flame.
> 
> So you put it in the CDZ so you could insult the people who disagree with you, and then if you feel insulted, you can post the cdz rules and tell them to knock it off.
> 
> 
> That's why I don't post here.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't insulted anyone in this thread.
Click to expand...


Only anybody who disagrees with you:

"I didn't want to be insulted for going against what has been _brainwashed_ into society."

That's an insult.


----------



## koshergrl

TheOldSchool said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? When?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter." –Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), on the HPV vaccine, Fox News interview, Sept. 12, 2011
Click to expand...


That isn't her telling people not to get vaccinations. And there's no link.


----------



## koshergrl

Michelle Bachmann maintains there's no good reason for schools to require the HPV vaccination.

And she's right. I agree with her.

But people who reject vaccinations for TB, influenza, diptheria, whooping cough...things that anyone can get just walking around in the store...that a different thing that forcing girls only to get injected with a *vaccination* that may, or may not, actually prevent some types of cervical cancer that is the result of contracting an STD.


----------



## Darlene

Noomi said:


> Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
> If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?
> 
> Get them vaccinated!


Getting a flu shot doesn't mean you won't get the flu. Science is never 100% true or accurate.


----------



## koshergrl

Flu shots are about 60 percent effective. Since their advent, children and old people die much less frequently from influenza...because it is less prevalent (spread is retarded) and because when innoculated people DO get it, they tend to have less severe symptoms.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> "
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er..that's a flame.
> 
> So you put it in the CDZ so you could insult the people who disagree with you, and then if you feel insulted, you can post the cdz rules and tell them to knock it off.
> 
> 
> That's why I don't post here.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't insulted anyone in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only anybody who disagrees with you:
> 
> "I didn't want to be insulted for going against what has been _brainwashed_ into society."
> 
> That's an insult.
Click to expand...

That's not an insult but alright. Earlier in this thread, I was told that I should have my kids taken away (personal attack), called a liberal or leftist nutjob (insult), and also Obamabot (insult).
Implying that many people have been brainwashed into believing certain things is not an insult.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Darlene said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
> If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?
> 
> Get them vaccinated!
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a flu shot doesn't mean you won't get the flu. Science is never 100% true or accurate.
Click to expand...


Do you enjoy living in this country without any chance of getting smallpox or polio?  Then be happy there weren't a bunch of Darlene's running around here a few decades ago.


----------



## boedicca

Darlene said:


> Why do you think I put this thread in the CDZ? I didn't want to be insulted for going against what has been brainwashed into society.



There's no need to insult people whose posts are ridiculous in and of themselves.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> Michelle Bachmann maintains there's no good reason for schools to require the HPV vaccination.
> 
> And she's right. I agree with her.
> 
> But people who reject vaccinations for TB, influenza, diptheria, whooping cough...things that anyone can get just walking around in the store...that a different thing that forcing girls only to get injected with a *vaccination* that may, or may not, actually prevent some types of cervical cancer that is the result of contracting an STD.


Same thing goes for the vaccines for whooping cough and other illnesses-they may or may not prevent the disease.
Different batches of vaccines have varying levels of the chemicals that make them, which would explain why some people have reactions and some don't. That would also explain why it works for some people and not others.


----------



## Darlene

TheOldSchool said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
> If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?
> 
> Get them vaccinated!
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a flu shot doesn't mean you won't get the flu. Science is never 100% true or accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy living in this country without any chance of getting smallpox or polio?  Then be happy there weren't a bunch of Darlene's running around here a few decades ago.
Click to expand...

There's always a chance of getting those diseases.


----------



## koshergrl

"... vaccine safety gets more public attention than vaccination effectiveness, but independent experts and WHO have shown that vaccines are far safer than therapeutic medicines.2,3"

"In four of six WHO regions, substantial progress has been made in measles elimination; transmission no longer occurs indigenously and importation does not result in sustained spread of the virus.11 Key to this achievement is more than 95% population immunity through a two-dose vaccination regimen."

"...vaccines annually prevent almost 6 million deaths worldwide.19 In the USA, there has been a 99% decrease in incidence for the nine diseases for which vaccines have been recommended for decades,20 accompanied by a similar decline in mortality and disease sequelae."

WHO Vaccination greatly reduces disease disability death and inequity worldwide


----------



## koshergrl

Darlene said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelle Bachmann maintains there's no good reason for schools to require the HPV vaccination.
> 
> And she's right. I agree with her.
> 
> But people who reject vaccinations for TB, influenza, diptheria, whooping cough...things that anyone can get just walking around in the store...that a different thing that forcing girls only to get injected with a *vaccination* that may, or may not, actually prevent some types of cervical cancer that is the result of contracting an STD.
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing goes for the vaccines for whooping cough and other illnesses-they may or may not prevent the disease.
> Different batches of vaccines have varying levels of the chemicals that make them, which would explain why some people have reactions and some don't. That would also explain why it works for some people and not others.
Click to expand...



Not true. Pertussis vaccinations definitely have led to a huge decrease in infection. Pertussis is making a comeback as an immediate and acknowledged reduction in vaccination across the country.


----------



## Darlene

Life in the United States has become too medical-centered. Anytime a child gets sick, you give him or her medication. Ear infection? antibiotics. Cold or flu? pills and/or shots. Fever? pills. We aren't allowing our bodies to do what they were meant to do and fight off the infection. That's why we have immune systems, white blood cells, and so much more naturally in our bodies. You don't need to run to the doctor anytime something comes up.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Darlene said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
> If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?
> 
> Get them vaccinated!
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a flu shot doesn't mean you won't get the flu. Science is never 100% true or accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy living in this country without any chance of getting smallpox or polio?  Then be happy there weren't a bunch of Darlene's running around here a few decades ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's always a chance of getting those diseases.
Click to expand...


Well technically there's zero chance of anyone getting smallpox ever again.  Because of vaccines and all.  Though I guess some terrorists might get to the remaining supply of the disease in one of the 2 ultra secure locations that it's kept!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But PHEW thank goodness if that happens..... we have a vaccine!


----------



## koshergrl

The alternative is a lot more death.

I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.


----------



## Darlene

Getting a cold and the flu actually strengthens the immune system.


----------



## koshergrl

TheOldSchool said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
> If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?
> 
> Get them vaccinated!
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a flu shot doesn't mean you won't get the flu. Science is never 100% true or accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy living in this country without any chance of getting smallpox or polio?  Then be happy there weren't a bunch of Darlene's running around here a few decades ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's always a chance of getting those diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well technically there's zero chance of anyone getting smallpox ever again.  Because of vaccines and all.  Though I guess some terrorists might get to the remaining supply of the disease in one of the 2 ultra secure locations that it's kept!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But PHEW thank goodness if that happens..... we have a vaccine!
Click to expand...




Darlene said:


> Getting a cold and the flu actually strengthens the immune system.



If it doesn't kill you.

Getting an immunization also strengthens your immune system...only you don't get sick, you don't die, and you don't infect others, who get sick, and die.


----------



## TheOldSchool

koshergrl said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
> If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?
> 
> Get them vaccinated!
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a flu shot doesn't mean you won't get the flu. Science is never 100% true or accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy living in this country without any chance of getting smallpox or polio?  Then be happy there weren't a bunch of Darlene's running around here a few decades ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's always a chance of getting those diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well technically there's zero chance of anyone getting smallpox ever again.  Because of vaccines and all.  Though I guess some terrorists might get to the remaining supply of the disease in one of the 2 ultra secure locations that it's kept!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But PHEW thank goodness if that happens..... we have a vaccine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a cold and the flu actually strengthens the immune system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it doesn't kill you.
> 
> Getting an immunization also strengthens your immune system...only you don't get sick, you don't die, and you don't infect others, who get sick, and die.
Click to expand...


There's a theory that if 80% of the world got a flu shot it could wipe out the disease completely.  I'd say that was crazy buy hey... smallpox.

Right now about 40% get it in America.  Who knows about the rest of the world.


----------



## Flopper

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


The natural progression of things before modern medical science was an early death.  A hundred years ago before we started immunizing children, childhood death from common diseases were over 20 times greater than today. Thanks to vaccines, we have wiped out diseases such as Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Diphtheria.  Today over 2 million die from vaccine preventable diseases.  However, there're a lot of people campaigning to abolish childhood vaccinations.  Although there is no good science to support their contentions their campaign goes on.  Some of these people actually think there is good scientific grounds to oppose vaccines.  Others oppose it on religious grounds and yet others are just against it because it's recommended by the CDC.


----------



## HenryBHough

Eliminating all vaccinations would be very effective in reducing the constantly alleged Social Security Crisis and ending all the various state and municipal pension concerns.  But best were liberals to come up with an anti-vaccine vaccine that would undo the immunities conferred by all previous vaccinations.  Then nature would kill off enough people that they'd have enough left over tax money do launch a trillion new giveaway programs.

Free phones for all!

A Tesla in every garage!


----------



## Flopper

Darlene said:


> Getting a cold and the flu actually strengthens the immune system.


Nope.
“Getting the flu is not a good idea,” says Dr. Ardis Hoven, an infectious disease specialist and trustee of the American Medical Association. *“The primary reason is that the influenza virus undergoes antigenic variation, so on a yearly basis the strain undergoes change.” Meaning: Getting this year’s flu doesn’t necessarily prevent you from getting next year’s flu.*
http://healthyliving.msn.com/diseases/cold-and-flu/flu-youre-not-immune-

There are over 200 viral types cause the common cold, Rhinovirus being the most common.  Even if you develop an immunity to one it will do little good because these viruses are constantly mutating.


----------



## Flopper

It's amazing that so many people without any training in infections diseases or immunology have become such experts that they are willing to risk the health and lives of their kids and others.

I for one, will follow the advice of my family doctor and my kids doctors even though it might agree with the recommendations from the CDC.


----------



## FA_Q2

Darlene said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er..that's a flame.
> 
> So you put it in the CDZ so you could insult the people who disagree with you, and then if you feel insulted, you can post the cdz rules and tell them to knock it off.
> 
> 
> That's why I don't post here.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't insulted anyone in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only anybody who disagrees with you:
> 
> "I didn't want to be insulted for going against what has been _brainwashed_ into society."
> 
> That's an insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not an insult but alright. Earlier in this thread, I was told that I should have my kids taken away (personal attack), called a liberal or leftist nutjob (insult), and also Obamabot (insult).
> Implying that many people have been brainwashed into believing certain things is not an insult.
Click to expand...

It is, however, completely inane.  You are actually implying the rest of us have been 'brainwashed' into getting vaccinated yet 100 percent of the data shows that vaccinations are not only highly effective but also extremely safe.

You have NO data to back yourself up and then jump on the first opportunity another poster gives you because he brings in a few claims of people who had bad reactions.  None of that is even remotely scientific.

It is crystal clear who is brainwashed about vaccinations.  Unfortunately for your claim, it is not the rest of us.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Darlene said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
> My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
> He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
> I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
> Malikai was doing just fine until then.
> 
> Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
> I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.
Click to expand...



^  This. 

My middle kid is in the autistic range (high functioning ... blech, I hate that term).  His vaccinations didn't cause his problems, they were there from the get go.  But back then the whole mercury/autism thing was buzzing all around.  I didn't catch wind of that until my youngest was about to entire Kindergarten.  So she had already had her shots but all the vaccine talk got me concerned.  So before I just arbitrarily got her all the shots the school/government said she HAD to have, I got her titers checked.  All were fine except for whooping cough, which was low but within range. I asked the doc if the shots were given would my daughter be any MORE protected.  Nope.  So I nixed any further shots for her.  Tried like hell to get her to get the chicken pox when my oldest had it ... no such luck.  She did get that vaccine (it was before I knew of the vaccine dust-up).  My son (the special needs kid) ended up getting a chicken pox booster when he was 18 or 19.  At that point, shingles would be more of a concern.  I may have her get the booster as well. 

Anyway, if I had to do it all over again I'd wait until the kiddo was two before starting any vaccinations, and have their titers checked prior to any boosters.  If they needed the booster I'd wait a longer amount of time, space them out.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Zoom-boing said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
> My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
> He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
> I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
> Malikai was doing just fine until then.
> 
> Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
> I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^  This.
> 
> My middle kid is in the autistic range (high functioning ... blech, I hate that term).  His vaccinations didn't cause his problems, they were there from the get go.  But back then the whole mercury/autism thing was buzzing all around.  I didn't catch wind of that until my youngest was about to entire Kindergarten.  So she had already had her shots but all the vaccine talk got me concerned.  So before I just arbitrarily got her all the shots the school/government said she HAD to have, I got her titers checked.  All were fine except for whooping cough, which was low but within range. I asked the doc if the shots were given would my daughter be any MORE protected.  Nope.  So I nixed any further shots for her.  Tried like hell to get her to get the chicken pox when my oldest had it ... no such luck.  She did get that vaccine (it was before I knew of the vaccine dust-up).  My son (the special needs kid) ended up getting a chicken pox booster when he was 18 or 19.  At that point, shingles would be more of a concern.  I may have her get the booster as well.
> 
> Anyway, if I had to do it all over again I'd wait until the kiddo was two before starting any vaccinations, and have their titers checked prior to any boosters.  If they needed the booster I'd wait a longer amount of time, space them out.
Click to expand...


My career is working with children who have autism.  I know many parents, including others in my profession, who have waited to get and/or spaced out vaccinations.  If that's a precaution parents want to take I think they are absolutely fine doing that.  I also believe that any type of medication should be an absolute last resort and many in my field feel that way as well.

But every professional I know or have known knows that the link between vaccines and autism is not real.  There's no causation there.

There's no harm in what you're saying spacing them out and waiting... but I fully believe a child is much better off with vaccinations.


----------



## Zoom-boing

TheOldSchool said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
> My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
> He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
> I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
> Malikai was doing just fine until then.
> 
> Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
> I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^  This.
> 
> My middle kid is in the autistic range (high functioning ... blech, I hate that term).  His vaccinations didn't cause his problems, they were there from the get go.  But back then the whole mercury/autism thing was buzzing all around.  I didn't catch wind of that until my youngest was about to entire Kindergarten.  So she had already had her shots but all the vaccine talk got me concerned.  So before I just arbitrarily got her all the shots the school/government said she HAD to have, I got her titers checked.  All were fine except for whooping cough, which was low but within range. I asked the doc if the shots were given would my daughter be any MORE protected.  Nope.  So I nixed any further shots for her.  Tried like hell to get her to get the chicken pox when my oldest had it ... no such luck.  She did get that vaccine (it was before I knew of the vaccine dust-up).  My son (the special needs kid) ended up getting a chicken pox booster when he was 18 or 19.  At that point, shingles would be more of a concern.  I may have her get the booster as well.
> 
> Anyway, if I had to do it all over again I'd wait until the kiddo was two before starting any vaccinations, and have their titers checked prior to any boosters.  If they needed the booster I'd wait a longer amount of time, space them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My career is working with children who have autism.  I know many parents, including others in my profession, who have waited to get and/or spaced out vaccinations.  If that's a precaution parents want to take I think they are absolutely fine doing that.  I also believe that any type of medication should be an absolute last resort and many in my field feel that way as well.
> 
> But every professional I know or have known knows that the link between vaccines and autism is not real.  There's no causation there.
> 
> There's no harm in what you're saying spacing them out and waiting... but I fully believe a child is much better off with vaccinations.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the connection between autism/vaccines has been debunked but at the time ... no one knew (well, I didn't know) if there was a connection or not. 

We did some meds for a brief period of time.  The doc we were seeing at the time wanted to increase the dosage.  Errr, no.  Stopped that. 

I remember when he was teething and the doc wrote an rx for ibuprofen for him (right before it went otc) ... it was like manna from heaven!  We also noticed that caffeine seemed to have a positive effect on his behavior (for brief periods of time).  He's been drinking coffee since he was nine.  lol  

Took him off of dairy and wheat when he was nine for four years.  Did it over the summer between third and fourth grade.  When he went back to fourth grade his teachers noticed a HUGE improvement in his behavior. His behavior was THEE biggest problem.  Long, long road of mostly two steps forward, one step back with him.  He's 21 now, graduated hs, working M-F at a local collage. He rocks!

Anyway, I don't have a problem with vaccines per se ... I do think they have the schedule of shots too soon into those new humans and too close with the boosters.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Zoom-boing said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
> My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
> He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
> I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
> Malikai was doing just fine until then.
> 
> Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
> I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^  This.
> 
> My middle kid is in the autistic range (high functioning ... blech, I hate that term).  His vaccinations didn't cause his problems, they were there from the get go.  But back then the whole mercury/autism thing was buzzing all around.  I didn't catch wind of that until my youngest was about to entire Kindergarten.  So she had already had her shots but all the vaccine talk got me concerned.  So before I just arbitrarily got her all the shots the school/government said she HAD to have, I got her titers checked.  All were fine except for whooping cough, which was low but within range. I asked the doc if the shots were given would my daughter be any MORE protected.  Nope.  So I nixed any further shots for her.  Tried like hell to get her to get the chicken pox when my oldest had it ... no such luck.  She did get that vaccine (it was before I knew of the vaccine dust-up).  My son (the special needs kid) ended up getting a chicken pox booster when he was 18 or 19.  At that point, shingles would be more of a concern.  I may have her get the booster as well.
> 
> Anyway, if I had to do it all over again I'd wait until the kiddo was two before starting any vaccinations, and have their titers checked prior to any boosters.  If they needed the booster I'd wait a longer amount of time, space them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My career is working with children who have autism.  I know many parents, including others in my profession, who have waited to get and/or spaced out vaccinations.  If that's a precaution parents want to take I think they are absolutely fine doing that.  I also believe that any type of medication should be an absolute last resort and many in my field feel that way as well.
> 
> But every professional I know or have known knows that the link between vaccines and autism is not real.  There's no causation there.
> 
> There's no harm in what you're saying spacing them out and waiting... but I fully believe a child is much better off with vaccinations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the connection between autism/vaccines has been debunked but at the time ... no one knew (well, I didn't know) if there was a connection or not.
> 
> We did some meds for a brief period of time.  The doc we were seeing at the time wanted to increase the dosage.  Errr, no.  Stopped that.
> 
> I remember when he was teething and the doc wrote an rx for ibuprofen for him (right before it went otc) ... it was like manna from heaven!  We also noticed that caffeine seemed to have a positive effect on his behavior (for brief periods of time).  He's been drinking coffee since he was nine.  lol
> 
> Took him off of dairy and wheat when he was nine for four years.  Did it over the summer between third and fourth grade.  When he went back to fourth grade his teachers noticed a HUGE improvement in his behavior. His behavior was THEE biggest problem.  Long, long road of mostly two steps forward, one step back with him.  He's 21 now, graduated hs, working M-F at a local collage. He rocks!
> 
> Anyway, I don't have a problem with vaccines per se ... I do think they have the schedule of shots too soon into those new humans and too close with the boosters.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you're one hell of a parent!  

I wish there were more of you


----------



## rawmilkmike

koshergrl said:


> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.


What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?


----------



## rawmilkmike

TheOldSchool said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree?  Well damn I wish your kids the best of luck.  I hope they don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken after my dad--strong immune system from the get-go.
> My son had adverse reactions to the Hep B shot he got while he was in the hospital.
> He started having breathing difficulties such as retractions and breathing rate was too fast.
> I know it was from the Hep B shot because we didn't get that until just a few hours before being discharged.
> Malikai was doing just fine until then.
> 
> Some vaccinations may be helpful but a child's immune system is fully functional until around two years.
> I don't think infants and toddlers should have their new bodies bombarded with foreign substances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^  This.
> 
> My middle kid is in the autistic range (high functioning ... blech, I hate that term).  His vaccinations didn't cause his problems, they were there from the get go.  But back then the whole mercury/autism thing was buzzing all around.  I didn't catch wind of that until my youngest was about to entire Kindergarten.  So she had already had her shots but all the vaccine talk got me concerned.  So before I just arbitrarily got her all the shots the school/government said she HAD to have, I got her titers checked.  All were fine except for whooping cough, which was low but within range. I asked the doc if the shots were given would my daughter be any MORE protected.  Nope.  So I nixed any further shots for her.  Tried like hell to get her to get the chicken pox when my oldest had it ... no such luck.  She did get that vaccine (it was before I knew of the vaccine dust-up).  My son (the special needs kid) ended up getting a chicken pox booster when he was 18 or 19.  At that point, shingles would be more of a concern.  I may have her get the booster as well.
> 
> Anyway, if I had to do it all over again I'd wait until the kiddo was two before starting any vaccinations, and have their titers checked prior to any boosters.  If they needed the booster I'd wait a longer amount of time, space them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My career is working with children who have autism.  I know many parents, including others in my profession, who have waited to get and/or spaced out vaccinations.  If that's a precaution parents want to take I think they are absolutely fine doing that.  I also believe that any type of medication should be an absolute last resort and many in my field feel that way as well.
> 
> But every professional I know or have known knows that the link between vaccines and autism is not real.  There's no causation there.
> 
> There's no harm in what you're saying spacing them out and waiting... but I fully believe a child is much better off with vaccinations.
Click to expand...

Do you use the GAPS diet?


----------



## FA_Q2

rawmilkmike said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?
Click to expand...

Testimonials? 

Why don't you try and find a scientific study that can link any of these to vaccinations?  likely because they isn't a single one.  You might as well blame earthquakes on vaccinations.

Shaken baby syndrome!  Really...


----------



## rawmilkmike

FA_Q2 said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Testimonials?
> 
> Why don't you try and find a scientific study that can link any of these to vaccinations?  likely because they isn't a single one.  You might as well blame earthquakes on vaccinations.
> 
> Shaken baby syndrome!  Really...
Click to expand...

Testimonials come from consumers. So called scientific studies come from the same people selling the vaccines. Why would they publish a study showing their own product is useless? Do you know anything about Shaken baby syndrome? What do the parents say? They brought their child home after their vaccination. The next morning they find their child not breathing. They give them CPR and get charged with shaking their baby, by the same people that gave their child the vaccine. And don't forget all this co-sleeping nonsense. Are you saying vaccines have never killed anyone?


----------



## rawmilkmike

Flopper said:


> It's amazing that so many people without any training in infections diseases or immunology have become such experts that they are willing to risk the health and lives of their kids and others.
> 
> I for one, will follow the advice of my family doctor and my kids doctors even though it might agree with the recommendations from the CDC.


A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores that have been so well document from day one? In resent years you have autism, SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome, and Co-sleeping, haven't you read the testimonials? I suppose if your mechanic told you your car needed a Kuhneutson valve you'd believe him? Do you take the used car salesmen's word when he tells you the car just needs a tuneup? It's just like asking a barber if you need a haircut. What is it you think these doctors are experts in?

Kuhneutson Valve - 20.00 KaleCoAuto.com Your home for the rare unusual and hard to find auto parts.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

rawmilkmike said:


> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?



Medicine!  Actual science!!

What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??


----------



## rawmilkmike

Boatswain2PA said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
Click to expand...

Correct, they are Medicine Men. It's not rocket science.


----------



## rawmilkmike

Boatswain2PA said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
Click to expand...

A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.


----------



## Montrovant

rawmilkmike said:


> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
Click to expand...


That's right!  No one should ever use medicine.  It's all lies!  So when you get injured, avoid the hospital.  Don't get checkups.  Bleeding from somewhere strange?  Just drink some raw milk and hope.  Hell, don't even pick up anything OTC from a pharmacy, the doctors and researchers that came up with all that stuff are nothing but liars.  Got a headache?  Don't take asprin, the people who came up with that are the same ones trying to sell you vaccines!


----------



## Zoom-boing

Montrovant said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right!  No one should ever use medicine.  It's all lies!  So when you get injured, avoid the hospital.  Don't get checkups.  Bleeding from somewhere strange?  Just drink some raw milk and hope.  Hell, don't even pick up anything OTC from a pharmacy, the doctors and researchers that came up with all that stuff are nothing but liars.  Got a headache?  Don't take asprin, the people who came up with that are the same ones trying to sell you vaccines!
Click to expand...


No, you're missing the point. Doctors are not gods but often give that impression.  My SIL was dx'd with ovarian cancer fifteen years ago.  Her oncologist told her not to be looking stuff up on the internet, on her own,etc. that he would take care of her.  She died ten years ago.  If she had sought other opinions, other options, alternative therapies would she still have lost the battle?  Don't know.  Personally I believe she made a mistake in putting all her trust into one doc.  Just taking a docs 'word' for it, not getting second opinions, not looking into alternative therapies is nuts if you ask me.  I don't care how great a doctor is, you know yourself better than he ever will and you will fight for your life harder than anyone else.  You are your own best advocate.  Not saying that docs are bunk .... but they often only see their part of the puzzle/picture, rather than the whole picture.  I find this to be true with most docs. 

My brother got sick several years ago (2007 or so).  Went to various docs trying to get a dx.  Several told him he was depressed and wanted to drug him up.  He had a very odd symptom of having a lower than normal body temp but feeling as if he had a 103 fever.  One doc actually said to him "it's not that saying you're not telling the truth, but I just don't believe you".  Fucker.  Turns out my brother had mercury posioning/overload that wrecked havoc with his adrenal glands, his hormones, intestinal yeast infection, among other things.  Took him many months and many docs to find one who figured it all out.  He's a doc who looks at the whole picture, not just bits and pieces as most docs do.


----------



## rawmilkmike

Montrovant said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right!  No one should ever use medicine.  It's all lies!  So when you get injured, avoid the hospital.  Don't get checkups.  Bleeding from somewhere strange?  Just drink some raw milk and hope.  Hell, don't even pick up anything OTC from a pharmacy, the doctors and researchers that came up with all that stuff are nothing but liars.  Got a headache?  Don't take asprin, the people who came up with that are the same ones trying to sell you vaccines!
Click to expand...

You are not that far off but of course I didn't say you should never get a haircut, just don't ask a barber if you need one. It's interesting you should mention aspirin. Do you know how many people died from aspirins back in 1918 when they first came out.


----------



## Zoom-boing

rawmilkmike said:


> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
Click to expand...


You are your own best advocate.  Just because a doc says "jump" does not mean that "jumping" will fix your problem.  I agree with your pov.


----------



## Flopper

rawmilkmike said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?
Click to expand...

Testimonials are not scientific evidence.  There are testimonials out there that claim deaths were caused by watching television, using cell phones, and exposure to forts.

Some myths just won't go away such as the belief that vaccines cause SIDS and Autism. This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS or were diagnosed with Autism had recently been vaccinated.  On the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.

This is first time I've heard Shaken Baby Syndrome blamed on a vaccine.  It must have come from a defense attorney attempting to get his client off a murder charge. Babies have weak neck muscles and often struggle to support their heavy heads. If a baby is forcefully shaken, his or her fragile brain moves back and forth inside the skull. This causes bruising, swelling and bleeding.  Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying. Nothing justifies shaking a child.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically.  However, we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so in spite of articles by reporters seeking headlines, a quick buck, or just controversy.  Unfortunately there are parents that listen to this trash and the kids pay the price.


----------



## boedicca

Montrovant said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right!  No one should ever use medicine.  It's all lies!  So when you get injured, avoid the hospital.  Don't get checkups.  Bleeding from somewhere strange?  Just drink some raw milk and hope.  Hell, don't even pick up anything OTC from a pharmacy, the doctors and researchers that came up with all that stuff are nothing but liars.  Got a headache?  Don't take asprin, the people who came up with that are the same ones trying to sell you vaccines!
Click to expand...



The ObamaCare Tzars love that attitude!  That way, they collect the premiums but don't have to provide any services.


----------



## rawmilkmike

Flopper said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Testimonials are not scientific evidence.  There are testimonials out there that claim deaths were caused by watching television, using cell phones, and exposure to forts.
> 
> Some myths just won't go away such as the belief that vaccines cause SIDS and Autism. This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS or were diagnosed with Autism had recently been vaccinated.  On the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.
> 
> This is first time I've heard Shaken Baby Syndrome blamed on a vaccine.  It must have come from a defense attorney attempting to get his client off a murder charge. Babies have weak neck muscles and often struggle to support their heavy heads. If a baby is forcefully shaken, his or her fragile brain moves back and forth inside the skull. This causes bruising, swelling and bleeding.  Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying. Nothing justifies shaking a child.
> 
> Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically.  However, we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so in spite of articles by reporters seeking headlines, a quick buck, or just controversy.  Unfortunately there are parents that listen to this trash and the kids pay the price.
Click to expand...

Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.


Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”


As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.


If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?


----------



## rawmilkmike

boedicca said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right!  No one should ever use medicine.  It's all lies!  So when you get injured, avoid the hospital.  Don't get checkups.  Bleeding from somewhere strange?  Just drink some raw milk and hope.  Hell, don't even pick up anything OTC from a pharmacy, the doctors and researchers that came up with all that stuff are nothing but liars.  Got a headache?  Don't take asprin, the people who came up with that are the same ones trying to sell you vaccines!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ObamaCare Tzars love that attitude!  That way, they collect the premiums but don't have to provide any services.
Click to expand...

A $5,000 deductible doesn't help either.


----------



## boedicca

rawmilkmike said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right!  No one should ever use medicine.  It's all lies!  So when you get injured, avoid the hospital.  Don't get checkups.  Bleeding from somewhere strange?  Just drink some raw milk and hope.  Hell, don't even pick up anything OTC from a pharmacy, the doctors and researchers that came up with all that stuff are nothing but liars.  Got a headache?  Don't take asprin, the people who came up with that are the same ones trying to sell you vaccines!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ObamaCare Tzars love that attitude!  That way, they collect the premiums but don't have to provide any services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A $5,000 deductible doesn't help either.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  That's why it's a feature.   What a great deterrent to prevent people from using health care services.


----------



## rawmilkmike

boedicca said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicine!  Actual science!!
> 
> What are you an expert in?  The different flavors of raw milk??
> 
> 
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores.  It's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Raw milk consumers know doctors can not be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right!  No one should ever use medicine.  It's all lies!  So when you get injured, avoid the hospital.  Don't get checkups.  Bleeding from somewhere strange?  Just drink some raw milk and hope.  Hell, don't even pick up anything OTC from a pharmacy, the doctors and researchers that came up with all that stuff are nothing but liars.  Got a headache?  Don't take asprin, the people who came up with that are the same ones trying to sell you vaccines!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ObamaCare Tzars love that attitude!  That way, they collect the premiums but don't have to provide any services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A $5,000 deductible doesn't help either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  That's why it's a feature.   What a great deterrent to prevent people from using health care services.
Click to expand...

And now we are forced to buy fake insurance for our fake illnesses to go with our fake food.


----------



## Noomi

koshergrl said:


> Whoops, had no idea I was in the CDZ. I'm not interested in posting here, adios.



Of course you are. You are quite capable of having a discussion without resorting to name calling. You have some great opinions here and I wish to continue to hear them. So get your butt back in here.


----------



## Noomi

Darlene said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darlene, I have the flu. If I had been vaccinated, I wouldn't have it. Until at least Saturday, I have the potential to infect dozens of innocent people, including the elderly and small children.
> If I can't cope with the flu, how can an elderly person or an infant cope?
> 
> Get them vaccinated!
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a flu shot doesn't mean you won't get the flu. Science is never 100% true or accurate.
Click to expand...


No, but the risk of contracting the flu is greatly reduced.


----------



## Noomi

Darlene said:


> Getting a cold and the flu actually strengthens the immune system.



Then why do so many people die from it each year?


----------



## Boatswain2PA

rawmilkmike said:


> ....Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal.....



You just broke the internet with your complete ignorance of anything remotely resembling science.

You do not understand science, or the scientific method, at all.  None.

You should go back to high school and start at Biology I where students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.



rawmilkmike said:


> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.



This is simple physics and anatomy.  If a young child, without sufficient neck musculature to accommodate for the oversized/weighted head, is repeatedly shaken, the top and mid brain, or the mid and lower brain (or all three) can become separated by the shear force.  (Look that definition up if you need).  Since the lower brain (the pons, medulla, etc), which maintains basic life functions (heart beat, respiration, bowel function) is still (usually) connected to the spinal cord, the baby effectively becomes brain dead but still "alive" with a pulse and perfusion.  One key clinical indicator to shaken baby syndrome is the retinal hemorrhage that you can see on ophthalmoscopy (you can look that term up as well).

This is sheer traumatic injury, no "sickness" involved.  Just like when the crashing 2 year old comes into the trauma bay with a size 13 boot print on her chest.  Care to blame THAT on vaccines as well?  (I know RDean and Luddy will blame it on Republicans!). 

I've seen it, and it sucks. 




rawmilkmike said:


> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?



If the consumer is worried enough about this then they have three choices.  #1:  Trust the conspiratory theorist whacko's who believe that every single scientist in the world is out to hurt their children while making a million bucks doing so.  #2:  Trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to helping humanity.  Or #3: Go to school for themselves, learn what science actually is, how to apply it, how to study it.  Then, if they find that #2 is accurate, then they can do their own studies and debunk the whole thing.


----------



## Samson

Wildcard said:


> How Pharmaceutical Companies Hide the Dangers of Vaccines from Parents
> 
> U.S. Government Says Vaccines are Dangerous




I visited the second website and read the Op-Ed piece by Dr. Mercola, wherein he attempts to explain a 600+ page medical report.

Dr. Mercola offers a number of wholistic health alternatives that visitors to this site can purchase.

Including Tanning beds
*
Tanning Beds - Top Sellers - Household - Mercola.com
*
You seriously want to take medical advise from a physician that sells tanning beds? (Free shipping for orders over $49)


----------



## Samson

Katzndogz said:


> The descriptive term for people who don't vaccinate their children is "grieving parents ".




Could you imagine, 100 years ago having children that could very possibly contract Polio, and some snake oil salesmen came to you and tried to convince you that the vaccine was dangerous, but HIS MAGIC WONDER ELIXER was the REAL PREVENTATIVE.

You might bite.

But Today?


----------



## FA_Q2

rawmilkmike said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing that so many people without any training in infections diseases or immunology have become such experts that they are willing to risk the health and lives of their kids and others.
> 
> I for one, will follow the advice of my family doctor and my kids doctors even though it might agree with the recommendations from the CDC.
> 
> 
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores that have been so well document from day one? In resent years you have autism, SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome, and Co-sleeping, haven't you read the testimonials? I suppose if your mechanic told you your car needed a Kuhneutson valve you'd believe him? Do you take the used car salesmen's word when he tells you the car just needs a tuneup? It's just like asking a barber if you need a haircut. What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> Kuhneutson Valve - 20.00 KaleCoAuto.com Your home for the rare unusual and hard to find auto parts.
Click to expand...

Doctors don't sell vaccines - they sell a service and if that vaccine were not healthy they can sell another or deal with the illness itself (which is FAR FAR FAR more 'profitable' for the hospital and doctor than the vaccine is).

Also, you don't listen to just your doctor - you go to other doctors and get second or third opinions.  You look at the research that the doctor is REQUIRED BY LAW to hand you and you make an informed decision.  Well, that is what you do if you really want to get good results.  You seem to think that reading random, anonymous people on the internet that say seriously, it was the vaccine that killed my kind not the fact I violently shook them for several minuets is somehow better.


----------



## Flopper

rawmilkmike said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Testimonials are not scientific evidence.  There are testimonials out there that claim deaths were caused by watching television, using cell phones, and exposure to forts.
> 
> Some myths just won't go away such as the belief that vaccines cause SIDS and Autism. This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS or were diagnosed with Autism had recently been vaccinated.  On the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.
> 
> This is first time I've heard Shaken Baby Syndrome blamed on a vaccine.  It must have come from a defense attorney attempting to get his client off a murder charge. Babies have weak neck muscles and often struggle to support their heavy heads. If a baby is forcefully shaken, his or her fragile brain moves back and forth inside the skull. This causes bruising, swelling and bleeding.  Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying. Nothing justifies shaking a child.
> 
> Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically.  However, we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so in spite of articles by reporters seeking headlines, a quick buck, or just controversy.  Unfortunately there are parents that listen to this trash and the kids pay the price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.
> 
> 
> Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”
> 
> 
> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.
> 
> 
> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?
Click to expand...

Anyone, such as a parent, a health care provider, or friend of the patient, who suspects an association between a vaccination and an adverse event may report that event to the CDC. The CDC will then investigates the event and try to find out whether the adverse event was in fact caused by the vaccination.  Many CDC studies are based on these reports. Any testimonial should contain the report to the CDC and their reply.

The safety of vaccines are not determined by just studies but by extensive testing before release and on going monitor after release.

After  laboratory tests which usually includes animal testing which usually takes 1 to 2 years and pre-clincal studies which take 2 to 4 years, and approval by the FDA, a vaccine enters a 3 phase test procedure.

1. In Phase I the vaccine is tested on 20 to 80 candidates to determine the safety and  determine if there are any adverse reactions. If the vaccine will given to children, it must be tested on adults, then children of various age groups.   If the vaccine does not past, it is goes back to research.

2. In Phase II, a larger group of several hundred individuals participate. The purpose is to determine the safety, effectiveness, dosage, delivery, and schedule of immunization.  Candidates that pass move on to next phase.

3. In Phase III, the vaccine moves into large scale trials involving thousands to tens of thousands of people.  These trials are randomized and are double blind using a placebo.  If a reaction occurs in as few 1 in 10,000, then the the vaccine must retested on 60,000 people.  It is in this phase that a monitoring system is setup to detect adverse events that may not occur in subjects for years.

The testing process will normally take 3 to 5 years.  A vaccine can not be licensed without completing the 3 phase test successful.  After licensing, the manufacture will do a controlled release with monitoring by the FDA.

Vaccines are probably the most thoroughly tested and monitored of all drugs on the market. After the final release of a vaccine, the CDC will investigate all reports of adverse reactions to a vaccine.  It is the CDC's responsibility to recommend to the FDA, that an unsafe vaccine be pulled immediately or recommend appropriate scientific studies and or testing be done.

Vaccine Development Testing and Regulation mdash History of Vaccines


----------



## Flopper

Samson said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The descriptive term for people who don't vaccinate their children is "grieving parents ".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you imagine, 100 years ago having children that could very possibly contract Polio, and some snake oil salesmen came to you and tried to convince you that the vaccine was dangerous, but HIS MAGIC WONDER ELIXER was the REAL PREVENTATIVE.
> 
> You might bite.
> 
> But Today?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what's happening in Africa today.


----------



## FA_Q2

rawmilkmike said:


> Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.
> 
> 
> Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”


That is because the journal is a commercial product.  Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies.  They are not drawing a profit from the publication.  To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process.  Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.



rawmilkmike said:


> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.


*sigh*
More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.  


rawmilkmike said:


> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?


What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox?  This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.


----------



## rawmilkmike

Boatswain2PA said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just broke the internet with your complete ignorance of anything remotely resembling science.
> 
> You do not understand science, or the scientific method, at all.  None.
> 
> You should go back to high school and start at Biology I where students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is simple physics and anatomy.  If a young child, without sufficient neck musculature to accommodate for the oversized/weighted head, is repeatedly shaken, the top and mid brain, or the mid and lower brain (or all three) can become separated by the shear force.  (Look that definition up if you need).  Since the lower brain (the pons, medulla, etc), which maintains basic life functions (heart beat, respiration, bowel function) is still (usually) connected to the spinal cord, the baby effectively becomes brain dead but still "alive" with a pulse and perfusion.  One key clinical indicator to shaken baby syndrome is the retinal hemorrhage that you can see on ophthalmoscopy (you can look that term up as well).
> 
> This is sheer traumatic injury, no "sickness" involved.  Just like when the crashing 2 year old comes into the trauma bay with a size 13 boot print on her chest.  Care to blame THAT on vaccines as well?  (I know RDean and Luddy will blame it on Republicans!).
> 
> I've seen it, and it sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the consumer is worried enough about this then they have three choices.  #1:  Trust the conspiratory theorist whacko's who believe that every single scientist in the world is out to hurt their children while making a million bucks doing so.  #2:  Trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to helping humanity.  Or #3: Go to school for themselves, learn what science actually is, how to apply it, how to study it.  Then, if they find that #2 is accurate, then they can do their own studies and debunk the whole thing.
Click to expand...

I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.

If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?
The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.

Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, _anekdotos,_ unpublished.

Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”

How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?


----------



## rawmilkmike

FA_Q2 said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.
> 
> 
> Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”
> 
> 
> 
> That is because the journal is a commercial product.  Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies.  They are not drawing a profit from the publication.  To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process.  Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *sigh*
> More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox?  This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.
Click to expand...

The grant money for the “actual studies” comes from the pharmaceutical industry.

What is inaccurate about these statements “Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.”?

Why do you answer a question with a question? “As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby?”

BUT they are NOT pathetically obvious to a scientist.


----------



## FA_Q2

rawmilkmike said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.
> 
> 
> Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”
> 
> 
> 
> That is because the journal is a commercial product.  Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies.  They are not drawing a profit from the publication.  To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process.  Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *sigh*
> More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox?  This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The grant money for the “actual studies” comes from the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> What is inaccurate about these statements “Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.”?
> 
> Why do you answer a question with a question? “As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby?”
> 
> BUT they are NOT pathetically obvious to a scientist.
Click to expand...

Some are some are not.  Still waiting for that SINGLE SOLITARY STUDY.  You cant find one because it dies not exist - those that are funded by pharmaceuticals as well as those THAT ARE NOT both have found the EXACT same thing. 

They are safe.  None of them have found jack to support your claims.  That is, of course, because your claims are outright lies.  


outright lies.


----------



## rawmilkmike

FA_Q2 said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing that so many people without any training in infections diseases or immunology have become such experts that they are willing to risk the health and lives of their kids and others.
> 
> I for one, will follow the advice of my family doctor and my kids doctors even though it might agree with the recommendations from the CDC.
> 
> 
> 
> A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores that have been so well document from day one? In resent years you have autism, SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome, and Co-sleeping, haven't you read the testimonials? I suppose if your mechanic told you your car needed a Kuhneutson valve you'd believe him? Do you take the used car salesmen's word when he tells you the car just needs a tuneup? It's just like asking a barber if you need a haircut. What is it you think these doctors are experts in?
> 
> Kuhneutson Valve - 20.00 KaleCoAuto.com Your home for the rare unusual and hard to find auto parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doctors don't sell vaccines - they sell a service and if that vaccine were not healthy they can sell another or deal with the illness itself (which is FAR FAR FAR more 'profitable' for the hospital and doctor than the vaccine is).
> 
> Also, you don't listen to just your doctor - you go to other doctors and get second or third opinions.  You look at the research that the doctor is REQUIRED BY LAW to hand you and you make an informed decision.  Well, that is what you do if you really want to get good results.  You seem to think that reading random, anonymous people on the internet that say seriously, it was the vaccine that killed my kind not the fact I violently shook them for several minuets is somehow better.
Click to expand...

So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?


----------



## rawmilkmike

FA_Q2 said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.
> 
> 
> Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”
> 
> 
> 
> That is because the journal is a commercial product.  Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies.  They are not drawing a profit from the publication.  To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process.  Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *sigh*
> More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox?  This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The grant money for the “actual studies” comes from the pharmaceutical industry.
> 
> What is inaccurate about these statements “Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.”?
> 
> Why do you answer a question with a question? “As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby?”
> 
> BUT they are NOT pathetically obvious to a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some are some are not.  Still waiting for that SINGLE SOLITARY STUDY.  You cant find one because it dies not exist - those that are funded by pharmaceuticals as well as those THAT ARE NOT both have found the EXACT same thing.
> 
> They are safe.  None of them have found jack to support your claims.  That is, of course, because your claims are outright lies.
> 
> 
> outright lies.
Click to expand...

Are you saying no one has ever had a serious reaction to a vaccination? I am not the one making the claims. What study am I suppose to be looking for?


----------



## rawmilkmike

Flopper said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Testimonials are not scientific evidence.  There are testimonials out there that claim deaths were caused by watching television, using cell phones, and exposure to forts.
> 
> Some myths just won't go away such as the belief that vaccines cause SIDS and Autism. This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS or were diagnosed with Autism had recently been vaccinated.  On the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.
> 
> This is first time I've heard Shaken Baby Syndrome blamed on a vaccine.  It must have come from a defense attorney attempting to get his client off a murder charge. Babies have weak neck muscles and often struggle to support their heavy heads. If a baby is forcefully shaken, his or her fragile brain moves back and forth inside the skull. This causes bruising, swelling and bleeding.  Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying. Nothing justifies shaking a child.
> 
> Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically.  However, we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so in spite of articles by reporters seeking headlines, a quick buck, or just controversy.  Unfortunately there are parents that listen to this trash and the kids pay the price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.
> 
> 
> Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”
> 
> 
> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.
> 
> 
> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone, such as a parent, a health care provider, or friend of the patient, who suspects an association between a vaccination and an adverse event may report that event to the CDC. The CDC will then investigates the event and try to find out whether the adverse event was in fact caused by the vaccination.  Many CDC studies are based on these reports. Any testimonial should contain the report to the CDC and their reply.
> 
> The safety of vaccines are not determined by just studies but by extensive testing before release and on going monitor after release.
> 
> After  laboratory tests which usually includes animal testing which usually takes 1 to 2 years and pre-clincal studies which take 2 to 4 years, and approval by the FDA, a vaccine enters a 3 phase test procedure.
> 
> 1. In Phase I the vaccine is tested on 20 to 80 candidates to determine the safety and  determine if there are any adverse reactions. If the vaccine will given to children, it must be tested on adults, then children of various age groups.   If the vaccine does not past, it is goes back to research.
> 
> 2. In Phase II, a larger group of several hundred individuals participate. The purpose is to determine the safety, effectiveness, dosage, delivery, and schedule of immunization.  Candidates that pass move on to next phase.
> 
> 3. In Phase III, the vaccine moves into large scale trials involving thousands to tens of thousands of people.  These trials are randomized and are double blind using a placebo.  If a reaction occurs in as few 1 in 10,000, then the the vaccine must retested on 60,000 people.  It is in this phase that a monitoring system is setup to detect adverse events that may not occur in subjects for years.
> 
> The testing process will normally take 3 to 5 years.  A vaccine can not be licensed without completing the 3 phase test successful.  After licensing, the manufacture will do a controlled release with monitoring by the FDA.
> 
> Vaccines are probably the most thoroughly tested and monitored of all drugs on the market. After the final release of a vaccine, the CDC will investigate all reports of adverse reactions to a vaccine.  It is the CDC's responsibility to recommend to the FDA, that an unsafe vaccine be pulled immediately or recommend appropriate scientific studies and or testing be done.
> 
> Vaccine Development Testing and Regulation mdash History of Vaccines
Click to expand...

Thanks for the effort. 
8 paragraphs, a link, and still no answer. This is just a comparison to other drugs. Well, these other drugs have their laundry list of horrific side effects plastered across my TV set every night. That doesn't say much for the vaccine industry.

I reported an auto repair shop to the BBB once. They agreed with the guy who ripped me off.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

rawmilkmike said:


> I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.


They do if someone doesn't understand what that means.  However, it doesn't help to keep saying "I'm a real scientist" to someone who has no clue what that means.  



rawmilkmike said:


> If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?


This paragraphs proves you know nothing, at all, about science.  The scientific method is all about reproducibility of studies.  However the creation of studies are often predicated on testimonies of people (or anecdotes).  For example:  You're sitting under a tree and an apple falls on your head.  You may think...what made the apple fall?  Then you may come up with a theory.  In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the apple to fall on your head.  Then, if you were a real scientist, you would design a study of those who got a vaccine and those who didn't, and compare who got hit in the head with an apple.  If your study showed that those who got a vaccine were, indeed, at much higher risk of getting hit on the head with an apple (like Wakefield's study published in the BMJ linking vaccines to autism), then other people would be able reproduce your study and get the same results.  This was the flaw with Wakefield's study...he purposefully falsified the data (by choosing his study entrants) so therefore his results were not reproducible.  

There is your high school lesson today on how science goes from a personal testimony to reproducible study.  

Science then goes one step further to try to explain the WHY behind the population data.  When we can put together the population data (who gets hit in the head by the apple) with the biological/chemical/physical science behind the apple and gravity, then we have a clearer scientific picture.  



rawmilkmike said:


> The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.



It doesn't mean that the reader understands it.  That's why I suggested you take a high-school biology class, so someone could attempt to TEACH it to you.  



rawmilkmike said:


> Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, _anekdotos,_ unpublished.



See my above paragraph.  Testimonials/anecdotes are important to START scientific research.  I'll give you a true life example.  Pharma came up with a new way to anti-coagulate patients by blocking a receptor on our platelets and called the medicine Plavix.  Studies showed that while there was a greater risk of bleeding, Plavix greatly reduced follow-on heart attacks/stent placement.  The medicine was a great success for most, and saved many lives from heart attacks, although it did cause some increase in morbidity and mortality via bleeding.  

But then we began getting anecdotal reports of people who are on plavix who reclotted their stents quickly.  More studies were done, but these studies still showed that Plavix helped most people....so we began studying the differences between the people who responded to Plavix, and those who didn't.  We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort of people with a different molecule on their platelets.  

Moral of story here:  Anecdote of Plavix not working on a few people led to more scientific studies which led to a greater understanding of not only plavix, but of human genetics.

Anecdote of vaccines causing autism led to ENORMOUS amount of studies, all of which (except for Wakefield study which was debunked) show that vaccines work to prevent millions of deaths, have relatively common mild side effects, and very rare serious side effects.  

But rawmilkmike wants everyone to believe that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.



rawmilkmike said:


> Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”



Are you sure you don't want to cause retinal hemorrhage on vaccines??

CPR is traumatic.  Retinal hemorrhage is almost always caused by trauma (could also be caused by hypertension, hypo coagulable states, and probably a few other very uncommon things).  



rawmilkmike said:


> How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?



Hyperbole, like anecdotes and parables, can help teach.  But then, some people are unteachable.....


----------



## Boatswain2PA

rawmilkmike said:


> .


Are you saying no one has ever had a serious reaction to a vaccination? I am not the one making the claims. What study am I suppose to be looking for?[/QUOTE]

Yet another example of your ignorance of science.  Scientists, and physicians, very rarely rely on ONE study.  Try to read again about "reproducibility"...studies are done, and published, in a manner where others are EXPECTED to repeat the study.  

There is no ONE study you should read.  There are HUNDREDS of studies which, in totality of data, show that vaccines are incredibly beneficial.  

Nobody is saying there has NEVER been a serious reaction to vaccines.  We all know that there can be, however we know that they are exceedingly RARE.  

Wake up Mikey, let the sunrise hit your face....


----------



## FA_Q2

rawmilkmike said:


> Are you saying no one has ever had a serious reaction to a vaccination? I am not the one making the claims. What study am I suppose to be looking for?


Never said that at all.  Side effects happen - that is a fact of life.  Car accedents happen.  Lighting strikes happen.  You might choke on a chicken bone.

That does not mean you don't drive, go outside or eat chicken.  Why would you not stop those activities?  Simple - the RISK is far outweighed by the benefits.  Why would you vaccinate?  Same reason, you are far MORE LIKELY to die from any of the illnesses that the vaccines protect against than you are of the vaccine.  All the research proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You ARE the one making a TON of claims.  Claims that shaken baby syndrome and SIDS (as well as other things) are side effects of vaccines, that the doctors are LYING about their safety and that the studies are skewed just to name a few of the absolutely unfounded and outrageous claims you have made so far.

Find a study that backs ANY of those assertions up.  Find a study that shows any of the recommended vaccines for your child are more likely to cause serious side effects than catching and experiencing worse effects from the illness.  Find ONE that is reviewed and has not been debunked.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Darlene said:


> With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
> This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
> 
> I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
> I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
> I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



There's no debate about the advisability of vaccinations. It's akin to how there' no actual debate about climate change unless the opinion of less than 2% means there's actual debate going on. As with vaccinations. That a handful of celebrities have convinced a handful of ignorant stupid people there's harm involved doesn't mean there's legitimate debate to the issue. 

As to the phrasing of your poll, chemicals are produced by our own bodies including alcohol (albeit only when we die.) But every emotional state we experience is because of neuralchemicals our brains produce which make us feel certain ways.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Worth adding, if you join the military you'll get vaccinated again and there's no opting out of it. So this whole issue can be summed up thus: if you support your own nation's military you must support mandatory vaccinations.


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


> The public safety issue trumps parental rights.
> 
> Remove children from the home to never return if the parents refuse even once.


 would that apply to all of the unvaccinated illegals in our school systems today too?


----------



## rawmilkmike

Boatswain2PA said:


> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.
> 
> 
> 
> They do if someone doesn't understand what that means.  However, it doesn't help to keep saying "I'm a real scientist" to someone who has no clue what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This paragraphs proves you know nothing, at all, about science.  The scientific method is all about reproducibility of studies.  However the creation of studies are often predicated on testimonies of people (or anecdotes).  For example:  You're sitting under a tree and an apple falls on your head.  You may think...what made the apple fall?  Then you may come up with a theory.  In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the apple to fall on your head.  Then, if you were a real scientist, you would design a study of those who got a vaccine and those who didn't, and compare who got hit in the head with an apple.  If your study showed that those who got a vaccine were, indeed, at much higher risk of getting hit on the head with an apple (like Wakefield's study published in the BMJ linking vaccines to autism), then other people would be able reproduce your study and get the same results.  This was the flaw with Wakefield's study...he purposefully falsified the data (by choosing his study entrants) so therefore his results were not reproducible.
> 
> There is your high school lesson today on how science goes from a personal testimony to reproducible study.
> 
> Science then goes one step further to try to explain the WHY behind the population data.  When we can put together the population data (who gets hit in the head by the apple) with the biological/chemical/physical science behind the apple and gravity, then we have a clearer scientific picture.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean that the reader understands it.  That's why I suggested you take a high-school biology class, so someone could attempt to TEACH it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, _anekdotos,_ unpublished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my above paragraph.  Testimonials/anecdotes are important to START scientific research.  I'll give you a true life example.  Pharma came up with a new way to anti-coagulate patients by blocking a receptor on our platelets and called the medicine Plavix.  Studies showed that while there was a greater risk of bleeding, Plavix greatly reduced follow-on heart attacks/stent placement.  The medicine was a great success for most, and saved many lives from heart attacks, although it did cause some increase in morbidity and mortality via bleeding.
> 
> But then we began getting anecdotal reports of people who are on plavix who reclotted their stents quickly.  More studies were done, but these studies still showed that Plavix helped most people....so we began studying the differences between the people who responded to Plavix, and those who didn't.  We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort of people with a different molecule on their platelets.
> 
> Moral of story here:  Anecdote of Plavix not working on a few people led to more scientific studies which led to a greater understanding of not only plavix, but of human genetics.
> 
> Anecdote of vaccines causing autism led to ENORMOUS amount of studies, all of which (except for Wakefield study which was debunked) show that vaccines work to prevent millions of deaths, have relatively common mild side effects, and very rare serious side effects.
> 
> But rawmilkmike wants everyone to believe that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure you don't want to cause retinal hemorrhage on vaccines??
> 
> CPR is traumatic.  Retinal hemorrhage is almost always caused by trauma (could also be caused by hypertension, hypo coagulable states, and probably a few other very uncommon things).
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole, like anecdotes and parables, can help teach.  But then, some people are unteachable.....
Click to expand...

So Hyperbole is part of your “scientific method”?

In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the “virtual eradication of smallpox?”

High-school physics and biology were my favorite subjects.

“We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort …” So you work for a drug company?

My wife and I have an understanding that when she takes my 4 year old daughter and my 8 year old son for their vaccinations I don't want to know about it because it makes me cry.

Couldn't “shaken baby syndrome” be classified as a “rare serious side effect” ?

from cdc dot gov - DTaP vaccine side-effects

*Moderate Problems *

Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)
*Severe Problems *
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:

Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Spoonman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public safety issue trumps parental rights.
> 
> Remove children from the home to never return if the parents refuse even once.
> 
> 
> 
> would that apply to all of the unvaccinated illegals in our school systems today too?
Click to expand...



Sure., unvaccinated kids legals or illegals are public safety hazards.


----------



## Flopper

rawmilkmike said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alternative is a lot more death.
> 
> I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Testimonials are not scientific evidence.  There are testimonials out there that claim deaths were caused by watching television, using cell phones, and exposure to forts.
> 
> Some myths just won't go away such as the belief that vaccines cause SIDS and Autism. This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS or were diagnosed with Autism had recently been vaccinated.  On the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.
> 
> This is first time I've heard Shaken Baby Syndrome blamed on a vaccine.  It must have come from a defense attorney attempting to get his client off a murder charge. Babies have weak neck muscles and often struggle to support their heavy heads. If a baby is forcefully shaken, his or her fragile brain moves back and forth inside the skull. This causes bruising, swelling and bleeding.  Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying. Nothing justifies shaking a child.
> 
> Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically.  However, we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so in spite of articles by reporters seeking headlines, a quick buck, or just controversy.  Unfortunately there are parents that listen to this trash and the kids pay the price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.
> 
> 
> Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”
> 
> 
> As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.
> 
> 
> If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone, such as a parent, a health care provider, or friend of the patient, who suspects an association between a vaccination and an adverse event may report that event to the CDC. The CDC will then investigates the event and try to find out whether the adverse event was in fact caused by the vaccination.  Many CDC studies are based on these reports. Any testimonial should contain the report to the CDC and their reply.
> 
> The safety of vaccines are not determined by just studies but by extensive testing before release and on going monitor after release.
> 
> After  laboratory tests which usually includes animal testing which usually takes 1 to 2 years and pre-clincal studies which take 2 to 4 years, and approval by the FDA, a vaccine enters a 3 phase test procedure.
> 
> 1. In Phase I the vaccine is tested on 20 to 80 candidates to determine the safety and  determine if there are any adverse reactions. If the vaccine will given to children, it must be tested on adults, then children of various age groups.   If the vaccine does not past, it is goes back to research.
> 
> 2. In Phase II, a larger group of several hundred individuals participate. The purpose is to determine the safety, effectiveness, dosage, delivery, and schedule of immunization.  Candidates that pass move on to next phase.
> 
> 3. In Phase III, the vaccine moves into large scale trials involving thousands to tens of thousands of people.  These trials are randomized and are double blind using a placebo.  If a reaction occurs in as few 1 in 10,000, then the the vaccine must retested on 60,000 people.  It is in this phase that a monitoring system is setup to detect adverse events that may not occur in subjects for years.
> 
> The testing process will normally take 3 to 5 years.  A vaccine can not be licensed without completing the 3 phase test successful.  After licensing, the manufacture will do a controlled release with monitoring by the FDA.
> 
> Vaccines are probably the most thoroughly tested and monitored of all drugs on the market. After the final release of a vaccine, the CDC will investigate all reports of adverse reactions to a vaccine.  It is the CDC's responsibility to recommend to the FDA, that an unsafe vaccine be pulled immediately or recommend appropriate scientific studies and or testing be done.
> 
> Vaccine Development Testing and Regulation mdash History of Vaccines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the effort.
> 8 paragraphs, a link, and still no answer. This is just a comparison to other drugs. Well, these other drugs have their laundry list of horrific side effects plastered across my TV set every night. That doesn't say much for the vaccine industry.
> 
> I reported an auto repair shop to the BBB once. They agreed with the guy who ripped me off.
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't read either my post or the link which describes the testing prior to release of the vaccine and monitoring after release. There is no comparison to other drugs.

To your questions, "As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”?
The safety of vaccines is assured first by lab testing, FDA review, trials run by independent labs, and finally on going monitoring. 

In the trials, tens of thousands of people are given the vaccine to determine the safety and effectiveness.  If there is only one adverse reaction in 10,000 subjects, the entire trial is repeated with 6 times as many subjects.  Every adverse reaction must be researched and cleared by an independent panel.  The vaccine is licensed only after it has gone through years of trials.

After release, the vaccine is continuously monitored and reported adverse reactions must be investigated by the CDC  or independent labs.

Shaken Baby Syndrome is well understood and in almost every case it can be traced to a care giver violently shaking the child. There is no scientific evidence that vaccines in anyway cause or contribute to Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Even thou there are mountains of scientific evidence that support the safety of vaccines, there are and will probably always be naysayers who use unexplained incidents, opinions, and cooked up studies as scientific evidence to support their claim. 

Of course this not is not limited to vaccines or even medical science. Just about every field of human accomplishment is fair game.  The internet which gives everyone a soap box makes it possible.  Distrust of big government, big business, institutions of science and education, and a desire for recognition and financial gain fuel cottage industries on the internet which are exempt from any responsibility for the harm they cause.  I guess that's the price we pay today for completely freedom of speech and expression.


----------



## HenryBHough

When vaccines are manufactured only by government it'll be soon enough to distrust them.


----------



## koshergrl

When that happens, they will just stop vaccinating the masses. Best form of population control amongst the undesirables.


----------



## Flopper

rawmilkmike said:


> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.
> 
> 
> 
> They do if someone doesn't understand what that means.  However, it doesn't help to keep saying "I'm a real scientist" to someone who has no clue what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This paragraphs proves you know nothing, at all, about science.  The scientific method is all about reproducibility of studies.  However the creation of studies are often predicated on testimonies of people (or anecdotes).  For example:  You're sitting under a tree and an apple falls on your head.  You may think...what made the apple fall?  Then you may come up with a theory.  In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the apple to fall on your head.  Then, if you were a real scientist, you would design a study of those who got a vaccine and those who didn't, and compare who got hit in the head with an apple.  If your study showed that those who got a vaccine were, indeed, at much higher risk of getting hit on the head with an apple (like Wakefield's study published in the BMJ linking vaccines to autism), then other people would be able reproduce your study and get the same results.  This was the flaw with Wakefield's study...he purposefully falsified the data (by choosing his study entrants) so therefore his results were not reproducible.
> 
> There is your high school lesson today on how science goes from a personal testimony to reproducible study.
> 
> Science then goes one step further to try to explain the WHY behind the population data.  When we can put together the population data (who gets hit in the head by the apple) with the biological/chemical/physical science behind the apple and gravity, then we have a clearer scientific picture.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean that the reader understands it.  That's why I suggested you take a high-school biology class, so someone could attempt to TEACH it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, _anekdotos,_ unpublished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my above paragraph.  Testimonials/anecdotes are important to START scientific research.  I'll give you a true life example.  Pharma came up with a new way to anti-coagulate patients by blocking a receptor on our platelets and called the medicine Plavix.  Studies showed that while there was a greater risk of bleeding, Plavix greatly reduced follow-on heart attacks/stent placement.  The medicine was a great success for most, and saved many lives from heart attacks, although it did cause some increase in morbidity and mortality via bleeding.
> 
> But then we began getting anecdotal reports of people who are on plavix who reclotted their stents quickly.  More studies were done, but these studies still showed that Plavix helped most people....so we began studying the differences between the people who responded to Plavix, and those who didn't.  We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort of people with a different molecule on their platelets.
> 
> Moral of story here:  Anecdote of Plavix not working on a few people led to more scientific studies which led to a greater understanding of not only plavix, but of human genetics.
> 
> Anecdote of vaccines causing autism led to ENORMOUS amount of studies, all of which (except for Wakefield study which was debunked) show that vaccines work to prevent millions of deaths, have relatively common mild side effects, and very rare serious side effects.
> 
> But rawmilkmike wants everyone to believe that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure you don't want to cause retinal hemorrhage on vaccines??
> 
> CPR is traumatic.  Retinal hemorrhage is almost always caused by trauma (could also be caused by hypertension, hypo coagulable states, and probably a few other very uncommon things).
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole, like anecdotes and parables, can help teach.  But then, some people are unteachable.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Hyperbole is part of your “scientific method”?
> 
> In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the “virtual eradication of smallpox?”
> 
> High-school physics and biology were my favorite subjects.
> 
> “We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort …” So you work for a drug company?
> 
> My wife and I have an understanding that when she takes my 4 year old daughter and my 8 year old son for their vaccinations I don't want to know about it because it makes me cry.
> 
> Couldn't “shaken baby syndrome” be classified as a “rare serious side effect” ?
> 
> from cdc dot gov - DTaP vaccine side-effects
> 
> *Moderate Problems *
> 
> Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
> Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
> High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)
> *Severe Problems *
> Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:
> 
> Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
> Permanent brain damage.
Click to expand...

As you say above less than 1 in a million have serious allergic reactions. Most of these reactions can be traced to giving the vaccination to children who are sick or have compromised immune systems.


rawmilkmike said:


> Boatswain2PA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.
> 
> 
> 
> They do if someone doesn't understand what that means.  However, it doesn't help to keep saying "I'm a real scientist" to someone who has no clue what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This paragraphs proves you know nothing, at all, about science.  The scientific method is all about reproducibility of studies.  However the creation of studies are often predicated on testimonies of people (or anecdotes).  For example:  You're sitting under a tree and an apple falls on your head.  You may think...what made the apple fall?  Then you may come up with a theory.  In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the apple to fall on your head.  Then, if you were a real scientist, you would design a study of those who got a vaccine and those who didn't, and compare who got hit in the head with an apple.  If your study showed that those who got a vaccine were, indeed, at much higher risk of getting hit on the head with an apple (like Wakefield's study published in the BMJ linking vaccines to autism), then other people would be able reproduce your study and get the same results.  This was the flaw with Wakefield's study...he purposefully falsified the data (by choosing his study entrants) so therefore his results were not reproducible.
> 
> There is your high school lesson today on how science goes from a personal testimony to reproducible study.
> 
> Science then goes one step further to try to explain the WHY behind the population data.  When we can put together the population data (who gets hit in the head by the apple) with the biological/chemical/physical science behind the apple and gravity, then we have a clearer scientific picture.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean that the reader understands it.  That's why I suggested you take a high-school biology class, so someone could attempt to TEACH it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, _anekdotos,_ unpublished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my above paragraph.  Testimonials/anecdotes are important to START scientific research.  I'll give you a true life example.  Pharma came up with a new way to anti-coagulate patients by blocking a receptor on our platelets and called the medicine Plavix.  Studies showed that while there was a greater risk of bleeding, Plavix greatly reduced follow-on heart attacks/stent placement.  The medicine was a great success for most, and saved many lives from heart attacks, although it did cause some increase in morbidity and mortality via bleeding.
> 
> But then we began getting anecdotal reports of people who are on plavix who reclotted their stents quickly.  More studies were done, but these studies still showed that Plavix helped most people....so we began studying the differences between the people who responded to Plavix, and those who didn't.  We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort of people with a different molecule on their platelets.
> 
> Moral of story here:  Anecdote of Plavix not working on a few people led to more scientific studies which led to a greater understanding of not only plavix, but of human genetics.
> 
> Anecdote of vaccines causing autism led to ENORMOUS amount of studies, all of which (except for Wakefield study which was debunked) show that vaccines work to prevent millions of deaths, have relatively common mild side effects, and very rare serious side effects.
> 
> But rawmilkmike wants everyone to believe that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure you don't want to cause retinal hemorrhage on vaccines??
> 
> CPR is traumatic.  Retinal hemorrhage is almost always caused by trauma (could also be caused by hypertension, hypo coagulable states, and probably a few other very uncommon things).
> 
> 
> 
> rawmilkmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole, like anecdotes and parables, can help teach.  But then, some people are unteachable.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Hyperbole is part of your “scientific method”?
> 
> In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the “virtual eradication of smallpox?”
> 
> High-school physics and biology were my favorite subjects.
> 
> “We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort …” So you work for a drug company?
> 
> My wife and I have an understanding that when she takes my 4 year old daughter and my 8 year old son for their vaccinations I don't want to know about it because it makes me cry.
> 
> Couldn't “shaken baby syndrome” be classified as a “rare serious side effect” ?
> 
> from cdc dot gov - DTaP vaccine side-effects
> 
> *Moderate Problems *
> 
> Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
> Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
> High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)
> *Severe Problems *
> Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:
> 
> Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
> Permanent brain damage.
Click to expand...

1 in million.  Do you realize the chance of a child dying is about 1 in 12,000.  There are a hell of a lot more important things parents should be concerned about than the safety of vaccines.

To evaluate a vaccine, you have to compare today against the time before the vaccine

In 1916, 12,000 people died in the US from measles.
In  2011, there were no deaths in the US due measles.

In 1930, there were over 500 reported deaths from whooping cough
In 2011, there were 10 deaths.

In 1921, there were 15,520 deaths from Diphtheria
Between 2004 and 2008, there were no reported cases of diphtheria

In 1947, there were 6280 cases of Tetanus
Between 2001 and 2008, there were 193.

Of course there were other advances in medical science that have reduce the number of occurrences but the dramatic reduction in occurrences has to be attributed to the vaccine.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Samson said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Pharmaceutical Companies Hide the Dangers of Vaccines from Parents
> 
> U.S. Government Says Vaccines are Dangerous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I visited the second website and read the Op-Ed piece by Dr. Mercola, wherein he attempts to explain a 600+ page medical report.
> 
> Dr. Mercola offers a number of wholistic health alternatives that visitors to this site can purchase.
> 
> Including Tanning beds
> *
> Tanning Beds - Top Sellers - Household - Mercola.com
> *
> You seriously want to take medical advise from a physician that sells tanning beds? (Free shipping for orders over $49)
Click to expand...

 
He sells tanning beds as well, so what!

That shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the article.


----------



## Flopper

Wildcard said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Pharmaceutical Companies Hide the Dangers of Vaccines from Parents
> 
> U.S. Government Says Vaccines are Dangerous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I visited the second website and read the Op-Ed piece by Dr. Mercola, wherein he attempts to explain a 600+ page medical report.
> 
> Dr. Mercola offers a number of wholistic health alternatives that visitors to this site can purchase.
> 
> Including Tanning beds
> *
> Tanning Beds - Top Sellers - Household - Mercola.com
> *
> You seriously want to take medical advise from a physician that sells tanning beds? (Free shipping for orders over $49)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He sells tanning beds as well, so what!
> 
> That shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the article.
Click to expand...

No, the following is:

He's an alternative medicine proponent and web entrepreneur who makes his living selling controversial dietary supplements and medical devices. His business depends on people who distrust the medical community and he does everything in his power to promote that distrust.

  A 2006 _BusinessWeek_ editorial called his marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics.  In 2005, 2006, and 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Mercola and his company to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease. The medical watchdog site Quackwatch has criticized Mercola for making "unsubstantiated claims and clashing with those of leading medical and public health organizations [and making] many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements."

In the 19th century, this guy would have been selling snake oil out a wagon.  I feel sorry for anyone that makes medical decision based on Mercola opinion.

Joseph Mercola - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

:


----------



## Noomi

Hard to believe that some people can stand back and watch as others die of horrible diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations, but still refuse to vaccinate their own children because on an ignorant belief that their precious one might get autism because one child was diagnosed with it after getting their shots.

Vaccinate your fucking kids.


----------



## sameech

Noomi said:


> Hard to believe that some people can stand back and watch as others die of horrible diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations, but still refuse to vaccinate their own children because on an ignorant belief that their precious one might get autism because one child was diagnosed with it after getting their shots.
> 
> Vaccinate your fucking kids.



Vaccinate you and yours and you won't have to worry about people who don't vaccinate theirs.  Pretty simple.


----------



## Noomi

sameech said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe that some people can stand back and watch as others die of horrible diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations, but still refuse to vaccinate their own children because on an ignorant belief that their precious one might get autism because one child was diagnosed with it after getting their shots.
> 
> Vaccinate your fucking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccinate you and yours and you won't have to worry about people who don't vaccinate theirs.  Pretty simple.
Click to expand...


There are some people who cannot be vaccinated, or are too young to be vaccinated.

Herd immunity. Ever heard of it?


----------



## Noomi




----------



## sameech

Noomi said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe that some people can stand back and watch as others die of horrible diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations, but still refuse to vaccinate their own children because on an ignorant belief that their precious one might get autism because one child was diagnosed with it after getting their shots.
> 
> Vaccinate your fucking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccinate you and yours and you won't have to worry about people who don't vaccinate theirs.  Pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some people who cannot be vaccinated, or are too young to be vaccinated.
> 
> Herd immunity. Ever heard of it?
Click to expand...


Then let your herd immunity protect those who do not want to be vaccinated too.  Let enough people die off from something and vaccinations will be very popular again.  No big deal.  There are too many people on this planet already.  We can afford for that herd to be thinned by natural selection.


----------



## Samson

Wildcard said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Pharmaceutical Companies Hide the Dangers of Vaccines from Parents
> 
> U.S. Government Says Vaccines are Dangerous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I visited the second website and read the Op-Ed piece by Dr. Mercola, wherein he attempts to explain a 600+ page medical report.
> 
> Dr. Mercola offers a number of wholistic health alternatives that visitors to this site can purchase.
> 
> Including Tanning beds
> *
> Tanning Beds - Top Sellers - Household - Mercola.com
> *
> You seriously want to take medical advise from a physician that sells tanning beds? (Free shipping for orders over $49)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He sells tanning beds as well, so what!
> 
> That shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the article.
Click to expand...


_*A Physician that sells tanning beds!?*_

I'll put my trust in the Center for Disease Control (which doesn't profit from selling tanning beds:

*Indoor Tanning Is Not Safe*
_ 
Using a tanning bed, booth, or sunlamp to get tan is called indoor tanning. Indoor tanning can cause skin cancers including melanoma (the deadliest type of skin cancer), basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation also can cause cataracts and cancers of the eye (ocular melanoma)._​
CDC - Indoor Tanning - Skin Cancer

Case Closed.


----------



## Samson

sameech said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe that some people can stand back and watch as others die of horrible diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations, but still refuse to vaccinate their own children because on an ignorant belief that their precious one might get autism because one child was diagnosed with it after getting their shots.
> 
> Vaccinate your fucking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccinate you and yours and you won't have to worry about people who don't vaccinate theirs.  Pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some people who cannot be vaccinated, or are too young to be vaccinated.
> 
> Herd immunity. Ever heard of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let your herd immunity protect those who do not want to be vaccinated too.  Let enough people die off from something and vaccinations will be very popular again.  No big deal.  There are too many people on this planet already.  We can afford for that herd to be thinned by natural selection.
Click to expand...



You've never been vaccinated?

If not, then Agreed, No big Deal.


----------



## sameech

Samson said:


> You've never been vaccinated?
> 
> If not, then Agreed, No big Deal.



I have been vaccinated out the ying yang against stuff I probably wouldn't ever come into contact with in 3 lives, but that is not the point.  It makes no difference to me whether a Christian Scientist gets vaccinated or not because I have been.  Let them do them and I will do me.  They can live or die with the consequences of their decisions.  Not my place to tell them what they should or should not be doing.  Choose for you and yours and don't worry about the rest.


----------



## Darlene

Delta4Embassy said:


> Worth adding, if you join the military you'll get vaccinated again and there's no opting out of it. So this whole issue can be summed up thus: if you support your own nation's military you must support mandatory vaccinations.


I wouldn't ever join the military and I only support it up to a point, so military is irrelevant to this thread. Remember, we're in Clean Debate Zone so don't call people stupid.


----------



## Darlene

When my first son was born (he will be one on the 24th of this month), I waited until a few hours before discharge before getting his HepB vaccine. Kai was fine up until then. After the vaccine, he started having retractions (not normal in any baby), rapid breathing and was gasping every now and then. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have every right and good reason to be leery of vaccines. I've seen firsthand what they can do. Doctors say moderate to severe reactions are rare, one in so many. But why would I, after seeing my newborn suffer, want to risk even that small chance? Wanna know what makes it even worse? The pediatrician threatened to sue me if I reported it. I don't have the money to go against the medical system. I felt trapped and didn't know what to do and also didn't have the time to look into it any further, just giving birth and breastfeeding (via electric pump).


----------



## Darlene

JakeStarkey said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public safety issue trumps parental rights.
> 
> Remove children from the home to never return if the parents refuse even once.
> 
> 
> 
> would that apply to all of the unvaccinated illegals in our school systems today too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure., unvaccinated kids legals or illegals are public safety hazards.
Click to expand...

Do not even fucking mention taking kids for parents for something like this. That's a personal attack, completely unacceptable here in CDZ.


----------



## FA_Q2

sameech said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never been vaccinated?
> 
> If not, then Agreed, No big Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been vaccinated out the ying yang against stuff I probably wouldn't ever come into contact with in 3 lives, but that is not the point.  It makes no difference to me whether a Christian Scientist gets vaccinated or not because I have been.  Let them do them and I will do me.  They can live or die with the consequences of their decisions.  Not my place to tell them what they should or should not be doing.  Choose for you and yours and don't worry about the rest.
Click to expand...

And this discussion has nothing to do with that stance.  It is not really a discussion on weather or not it should be forced (unless you are going with totalitarian position that Jake is taking - what a surprise) but rather SHOULD you get your children vaccinated.

In this thread it darn well IS our place to be telling others what our opinion is on getting vaccinated - if not then what is the point of the discussion?


----------



## FA_Q2

Darlene said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public safety issue trumps parental rights.
> 
> Remove children from the home to never return if the parents refuse even once.
> 
> 
> 
> would that apply to all of the unvaccinated illegals in our school systems today too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure., unvaccinated kids legals or illegals are public safety hazards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do not even fucking mention taking kids for parents for something like this. That's a personal attack, completely unacceptable here in CDZ.
Click to expand...

Nowhere was that a personal attack.  You apparently do not understand what personal means - it was a statement of opinion and perfectly legal in the CDZ.  If you can t take being offended by others opinion then you probably should be here debating opinions in the first place...


----------



## Montrovant

Darlene said:


> When my first son was born (he will be one on the 24th of this month), I waited until a few hours before discharge before getting his HepB vaccine. Kai was fine up until then. After the vaccine, he started having retractions (not normal in any baby), rapid breathing and was gasping every now and then. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have every right and good reason to be leery of vaccines. I've seen firsthand what they can do. Doctors say moderate to severe reactions are rare, one in so many. But why would I, after seeing my newborn suffer, want to risk even that small chance? Wanna know what makes it even worse? The pediatrician threatened to sue me if I reported it. I don't have the money to go against the medical system. I felt trapped and didn't know what to do and also didn't have the time to look into it any further, just giving birth and breastfeeding (via electric pump).



Why would you risk that small chance?  Because it's a smaller chance than getting the diseases the vaccines are there to prevent.  Because, I hope, your child is fine despite having what you believe to have been a bad reaction to whatever vaccine he received.

You certainly don't have to vaccinate your kids (although it may prevent them from doing some things such as attending public schools) but I think the only reason so many people even consider that choice is because the diseases the vaccines have helped to prevent are no longer prevalent.  If polio, for instance, was still the risk it was before a vaccine was created, I doubt most of the anti-vaccine people would have the same stance they do now.

If enough people stop giving vaccinations and some of these diseases grow in frequency, perhaps this anti-vaccine movement will lose relevancy.


----------



## FA_Q2

Montrovant said:


> Darlene said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my first son was born (he will be one on the 24th of this month), I waited until a few hours before discharge before getting his HepB vaccine. Kai was fine up until then. After the vaccine, he started having retractions (not normal in any baby), rapid breathing and was gasping every now and then. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have every right and good reason to be leery of vaccines. I've seen firsthand what they can do. Doctors say moderate to severe reactions are rare, one in so many. But why would I, after seeing my newborn suffer, want to risk even that small chance? Wanna know what makes it even worse? The pediatrician threatened to sue me if I reported it. I don't have the money to go against the medical system. I felt trapped and didn't know what to do and also didn't have the time to look into it any further, just giving birth and breastfeeding (via electric pump).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you risk that small chance?  Because it's a smaller chance than getting the diseases the vaccines are there to prevent.  Because, I hope, your child is fine despite having what you believe to have been a bad reaction to whatever vaccine he received.
> 
> You certainly don't have to vaccinate your kids (although it may prevent them from doing some things such as attending public schools) but I think the only reason so many people even consider that choice is because the diseases the vaccines have helped to prevent are no longer prevalent.  If polio, for instance, was still the risk it was before a vaccine was created, I doubt most of the anti-vaccine people would have the same stance they do now.
> 
> If enough people stop giving vaccinations and some of these diseases grow in frequency, perhaps this anti-vaccine movement will lose relevancy.
Click to expand...

That is correct.  Unfortunately, it takes dead children for them to understand.


----------



## Noomi

Darlene said:


> When my first son was born (he will be one on the 24th of this month), I waited until a few hours before discharge before getting his HepB vaccine. Kai was fine up until then. After the vaccine, he started having retractions (not normal in any baby), rapid breathing and was gasping every now and then. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have every right and good reason to be leery of vaccines. I've seen firsthand what they can do. Doctors say moderate to severe reactions are rare, one in so many. But why would I, after seeing my newborn suffer, want to risk even that small chance? Wanna know what makes it even worse? The pediatrician threatened to sue me if I reported it. I don't have the money to go against the medical system. I felt trapped and didn't know what to do and also didn't have the time to look into it any further, just giving birth and breastfeeding (via electric pump).



Your son suffered a one in a million reaction, and the odds of his suffering the same with another vaccination is less than the equivalent of a drop of water in the ocean.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

Flopper said:


> 1 in million.  Do you realize the chance of a child dying is about 1 in 12,000.  There are a hell of a lot more important things parents should be concerned about than the safety of vaccines.
> 
> To evaluate a vaccine, you have to compare today against the time before the vaccine
> 
> In 1916, 12,000 people died in the US from measles.
> In  2011, there were no deaths in the US due measles.
> 
> In 1930, there were over 500 reported deaths from whooping cough
> In 2011, there were 10 deaths.
> 
> In 1921, there were 15,520 deaths from Diphtheria
> Between 2004 and 2008, there were no reported cases of diphtheria
> 
> In 1947, there were 6280 cases of Tetanus
> Between 2001 and 2008, there were 193.
> 
> Of course there were other advances in medical science that have reduce the number of occurrences but the dramatic reduction in occurrences has to be attributed to the vaccine.



Flopper:  Are you a physician?

If so, you've seen that person come in wearing oxygen due to their advanced emphysema, but still reeking of tobacco smoke.  

With some people, you just can't fix stupid.  Mikey is fixated on his belief that everyone in medicine is out to "get" him, yet believes that raw milk will cure cancer.  No matter how much evidence anyone provides him, there just isn't any fixing that.

Same thing with Darlene.  She is intransigent in her beliefs, and no amount of evidence is going to fix that.  

I just hope that any reasonable person who visits these boards will see what we have posted and get their kids vaccinated, so that when they come into my ED with a fever and flu-like symptoms I can simply reassure their parents they will probably be okay.


----------



## koshergrl

sameech said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe that some people can stand back and watch as others die of horrible diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations, but still refuse to vaccinate their own children because on an ignorant belief that their precious one might get autism because one child was diagnosed with it after getting their shots.
> 
> Vaccinate your fucking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccinate you and yours and you won't have to worry about people who don't vaccinate theirs.  Pretty simple.
Click to expand...



Not really. Children can't be vaccinated for many of the things that wipe them out until they reach a certain age. So when irresposible and foolish people refuse to vaccinate, they increase the chances that those children get infected and die.


----------



## koshergrl

Darlene said:


> When my first son was born (he will be one on the 24th of this month), I waited until a few hours before discharge before getting his HepB vaccine. Kai was fine up until then. After the vaccine, he started having retractions (not normal in any baby), rapid breathing and was gasping every now and then. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have every right and good reason to be leery of vaccines. I've seen firsthand what they can do. Doctors say moderate to severe reactions are rare, one in so many. But why would I, after seeing my newborn suffer, want to risk even that small chance? Wanna know what makes it even worse? The pediatrician threatened to sue me if I reported it. I don't have the money to go against the medical system. I felt trapped and didn't know what to do and also didn't have the time to look into it any further, just giving birth and breastfeeding (via electric pump).



Is he still alive?

Awesome. If he contracted hep, he might not be..and if he was, it wouldn't be for long.


----------



## sameech

koshergrl said:


> Not really. Children can't be vaccinated for many of the things that wipe them out until they reach a certain age. So when irresposible and foolish people refuse to vaccinate, they increase the chances that those children get infected and die.



So?  Not everybody can be saved.  If you have a child that cannot be vaccinated, then keep them as far away from the public as possible.  Public policy should not be based upon the wants or needs of the weakest amongst us and people should not be forced to spend their money on the needs of other people.


----------



## Flopper

Darlene said:


> When my first son was born (he will be one on the 24th of this month), I waited until a few hours before discharge before getting his HepB vaccine. Kai was fine up until then. After the vaccine, he started having retractions (not normal in any baby), rapid breathing and was gasping every now and then. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have every right and good reason to be leery of vaccines. I've seen firsthand what they can do. Doctors say moderate to severe reactions are rare, one in so many. But why would I, after seeing my newborn suffer, want to risk even that small chance? Wanna know what makes it even worse? The pediatrician threatened to sue me if I reported it. I don't have the money to go against the medical system. I felt trapped and didn't know what to do and also didn't have the time to look into it any further, just giving birth and breastfeeding (via electric pump).


What you should do is report any adverse reaction to the CDC using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.  Anyone, parent, friend, or healthcare professional can file a report.  This provides valuable information for parents, healthcare professionals, the CDC, and the manufacture.  It's an important part of the ongoing monitoring of vaccinations.  Anyone can search the database for information about vaccines. Parents need to be aware of side effects and adverse reactions so they know what to watch for after a vaccination.

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

In considering whether to vaccinate a child, parents need to consider both the risk and benefits, both to the child and to society.  The approach should be no different than making any other medical decision.  All medical treatments have risks and side effects and it's important to understand them so an intelligent decision can be made.  In the case of vaccines, the risk are extremely small.   
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System


----------



## Uncensored2008

idb said:


> You said that one party was anti-science...there's no point trying to deflect.



I said that the Khmer Rouge democrats are anti-science, and proved my claim.



> You haven't been able to back your statement up, instead you point to one guy and claim that he represents Republicans - I think that's what you're claiming anyway.
> If you're going to point to individuals I'm sure we can go toe-to-toe on that.



I demonstrated the the Khmer Rouge makes irrational attacks on GMO's, Nuclear Power, Fracking, and anything else that deviates from leftist orthodoxy. Ultimately, leftism is absolute obedience to party dogma.



> If you oppose fracking or nuclear power how does that mean you're anti-science?



Every bit as much as opposing evolution is. The rejection of demonstrable fact in favor of dogma is anti-science.



> You make no sense.



I make perfect sense, your capacity to reason not withstanding.



> For example - I might oppose fracking because it contributes to CO2 pollution and I'm unhappy about that...how does that make me 'anti-science'?



CO2 is not a pollutant. That you should make such a statement demonstrates that you place dogma ahead of fact. 



> You might support fracking despite the science showing that it contributes to CO2 poluution because you reject the scientific evidence that CO2 is bad for the climate - you reject the science.
> Anti-science is rejecting the evidence and conclusions presented by the scientific method.



I support science, the use of demonstrable and repeatable fact to support claims and beliefs. 



> The right being mostly moderate would be news to those in Congress that are terrified of the looney, anti-science, anti-intellectual far right factions.



It is the left that fears and loathes science. 

YOU think science is a thing - a religion to be followed by faith.

Reality is that science is a process, a methodology for discovery and testing. Because your religion can not stand the rigors of legitimate scientific methods, your priests and mullahs fear and detest the actuality of science.



> The arguments against wind power - including the deaths of birds - have mostly come from the conservatives on this forum...it's good to hear that they've had an epiphany.



Sure sparky.


----------



## koshergrl

sameech said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Children can't be vaccinated for many of the things that wipe them out until they reach a certain age. So when irresposible and foolish people refuse to vaccinate, they increase the chances that those children get infected and die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Not everybody can be saved.  If you have a child that cannot be vaccinated, then keep them as far away from the public as possible.  Public policy should not be based upon the wants or needs of the weakest amongst us and people should not be forced to spend their money on the needs of other people.
Click to expand...




Spoken like a true anti-human zealot. Vaccinations are one of the few things that there needs to be a public policy about. Vaccines save more lives than bicycle helmets and seat belts and child welfare combined.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> Spoken like a true anti-human zealot. Vaccinations are one of the few things that there needs to be a public policy about. Vaccines save more lives than bicycle helmets and seat belts and child welfare combined.



Leftists think that "science" means driving a Prius.

Leftist morons couldn't find Hydrogen on the periodic table....


----------



## Flopper

Boatswain2PA said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 in million.  Do you realize the chance of a child dying is about 1 in 12,000.  There are a hell of a lot more important things parents should be concerned about than the safety of vaccines.
> 
> To evaluate a vaccine, you have to compare today against the time before the vaccine
> 
> In 1916, 12,000 people died in the US from measles.
> In  2011, there were no deaths in the US due measles.
> 
> In 1930, there were over 500 reported deaths from whooping cough
> In 2011, there were 10 deaths.
> 
> In 1921, there were 15,520 deaths from Diphtheria
> Between 2004 and 2008, there were no reported cases of diphtheria
> 
> In 1947, there were 6280 cases of Tetanus
> Between 2001 and 2008, there were 193.
> 
> Of course there were other advances in medical science that have reduce the number of occurrences but the dramatic reduction in occurrences has to be attributed to the vaccine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper:  Are you a physician?
> 
> If so, you've seen that person come in wearing oxygen due to their advanced emphysema, but still reeking of tobacco smoke.
> 
> With some people, you just can't fix stupid.  Mikey is fixated on his belief that everyone in medicine is out to "get" him, yet believes that raw milk will cure cancer.  No matter how much evidence anyone provides him, there just isn't any fixing that.
> 
> Same thing with Darlene.  She is intransigent in her beliefs, and no amount of evidence is going to fix that.
> 
> I just hope that any reasonable person who visits these boards will see what we have posted and get their kids vaccinated, so that when they come into my ED with a fever and flu-like symptoms I can simply reassure their parents they will probably be okay.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a physician but I have spent a lot of my life in hospitals.  I've seen first in my own family the stupid medical decisions that people make; maybe it would  be more accurate to say, the medical decisions that people don't make, such as quitting smoking or putting off getting that chest pain checked out.  IMHO, I think the main reason parents don't vaccinate their children is not a fear of serious reactions but rather they don't want to deal with crying kids and the possible minor side effects, so they just don't make a decision.


----------



## koshergrl

Plus they're idiots who think they and their children are immune just by nature of their existence. They think they're somehow *better* than the people who die from things like influenza, they don't believe they could ever spread diptheria, because they are superior specimens.

It's eugenics gone mental.


----------



## koshergrl

Whatever you do, anti-vaccine hysterics, make SURE you don't vaccinate against ebola, when a vaccine comes out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/africa/23ebola.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/h...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

You do realize it's just a virus, right?


----------



## sameech

koshergrl said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Children can't be vaccinated for many of the things that wipe them out until they reach a certain age. So when irresposible and foolish people refuse to vaccinate, they increase the chances that those children get infected and die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Not everybody can be saved.  If you have a child that cannot be vaccinated, then keep them as far away from the public as possible.  Public policy should not be based upon the wants or needs of the weakest amongst us and people should not be forced to spend their money on the needs of other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true anti-human zealot. Vaccinations are one of the few things that there needs to be a public policy about. Vaccines save more lives than bicycle helmets and seat belts and child welfare combined.
Click to expand...


Only zealots use the word zealot.  If they are so wonderful, then people shouldn't need to be forced to take them or give them to their children.  They will do it on their own.  Perhaps if they were free and immigrants had access to quality healthcare, then more people would take advantage of them.  As is, if a Christian Scientist doesn't want their kid to have it, so be it.  Likewise, flu shots are not pimped like crazy because they work so magically.  It is done because they are profitable to push on people.


----------



## koshergrl

What a ridiculous sentiment. "Only zealots use the word zealot" lolol. 

Again:

"The influenza epidemic that swept the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people. One fifth of the world's population was attacked by this deadly virus. Within months, it had killed more people than any other illness in recorded history."

The Influenza Epidemic of 1918

The anti-immunization nuts are just that..anti-science, anti-health zealots.


----------



## sameech

koshergrl said:


> What a ridiculous sentiment. "Only zealots use the word zealot" lolol.
> 
> Again:
> 
> "The influenza epidemic that swept the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people. One fifth of the world's population was attacked by this deadly virus. Within months, it had killed more people than any other illness in recorded history."
> 
> The Influenza Epidemic of 1918
> 
> The anti-immunization nuts are just that..anti-science, anti-health zealots.



Yes, Ms. Zealot, some Amish guy who doesn't vaccinate his kids and they get the measles is going to kill 1/6th of the country.  Get real.


----------



## koshergrl

We aren't talking about a single Amish guy.

We're talking about a LOT of morons who live in the cities, who think that because they haven't died of measles or the flue, measles isn't a threat to anybody else.


----------



## koshergrl

Most of these health-illiterate loons have children that spend their days slobbering all over other children either in school or in the community sandbox in the middle of whatever city they live in.


----------



## sameech

I had mumps as a child.  Civilization survived, I didn't get any special Presidential Medals, and I still had to be immunized for it after the fact.  These are often not life threatening diseases in most people.  MRSA is going to kill us all anyway.  No big deal.


----------



## koshergrl

Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?


----------



## koshergrl

"Since monovalent vaccines containing measles, rubella, and mumps vaccine viruses -- and subsequently combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine -- were licensed, the numbers of reported cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) have decreased by more than 99%. In 1993, the Childhood Immunization Initiative established goals of eliminating indigenous transmission of measles and rubella in the United States by 1996. Subsequently, the goals of the initiative were extended to include reducing the number of reported mumps cases to less than or equal to 1600 by 1996."

"
The disease can be severe and is most frequently complicated by diarrhea, middle ear infection, or bronchopneumonia. Encephalitis occurs in approximately one of every 1,000 reported cases; survivors of this complication often have permanent brain damage and mental retardation. Death occurs in 1-2 of every 1,000 reported measles cases in the United States. The risk for death from measles or its complications is greater for infants, young children, and adults than for older children and adolescents. The most common causes of death are pneumonia and acute encephalitis. In developing countries, measles is often more severe and the case-fatality rate can be as high as 25%.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a rare degenerative disease of the central nervous system associated with measles virus. Signs and symptoms of the disease appear years after measles infection. Widespread use of measles vaccine has essentially eliminated SSPE from the United States (1).

Measles illness during pregnancy leads to increased rates of premature labor, spontaneous abortion, and low birth weight among affected infants (2-5). Birth defects, with no definable pattern of malformation, have been reported among infants born to women infected with measles during pregnancy, but measles infection has not been confirmed as the cause of the malformations.

Measles can be severe and prolonged among immunocompromised persons, particularly those who have certain leukemias, lymphomas, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Among these persons, measles may occur without the typical rash and a patient may shed measles virus for several weeks after the acute illness (6,7). Measles Elimination

Before measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, an average of 400,000 measles cases were reported each year in the United States (8). However, because virtually all children acquired measles, the number of cases probably approached 3.5 million per year (i.e., an entire birth cohort)."

"
The most important consequences of rubella are the miscarriages, stillbirths, fetal anomalies, and therapeutic abortions that result when rubella infection occurs during early pregnancy, especially during the first trimester. An estimated 20,000 cases of CRS occurred during 1964-1965 during the last U.S. rubella epidemic before rubella vaccine became available.

The anomalies most commonly associated with CRS are auditory (e.g., sensorineural deafness), ophthalmic (e.g., cataracts, microphthalmia, glaucoma, chorioretinitis), cardiac (e.g., patent ductus arteriosus, peripheral pulmonary artery stenosis, atrial or ventricular septal defects), and neurologic (e.g., microcephaly, meningoencephalitis, mental retardation). In addition, infants with CRS frequently exhibit both intrauterine and postnatal growth retardation. Other conditions sometimes observed among patients who have CRS include radiolucent bone defects, hepatosplenomegaly, thrombocytopenia, and purpuric skin lesions.

Infants who are moderately or severely affected by CRS are readily recognizable at birth, but mild CRS (e.g., slight cardiac involvement or deafness) may be detected months or years after birth, or not at all. Although CRS has been estimated to occur among 20%-25% of infants born to women who acquire rubella during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, this figure may underestimate the risk for fetal infection and birth defects. When infants born to mothers who were infected during the first 8 weeks of gestation were followed for 4 years, 85% were found to be affected (19)."

Measles Mumps and Rubella -- Vaccine Use and Strategies for Elimination of Measles Rubella and Congenital Rubella Syndrome and Control of Mumps Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices ACIP


----------



## sameech

koshergrl said:


> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?



Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.


----------



## koshergrl

Nobody made the claim that civilization was collapsing. I think you rather missed the point of the thread. Perhaps you should go to the OP and read it again.


----------



## HenryBHough

Watch for Obama to announce development of an Ebola vaccine very early in November....and credit it all to His advancement of research.  Unless He elects to claim the discovery for Himself - there could be a Nobel Prize for that.....


----------



## koshergrl

Obama's not going to encourage people to vaccinate against ebola. Progressives love pandemics.


----------



## koshergrl

Their entire mindset coddles the concept of "acceptable die off" that helps them to achieve whatever the goal du jour happens to be.


----------



## Samson

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true anti-human zealot. Vaccinations are one of the few things that there needs to be a public policy about. Vaccines save more lives than bicycle helmets and seat belts and child welfare combined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists think that "science" means driving a Prius.
> 
> Leftist morons couldn't find Hydrogen on the periodic table....
Click to expand...



Conservatives don't believe bicycle helmets and seatbelts need to be public policy issues?


----------



## HenryBHough

Samson said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true anti-human zealot. Vaccinations are one of the few things that there needs to be a public policy about. Vaccines save more lives than bicycle helmets and seat belts and child welfare combined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists think that "science" means driving a Prius.
> 
> Leftist morons couldn't find Hydrogen on the periodic table....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't believe bicycle helmets and seatbelts need to be public policy issues?
Click to expand...


Certainly they should be!  It should be public policy to let people decide for themselves how much they value their lives.  I could agree that anyone injured because they didn't take appropriate precautions should not get tax-funded medical treatment.

Friggin' libs would have every child taken into custody because some parents might abuse them.  

The prayer that, if answered, would put libbers outta business:

"*God save us from those who would save us from ourselves!*"

_~prayer for the day from Rev. Billy Sol Rubin, pastor, First Church of The Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship._


----------



## Samson

HenryBHough said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true anti-human zealot. Vaccinations are one of the few things that there needs to be a public policy about. Vaccines save more lives than bicycle helmets and seat belts and child welfare combined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists think that "science" means driving a Prius.
> 
> Leftist morons couldn't find Hydrogen on the periodic table....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't believe bicycle helmets and seatbelts need to be public policy issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly they should be!  It should be public policy to let people decide for themselves how much they value their lives.  I could agree that anyone injured because they didn't take appropriate precautions should not get tax-funded medical treatment.
> 
> Friggin' libs would have every child taken into custody because some parents might abuse them.
> 
> The prayer that, if answered, would put libbers outta business:
> 
> "*God save us from those who would save us from ourselves!*"
> 
> _~prayer for the day from Rev. Billy Sol Rubin, pastor, First Church of The Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship._
Click to expand...



What about kid's seats?


----------



## sameech

koshergrl said:


> Nobody made the claim that civilization was collapsing. I think you rather missed the point of the thread. Perhaps you should go to the OP and read it again.



The OP is anti-vax and you are obnoxiously and condescendingly pro vax.  I have missed the point of nothing.  If the OP doesn't want to vaccinate, more power to them.  I hope their kid licks the slide in the public park just to spite you.


----------



## koshergrl

Of course you do. You don't give a shit if kids die.


----------



## koshergrl

On the other hand, my kids are vaccinated. The OP's children are more likely to pick up a nasty case of ecoli and worms than my kids are to pick up a fatal illness from them.


----------



## koshergrl

Plus I keep my children far away from where scummy non-vaccinating parents hang with theirs.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Children can't be vaccinated for many of the things that wipe them out until they reach a certain age. So when irresposible and foolish people refuse to vaccinate, they increase the chances that those children get infected and die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Not everybody can be saved.  If you have a child that cannot be vaccinated, then keep them as far away from the public as possible.  Public policy should not be based upon the wants or needs of the weakest amongst us and people should not be forced to spend their money on the needs of other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true anti-human zealot. Vaccinations are one of the few things that there needs to be a public policy about. Vaccines save more lives than bicycle helmets and seat belts and child welfare combined.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that with an article that doesn't come from New York Times?


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> Obama's not going to encourage people to vaccinate against ebola. Progressives love pandemics.


No he's not going to encourage vaccinating against Ebola because there IS NO vaccine for it.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> On the other hand, my kids are vaccinated. The OP's children are more likely to pick up a nasty case of ecoli and worms than my kids are to pick up a fatal illness from them.


Vaccines don't prevent getting worms. I'm not a scummy parent either.


----------



## koshergrl

That was my point.

Non-vaccinated children are more likely to get worms and ecoli from licking the slide than my vaccinated children are likely to get anything from using the slide licked. So the point that unvaccinated kids should lick slides and infect my kids is a moot (and very silly) point.

I can hear the gears clanking.


----------



## Darlene

koshergrl said:


> That was my point.
> 
> Non-vaccinated children are more likely to get worms and ecoli from licking the slide than my vaccinated children are likely to get anything from using the slide licked. So the point that unvaccinated kids should lick slides and infect my kids is a moot (and very silly) point.
> 
> I can hear the gears clanking.


Are you really that ignorant? Vaccines don't prevent E.coli and getting worms. Cleanliness does.
E. coli Prevention

E. coli Prevention - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
E. coli 0157 H7 Symptoms Causes Treatment - What is the treatment for E. coli 0157 H7 - MedicineNet


----------



## koshergrl

Again. I know that.

My POINT was that non-vaccinated children who are licking slides are more likely to pick up worms and ecoli than they are to infect my vaccinated children with influenza and the mumps.

Clank. Clank. Clank. Try to change gears. But first push in the clutch.


----------



## Flopper

sameech said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.
Click to expand...

I would say your point is well taken except that when you don't immunize your child, you put others at risk such as kids that aren't eligible for immunization, kids in other countries where the vaccination isn't  available, and of course kids with stupid parents.


----------



## idb

Flopper said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say your point is well taken except that when you don't immunize your child, you put others at risk such as kids that aren't eligible for immunization, kids in other countries where the vaccination isn't  available, and of course kids with stupid parents.
Click to expand...

Stupidity seems to be the real First World disease.


----------



## Boatswain2PA

koshergrl said:


> Again. I know that.
> 
> My POINT was that non-vaccinated children who are licking slides are more likely to pick up worms and ecoli than they are to infect my vaccinated children with influenza and the mumps.
> 
> Clank. Clank. Clank. Try to change gears. But first push in the clutch.



You are talking to someone who ignores the hundreds of scientific (and repeatable) studies that show the benefits of vaccines FAR outweigh the risks.  Don't expect those gears to work.....


----------



## Noomi




----------



## sameech

Flopper said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say your point is well taken except that when you don't immunize your child, you put others at risk such as kids that aren't eligible for immunization, kids in other countries where the vaccination isn't  available, and of course kids with stupid parents.
Click to expand...



People are at risk whenever they go out into public for things far worse than mumps for which we don't vaccinate/don't have a vax.  People owe no duty to protect other people's kids from getting sick, and it is doubtful some kid in Sri Lanka is going to get measles because a Christian Scientist/granola eater in Minneapolis decided not to give their child the MMR vax.


----------



## koshergrl

Noomi said:


>



I know, it boggles the mind.

Get the flu, and risk death and the spread of the virus to others who might die..

Or get the shot, and skip severe illness, and don't spread it at all.

Hmmmmmm....


----------



## koshergrl

sameech said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say your point is well taken except that when you don't immunize your child, you put others at risk such as kids that aren't eligible for immunization, kids in other countries where the vaccination isn't  available, and of course kids with stupid parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are at risk whenever they go out into public for things far worse than mumps for which we don't vaccinate/don't have a vax.  People owe no duty to protect other people's kids from getting sick, and it is doubtful some kid in Sri Lanka is going to get measles because a Christian Scientist/granola eater in Minneapolis decided not to give their child the MMR vax.
Click to expand...


Kids in Sri Lanka already die from mumps in droves.

Nobody is arguing that people in the US getting mumps are going to infect people in Sri Lanka (who already are getting the mumps). You're presenting a completely false dilemma, as you have been all through the thread.

The DANGER with not vaccinating isn't that society will fall...society is going to fall ultimately anyway.

It's that it's fucking RETARDED to reject a health policy that so painlessly and effectively has halted serious, deadly diseases in their tracks.

It's like saying "Well when I wash my hands I don't get shit in my mouth and contract ecoli...so obviously, I don't need to wash my hands! After all, I haven't been sick!"


----------



## koshergrl

But of course I know why people want to stop vaccinations.

It is because ultimately, they want people to die, and the population to decrease. It's that simple.


----------



## AquaAthena

koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it boggles the mind.
> 
> Get the flu, and risk death and the spread of the virus to others who might die..
> 
> Or get the shot, and skip severe illness, and don't spread it at all.
> 
> Hmmmmmm....
Click to expand...




Got my flu shot yesterday.


----------



## Samson

AquaAthena said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it boggles the mind.
> 
> Get the flu, and risk death and the spread of the virus to others who might die..
> 
> Or get the shot, and skip severe illness, and don't spread it at all.
> 
> Hmmmmmm....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got my flu shot yesterday.
Click to expand...


Wow and you're still able to post!


----------



## sameech

koshergrl said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say your point is well taken except that when you don't immunize your child, you put others at risk such as kids that aren't eligible for immunization, kids in other countries where the vaccination isn't  available, and of course kids with stupid parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are at risk whenever they go out into public for things far worse than mumps for which we don't vaccinate/don't have a vax.  People owe no duty to protect other people's kids from getting sick, and it is doubtful some kid in Sri Lanka is going to get measles because a Christian Scientist/granola eater in Minneapolis decided not to give their child the MMR vax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids in Sri Lanka already die from mumps in droves.
> 
> Nobody is arguing that people in the US getting mumps are going to infect people in Sri Lanka (who already are getting the mumps). You're presenting a completely false dilemma, as you have been all through the thread.
> 
> The DANGER with not vaccinating isn't that society will fall...society is going to fall ultimately anyway.
> 
> It's that it's fucking RETARDED to reject a health policy that so painlessly and effectively has halted serious, deadly diseases in their tracks.
> 
> It's like saying "Well when I wash my hands I don't get shit in my mouth and contract ecoli...so obviously, I don't need to wash my hands! After all, I haven't been sick!"
Click to expand...


I was replying to someone who said that people not vaccinating their kids puts kids in other countries at risk, so when you claim that nobody is arguing something, you might want to read the post of the person I am addressing and not just denying reality. 

As for the rest of your post, anybody who claims to be a humanist who thinks that all humans should think exactly as they do reminds me of why humanism in its modern form reminds me more of "The parts of Naziism that the disaffected WASPS like" than classical humanism.  If people want to vax their kids, more more to them.  If people don't, more power to them.


----------



## koshergrl

sameech said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say your point is well taken except that when you don't immunize your child, you put others at risk such as kids that aren't eligible for immunization, kids in other countries where the vaccination isn't  available, and of course kids with stupid parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are at risk whenever they go out into public for things far worse than mumps for which we don't vaccinate/don't have a vax.  People owe no duty to protect other people's kids from getting sick, and it is doubtful some kid in Sri Lanka is going to get measles because a Christian Scientist/granola eater in Minneapolis decided not to give their child the MMR vax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids in Sri Lanka already die from mumps in droves.
> 
> Nobody is arguing that people in the US getting mumps are going to infect people in Sri Lanka (who already are getting the mumps). You're presenting a completely false dilemma, as you have been all through the thread.
> 
> The DANGER with not vaccinating isn't that society will fall...society is going to fall ultimately anyway.
> 
> It's that it's fucking RETARDED to reject a health policy that so painlessly and effectively has halted serious, deadly diseases in their tracks.
> 
> It's like saying "Well when I wash my hands I don't get shit in my mouth and contract ecoli...so obviously, I don't need to wash my hands! After all, I haven't been sick!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was replying to someone who said that people not vaccinating their kids puts kids in other countries at risk, so when you claim that nobody is arguing something, you might want to read the post of the person I am addressing and not just denying reality.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, anybody who claims to be a humanist who thinks that all humans should think exactly as they do reminds me of why humanism in its modern form reminds me more of "The parts of Naziism that the disaffected WASPS like" than classical humanism.  If people want to vax their kids, more more to them.  If people don't, more power to them.
Click to expand...


I don't think you should think like me. Try to stick to the topic. Seriously, you're all over the place, and you're not making sense.


----------



## Flopper

sameech said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Other than proving the ones I've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen you make a single point that addresses anything I have posted, so whatever you have proven in the dark corners of your imagination  I will leave up to your dark corners to argue with.  Civilization is not collapsing because people are not getting vaccines.  This is a back-door anti-immigration, elitist, and xenophobic red herring that brings the bigots from the right and the left together.  Immunize yours if you so desire, and let others live or die by their own decisions.  That is what freedom is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say your point is well taken except that when you don't immunize your child, you put others at risk such as kids that aren't eligible for immunization, kids in other countries where the vaccination isn't  available, and of course kids with stupid parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are at risk whenever they go out into public for things far worse than mumps for which we don't vaccinate/don't have a vax.  People owe no duty to protect other people's kids from getting sick, and it is doubtful some kid in Sri Lanka is going to get measles because a Christian Scientist/granola eater in Minneapolis decided not to give their child the MMR vax.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are worst diseases, but the likelihood of catching mumps can be significantly reduce and with enough immunization, it can be eradicated.
The chance of catching mumps, measles, diphtheria, or whooping cough, are very low with or without immunization and the chance of catching polio or small pox is almost zero due to immunization.  The more people that are immunized for viruses and bacteria the less carriers there will be spreading the disease.

Just before the measles vaccination was licensed in 1962, there were about a 150,000 cases a year and not all cases were reported. Ten years ago, we were on the verge of eliminating Measles in the US with only 50 reported cases.  This year, we are at a 20 year high with 600 cases reported through Aug.  If the current trends continue, measles will once again become a common childhood disease due to the rising number of unvaccinated children..


----------



## Noomi

AquaAthena said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it boggles the mind.
> 
> Get the flu, and risk death and the spread of the virus to others who might die..
> 
> Or get the shot, and skip severe illness, and don't spread it at all.
> 
> Hmmmmmm....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got my flu shot yesterday.
Click to expand...


I wish I had got mine. Flu is dreadful.


----------

