GOOD LORD! Here we go again with the Bill Gates bashing and the vaccine conspiracies.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
DEJA VU
Chill out, Bill Jr. This thread is about Indiana schools & bulls**t laws.
GOOD LORD! Here we go again with the Bill Gates bashing and the vaccine conspiracies.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
DEJA VU
How about all the people who go get the flu vaccine and then spend the next 2 weeks with the worst flu of their lives?
As to chicken pox... why? I WANT my children to contract chicken pox! Lifelong immunity to varicella is well worth the risk of a few pox marks.
The problem with the chicken pox vax is that for the rest of your childs life they will be REQUIRED to get the booster for it... every tens years. Till they die. DO you know what happens to an adult who gets chicken pox for the first time? Shingles is nothign to laugh about. It can KILL.
Among them an aunt of mine, my sons ex-gf and my at the time 3 yr old daughter Although to be fair my daughter had chicken pox at about 1-2 mo old, she caught it from her brother and had some immunity passed down and only had literally 2 or 3 pox.
ETA my daughter also had the chicken pox vaccine, the DR was worried that because of her very mild case originally that she may not have received full immunity from it. So she was given the vaccine.
My kids (4.5 and 6 y/o) both got their second chicken pox vaccines this morning. We'd hoped they'd simply get chicken pox and wouldn't need the vaccine, but damn it...no other kids get chicken pox any more for us to send our kids over there to play and contract it the old fashioned way. Seriously. We tried and failed to actively infect our kids with chicken pox.
My aunt was screwed up by a DPT vaccine when she was a baby. She is 45 now and has the mental capacity of a 5 year old.
Thanks for the jabs.
As for downplaying the toxins that exist in vaccines, let me reiterate the following list: mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, carbolic acid, acetone, glycerin, and more!
Vaccines do not deserve the full-blown credit they receive for elimination of every modern disease. Diseases eventually die out on their own. This is why we don't have the Black Plague and Leprosy in America; it didn't die out because of vaccines. The disease ran its course and is, for all intents and purposes, gone. With modern sanitation, running water, anti-bacterial soaps, waste management, hospital cleanliness and and understanding of how germs spread; What disease stands a chance?? Besides some kind of Hollywood airborne plague, its just not going to happen.
I support anybody's right to vaccinate, voluntarily, if they are fully-informed about the actual risks of the disease and of the injection. I also think parents deserve to see some long-term studies done on vaccines before they pump their kids full of them. Anybody who wants to take the middle-ground is at least thinking a little more than the folks who take the FDA-recommended route, getting literally hundreds of injections into your body with who-knows-what effects down the road.
Afraid your vaccinated kid is going to get sick from a wiped out disease?
Say what?
Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.Why are you afraid of unvaccinated kids? Do you have that little faith in vaccines? What is the point of getting the shots?
Somebody must think that way. These laws don't write themselves.
If the entire school is already vaccinated how can they catch such diseases?
I think Rambone provided some pretty solid evidence that vaccines had little to do with the diseases going away. You should go back and read it, then if you disagree, provide some evidence to the contrary. I'd love to hear both sides if there is actual evidence to prove it.
Let them Vaccinate the "herd" and leave your kids vacc' free, if "herd" vacc'ing works so well no one will be harmed by it.
Mercola.com Search vaccines
Amish and Autism this is the most interesting and thought provoking argument for not getting vaccines there is. If you disagree then you are too close minded to get it at all.
Chalk that up as more evidence that vaccines are a scam. If I am going to put my body at risk of brain-damage and catastrophic nervous disruption I want to be positive I'm getting something that actually works. Clearly they will just give you a pat on the head and tell you that you are special when you inquire why vaccines don't actually work.
Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.
So you wanna play the disingenuous discussion game too? Point #1: vaxes don't prevent all diseases 100% of the time in 100% of the vaxed individual to a level of 100% coverage. The math seems pretty obvious.
And vaxes are the main reason that infectious diseases are reduced to near wiped-out levels. Or do you think it's just a weird case of coincidence that the implementation of widespread vaxing correlated to the decreased incidence of infection rates?
You don't support the individual's right to choose unless it's the same choice you make.
Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.
Hardly. His graphs cover DEATH RATES, not infection rates. They aren't even addressing the discussion point about whether vaxes affect infection rates.
Okay, let's clear the air. Do you really have a problem with the science behind vaxing? That innoculating an individual with a known infectious agent will provide immunity. Or do you have a problem with the perversion of the vaxing process in an effort to expand its coverage/make it more cost-effective/etc?
VAXING IS NOT THE PROBLEM. POLLUTING THE VAX IS.
You only took it that way because you wanted to. But if it pleased you, you're quite welcome.
You need a refresher course in reading comprehension. Not only did I not downplay the additives, I specifically addressed the fact that those are the likely culprits in the majority of adverse reactions to the vaxes.
And please get off the red herring argument that vaxes wiped out diseases. Nobody is claiming that (or nobody should be claiming that). They are not wiped out. Their incidence is reduced to near zero levels, but only a fool would claim that's equivalent to saying the diseases are wiped out. You like to claim it is, erroneously, so you can come back and point to the rare case as proof that it is not. That is one of the most intellectually dishonest discussion techniques. And it shows a lack of strength in your argument if you must resort to its usage.
I snipped your graphs to save space, but I would be curious to know if you acknowledge the limitation of the time frame and the fact that diseases incidence rates are known to cycle. When the infectious agent becomes too good at infecting and destroying the host, it reduces the population of carriers and reduces its own population and therefore its long-term survivability chances. So infection rates go down. Time passes and "new blood" is available for infecting, infection rates go back up. Of course, this model assumes a lack of external influences on infection rates.
But nothing in what you presented has any bearing on the efficacy of vaxes or their role in keeping infection rates low for extended periods of time.
And yet you preach and proselytize as if you're the only one qualified to make the decision or if someone doesn't come to the same conclusion, he must be of inferior intelligence.
I agree the full disclosure requirements for vaxing are rarely if ever met. But who the hell are you to tell people they can't have vaxes at all (because if you had your way, nobody would, at least that's what your rantings seem to imply) simply because vaxing doesn't meet your standard of disclosure/safety? You don't support the individual's right to choose unless it's the same choice you make. And you bemoaned my comment about the correlation between anti-vaxers and libtards. Do you see now why I said it? It's the same subjective standard being unfairly applied to everyone because YOU think it's the best standard.
Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.
Didn't you just start this thread to point out that the laws don't require anybody to get vaxed. Which is it?
If your argument could distinguish between that, you might avoid sounding like the lunatic fringe AND make some headway in getting some much needed changes made.
Very few vaxes of pure infectious viral agents are going to come even close to the adverse reactions rates that are associated with the vax cocktails administered today.
Okay, let's clear the air. Do you really have a problem with the science behind vaxing? That innoculating an individual with a known infectious agent will provide immunity. Or do you have a problem with the perversion of the vaxing process in an effort to expand its coverage/make it more cost-effective/etc?
I agree the full disclosure requirements for vaxing are rarely if ever met.
VAXING IS NOT THE PROBLEM. POLLUTING THE VAX IS.
You people can't seem to separate the science of vaxing and the perversion of the vaxes themselves for the secondary goals of saving money or vaxing more people. Additives to vaxes make them dangerous.
Vaccines failed to provide immunity for you too? This must not be such an isolated phenomenon.
Nope and I didn't say that. I said my daughter had the vac. The vac is not for shingles.
That's what I meant, your daughter. The vaccine is for the Varicella virus, the same virus responsible for Chicken Pox and Shingles. Same vaccine.
The vac doesn't protect against shingles. Shingles is a re-emergence of the virus. Same as lets say a cold sore. The vac is supposed to keep you from getting it in the first place, it doesn't do squat to keep it from re-emerging.
If you are supposed to be immune, how will it "re-emerge"?
Its like saying I am immune from Polio, but it could re-emerge any time. I'll just take my chances without the vaccine, if that's the sales pitch.
I am not sure what you are arguing about, government or vaccination effectiveness.
Everyone knows someone who did something and then something else happened after. Anecdotes are not empiricism. Another basic tenant of science is that you try to disprove the null hypothesis. The reason you do this is so try to avoid the confirmation bias. If you go searching for specific evidence, you will probably find it and fail to consider the alternatives. I ate a sirloin steak the other day and then a few days later, I got a cold. That doesn't mean the steak caused the cold.
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Any credible doctor and/or scientist will tell you that there are risks from vaccines. Anyone who says there are not risks are lying.
But the benefits outweigh the risks. Grab any undergraduate textbook and look at the citations for any specific research studies if you really want to look. Start calling universities and poll a thousand random PhD level biologists, microbiologists, or chemists.