Some Sanity!

[minasoliman]

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew

Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.

But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot?  

Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.

But I thought you were talking about saving lives from preventable diseases.  I thought you were compassionate about the issues of health.  See, I was paying attention.  Surely the ends justify the means, right?  After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it? (Swine flu back in the day, since we want to remember the golden years)  Unless the rules don't apply across the board, which would lead me back to my question of just who decides, picks and chooses what is in our best interest and where our freedoms end.  After all, someone has to figure our at what degree a disease is in determines when I no longer have control over my own choices.  Forced untested flu shots for everyone this year.  I know the last few years were a great success...oh wait.

What I have learned from your posts is everything is subjective, open for interpretation parallel to ones own views.  There is no standard right answer and there are some who majestically walk around as if they have one.  Who is right?  Everyone can't be.  Not me, not you.  So, who gets the big talking stick and makes the final decision?  The individual or big brother who doesn't exactly have a spectacular record with much of anything, including medicine.

You said the difference with the AIDS pandemic is education, which isn't working well at all.  Here is a little education.  If there is an outbreak of a communicable disease, stay home.  If you are sick, stay home.  If you kid is sick, stay home.  If you look outside and there are 200 dead birds on the ground, but you are alive and well, do not go out investigating.  You know, common sense stuff.  Like, oh I don't know, don't have sex with someone other than your spouse.  Pretty basic, but people still get STDs and spread them like wildfire.  Like if all your buddies get ringworm from the gym, don't go to that gym.  

No, you're still not paying attention.  Is a flu a communicable disease that is lethal?  No.  Then forced flu shots are not part of the definition.

And yes, I am all for preventative medicine.

As for the AIDs pandemic.  Until we find something better, then education is all we got to prevent that.

What I learned from you replying to my posts is you continue to post out of ignorance.  You call it "picking and choosing a disease", and that shows you continue to know nothing what you are talking about.

[minasoliman]

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew

Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.

But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot? 

Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.

There is a significantly large group who is at risk of acquiring STDs through no fault of their own - the unborn. If we are to follow the utilitarian morals suggested by several of the posters on this thread, should we not at the very least forcibly sterilize carriers of STDs (and perhaps people with genetic diseases).

That I have no answer to.  Yes, vertical transmission is a possibility, but if we really had laws protecting the unborn here, then how do we know the mother knew she had an STD and decided to conceive?  How do we know she even intended to conceive?  Should I penalize her for just having sex?  No.  So this makes it a very difficult situation.  The best we can do here is education, protection, etc. 

If I want a woman to even prevent abortions, and this is a little side-topic, and there's no way I'm going to prevent her from being chaste, I would recommend the lesser evil option, wear a condom.

[katherineofdixie]

I can't swim.

The whole point of Coast Guard training (unless you're one of the elite rescue swimmers) is not to have to swim. (Though they do teach you drownproofing in boot camp.)

[vamrat]

I thought that the point to this thread was "Some Sanity!"?  Was I mistaken?

[Kerdy]

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew

Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.

But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot?  

Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.

But I thought you were talking about saving lives from preventable diseases.  I thought you were compassionate about the issues of health.  See, I was paying attention.  Surely the ends justify the means, right?  After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it? (Swine flu back in the day, since we want to remember the golden years)  Unless the rules don't apply across the board, which would lead me back to my question of just who decides, picks and chooses what is in our best interest and where our freedoms end.  After all, someone has to figure our at what degree a disease is in determines when I no longer have control over my own choices.  Forced untested flu shots for everyone this year.  I know the last few years were a great success...oh wait.

What I have learned from your posts is everything is subjective, open for interpretation parallel to ones own views.  There is no standard right answer and there are some who majestically walk around as if they have one.  Who is right?  Everyone can't be.  Not me, not you.  So, who gets the big talking stick and makes the final decision?  The individual or big brother who doesn't exactly have a spectacular record with much of anything, including medicine.

You said the difference with the AIDS pandemic is education, which isn't working well at all.  Here is a little education.  If there is an outbreak of a communicable disease, stay home.  If you are sick, stay home.  If you kid is sick, stay home.  If you look outside and there are 200 dead birds on the ground, but you are alive and well, do not go out investigating.  You know, common sense stuff.  Like, oh I don't know, don't have sex with someone other than your spouse.  Pretty basic, but people still get STDs and spread them like wildfire.  Like if all your buddies get ringworm from the gym, don't go to that gym.  

No, you're still not paying attention.  Is a flu a communicable disease that is lethal?  No.  Then forced flu shots are not part of the definition.

And yes, I am all for preventative medicine.

As for the AIDs pandemic.  Until we find something better, then education is all we got to prevent that.

What I learned from you replying to my posts is you continue to post out of ignorance.  You call it "picking and choosing a disease", and that shows you continue to know nothing what you are talking about.

If I'm not the one paying attention, why are you the one who still hasn't provided an answer to my question AND taken this thread in you own direction?

Just answer the question, please.  There is no right or wrong answer, it's purely your point of view.  I've grown tired of all the derailing attempts.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?

Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Hitler was all about unifying the German people under one idea (ie Aryanism and/or a Germany for Germans only). Mussolini was about unifying the Italians under one government (ie Idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism_and_Nazism

It was imperialist individualism. Individualism on a grand, nationwide scale. Adolf Hitler was the ultimate individualist because he wanted to separate the German people from the rest of the world because he saw them as being a special individual racial group. I'm not so sure about Mussolini, but from what I know about him, I would say the same thing applies to him. Likewise, they were both HEAVY fascists--which is the ultimate right-wing political philosophy.

James--I like you a lot but you are a walking and talking example of somebody whose little knowledge, coupled to a high intellect and adolescence, is just...inadequate. Translation: you do not know what you are talking about.

[minasoliman]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

[ZealousZeal]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

[LBK]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

Join the club. Some of the arrant nonsense that's been spouted here against vaccination makes my blood boil too. 

[Kerdy]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

[Kerdy]

If you don't believe forced immunizations cause problems, ask some veterans.

At one point, the FDA actually made companies do more reasearch before making medicine available, like 20+ years.  Now, not so much, and we see the results.  Law suits, people dying and those same "great" meds getting shelfed.  I will now forever be weary of any new medical development.  Give it 5 to 10 years and see what happens.

And for those who think I'm anti-medicine, please read this again.  Only this time, try to understand what I'm saying.

[minasoliman]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

[Kerdy]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

[minasoliman]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

[Kerdy]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

[celticfan1888]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

[podkarpatska]

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.  

Young 'uns today have no historical awareness.

If you belong to a Church with metrical records dating back to the years surrounding World War One, ask your priest for permission to visit with him and review the baptismal and death entries. Pertussis (whopping cough), polio, diptheria are just a few of the now mostly eradicated diseases which ravaged our families throughout the first five decades or so of the 20th century. Public health initiatives requiring immunization ended that scourge.

I would view it as a non-morally supportable position to deny a child immunity from such diseases given that safe vaccines are available. Since an unbiased review of the risks of modern vaccines versus the reintroduction of these once-thought to be eradicated killers provides a clear answer. Vaccinate your kids. As to the individual - well if your neighbors don't believe in vaccinations and their kids get smallpox or infantile paralysis, don't call the government when your children get ill. After all, we trust the individual here - not the nanny state. Bah.

As to state control? We all are not alone on an island. The public good requires community action and protection - that is why we regulate. Don't forget that the Founders made it very clear in the preamble to the Constitution that among the purposes of the national government was the protection of the general welfare - something necessary to promote domestic tranquility.

Oh one more thing - there is a scientific consensus about the ingestion of second hand smoke. It's harmful.

[ZealousZeal]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

[celticfan1888]

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination

FALSE. Such a small percentage of the population was vaccinated. Only about 105 of the world's population.

Polio: well on its way to the same.

Only 20% for Polio at its time.

I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

You don't trust science. This is my field of expertise, I promise you, you don't know the science by what you just said. Just another gullible American citizen who believes everything they hear on tv, and puts that out as fact.

People without the facts in their favour who call out others, that is idiocy.

[ZealousZeal]

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination

FALSE. Such a small percentage of the population was vaccinated. Only about 105 of the world's population.

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?

Polio: well on its way to the same.

Only 20% for Polio at its time.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

You don't trust science. This is my field of expertise, I promise you, you don't know the science by what you just said. Just another gullible American citizen who believes everything they hear on tv, and puts that out as fact.

People without the facts in their favour who call out others, that is idiocy.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?

[celticfan1888]

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?

I meant 10%, type error. The 10% is a fact.
The WHO is run by the UN you know, and the drug companies fund it, just like the American FDA.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

It was due to human evolution. The 20% is a fact.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?

Nearly every professor whose specialty is that, that I have went into a deep discussion with.

You must understand the these scientists who posts these reports are typically funded by the organizations making the vaccines.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Regardless, I have the freedom to go to hell, why not the freedom to avoid vaccines?

You're freedom to go to Hell is a personal and individual matter, you're freedom to endanger our society as a whole is selfish and unwarranted, even by the structure of the US Constitution.  The only legal support for your ideas is free-speech, aside from that the the government is well within its rights and more in particular its obligations. This is not a matter of political debate, it is a functional reality of being an American.  We can debate the merits and downsides of various vaccines as public policy, but not the premise itself of mandatory vaccinations.  By the way, folks are conflating many issues.  The vaccines are not legally required of every citizen, generally they are attached with different public services, such as education at the secondary and college level.  If folks chose to attend schools, they must comply, if they chose not to, they don't have to.  

I do agree that modern medicine has not been patient enough to explain vaccines more properly to folks, and there is a bit of an almost condescending attitude by the medical community about this issue, so it goes both ways.  We as citizens have to accept some aspects of the government we find displeasing, and conversely the government needs to be more clear in what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why. Communication is the key.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[ZealousZeal]

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?

I meant 10%, type error. The 10% is a fact.
The WHO is run by the UN you know, and the drug companies fund it, just like the American FDA.

Ah- should have realized the 5 is also the % key. My bad.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

It was due to human evolution. The 20% is a fact.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?

Nearly every professor whose specialty is that, that I have went into a deep discussion with.

You must understand the these scientists who posts these reports are typically funded by the organizations making the vaccines.

Now I understand your question about trusting the government. I take it you do not. I also take it that you are not, in fact, an infectious disease specialist. If your question was do I believe that there is some sort of government-run vaccine conspiracy theory, the answer is no.

I am sincere when I say that I have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that is not supportive of vaccination, but if you do run across any or if any of the professors you know has, please PM it to me if you think of it. I would appreciate it.

[JamesRottnek]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Unfortunately that isn't always true; in my home state of Arizona, a parent can claim vaccinations disagree with their religious system, and still send their kid to school vaccine-free.

[podkarpatska]

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?

I meant 10%, type error. The 10% is a fact.
The WHO is run by the UN you know, and the drug companies fund it, just like the American FDA.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

It was due to human evolution. The 20% is a fact.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?

Nearly every professor whose specialty is that, that I have went into a deep discussion with.

You must understand the these scientists who posts these reports are typically funded by the organizations making the vaccines.

Please provide abstracts to peer reviewed publications in support of your claims regarding vaccination and infectious disease. Since all research in the scientific world is either government, foundation or corporate funded, I assume that you presume that any publication has a 'bias.' Never the less, the only generally accepted means to challenge the accepted status quo is to work within the framework of that system, publish your results and submit the same to peer review. Otherwise, we in the general public, at least those of us with the education and knowledge to review such material, will continue to walk around as ignorant Americans with our half formed gullible opinions implanted in us through our mass media indoctrination.

Now I will concede that there are real issues regarding the effects of genetic mutations through the use of the live vaccine methodology among a small percentage of the immunized population in the areas of the world where polio remains a threat and I will concede that on account of those risks inherent with the vaccine that WHO does not recommend polio vaccinations outside of those regions, but I refuse to accept any claim that it was not as a result of the Salk vaccine and its subsequent refinements that infantile poliomyelitis was for the most part eradicated from this planet over the past half century or so.

As to common diseases for which American chlldren are generally vaccinated against before beginning school, there are entirely different sets of issues and I believe that the generally accepted scientific consensus is that the miniscule risks of vaccination complication in the at risk population is acceptable given the alternative realities of devastating complications stemming from common diseases like hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox, whooping cough or pertussis, diphtheria and bacterial meningitis. Again, if there are any generally accepted, peer reviewed publications to the contrary, feel free to share.

[minasoliman]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  Second of all, cancer treatment is no smoking gun of cure or prevention like certain vaccines.  So I have yet to see the correlation with my idea.  And the flu is not lethal for most people.  It's a nuisance, and people are encouraged to take it, but because it's not lethal, despite how easily communicable it is, it doesn't follow.

Recently, it has been passed that an emergency treatment for a child can be given directly by the physician without parents' consent.  Cancer treatment is not an emergency treatment.  A child that goes into hypovolemic shock requiring blood transfusion is an emergency treatment, and get this, even if the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and don't believe in blood transfusion.  This means that religion cannot always be an excuse, which should answer JamesRottneck's question.  One day, we shouldn't be surprised of school nurses are allowed to vaccinate children even of parents oppose.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  Second of all, cancer treatment is no smoking gun of cure or prevention like certain vaccines.  So I have yet to see the correlation with my idea.  And the flu is not lethal for most people.  It's a nuisance, and people are encouraged to take it, but because it's not lethal, despite how easily communicable it is, it doesn't follow.

Hold up, I know its not your intentions, but to minimize the impact of the flu is a bit misleading.  The Flu is still a significantly impacting disease which hospitalizes tens of thousands of people annually, and costs the lives of an estimated 36,000 Americans a year. That puts it in the top-15 leading causes of death

This has nothing to do with flu shots by the way, at this stage they are largely experimental considering there are over 200 varieties of the influenza virus floating around..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[minasoliman]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  Second of all, cancer treatment is no smoking gun of cure or prevention like certain vaccines.  So I have yet to see the correlation with my idea.  And the flu is not lethal for most people.  It's a nuisance, and people are encouraged to take it, but because it's not lethal, despite how easily communicable it is, it doesn't follow.

Hold up, I know its not your intentions, but to minimize the impact of the flu is a bit misleading.  The Flu is still a significantly impacting disease which hospitalizes tens of thousands of people annually, and costs the lives of an estimated 36,000 Americans a year. That puts it in the top-15 leading causes of death

This has nothing to do with flu shots by the way, at this stage they are largely experimental considering there are over 200 varieties of the influenza virus floating around..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Yes, you are right, and I also did mention the low efficacy of the flu vaccine because of mutation rates earlier.

[Kerdy]

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.  

Young 'uns today have no historical awareness.

If you belong to a Church with metrical records dating back to the years surrounding World War One, ask your priest for permission to visit with him and review the baptismal and death entries. Pertussis (whopping cough), polio, diptheria are just a few of the now mostly eradicated diseases which ravaged our families throughout the first five decades or so of the 20th century. Public health initiatives requiring immunization ended that scourge.

I would view it as a non-morally supportable position to deny a child immunity from such diseases given that safe vaccines are available. Since an unbiased review of the risks of modern vaccines versus the reintroduction of these once-thought to be eradicated killers provides a clear answer. Vaccinate your kids. As to the individual - well if your neighbors don't believe in vaccinations and their kids get smallpox or infantile paralysis, don't call the government when your children get ill. After all, we trust the individual here - not the nanny state. Bah.

As to state control? We all are not alone on an island. The public good requires community action and protection - that is why we regulate. Don't forget that the Founders made it very clear in the preamble to the Constitution that among the purposes of the national government was the protection of the general welfare - something necessary to promote domestic tranquility.

Oh one more thing - there is a scientific consensus about the ingestion of second hand smoke. It's harmful.

If second hand smoke were as bad as people make it out to be, everyone would already have died.  Now they are playing with third hand smoke ideas while in the same breath, advocating marijuana legalism and consumption.  Insane, that's what it is.  Btw, I'm all for certain restrictions on smoking, but it's gotten pretty stupid.

And if they really want to get people to stop smoking, why are so many public programs funded by tobacco tax?  Hmm.

[Kerdy]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

[ZealousZeal]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.

[Kerdy]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  

Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

[Kerdy]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.

They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

[podkarpatska]

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.  

Young 'uns today have no historical awareness.

If you belong to a Church with metrical records dating back to the years surrounding World War One, ask your priest for permission to visit with him and review the baptismal and death entries. Pertussis (whopping cough), polio, diptheria are just a few of the now mostly eradicated diseases which ravaged our families throughout the first five decades or so of the 20th century. Public health initiatives requiring immunization ended that scourge.

I would view it as a non-morally supportable position to deny a child immunity from such diseases given that safe vaccines are available. Since an unbiased review of the risks of modern vaccines versus the reintroduction of these once-thought to be eradicated killers provides a clear answer. Vaccinate your kids. As to the individual - well if your neighbors don't believe in vaccinations and their kids get smallpox or infantile paralysis, don't call the government when your children get ill. After all, we trust the individual here - not the nanny state. Bah.

As to state control? We all are not alone on an island. The public good requires community action and protection - that is why we regulate. Don't forget that the Founders made it very clear in the preamble to the Constitution that among the purposes of the national government was the protection of the general welfare - something necessary to promote domestic tranquility.

Oh one more thing - there is a scientific consensus about the ingestion of second hand smoke. It's harmful.

If second hand smoke were as bad as people make it out to be, everyone would already have died.  Now they are playing with third hand smoke ideas while in the same breath, advocating marijuana legalism and consumption.  Insane, that's what it is.  Btw, I'm all for certain restrictions on smoking, but it's gotten pretty stupid.

And if they really want to get people to stop smoking, why are so many public programs funded by tobacco tax?  Hmm.

You are quite right about the hypocrisy of the tobacco tax revenues being misapplied and not going to fund excess medicaid costs incurred by states due to premature death rates among poor smokers - a group that projects obesity, high blood pressure, cardiac and pulmonary diseases in abnormal rates and a host of other issues due to a lack of preventive medical care and poor diet. As one who was part of county budget making for years in upstate New York I fully agree with your comment about the misuse of these dollars by your local elected officials. Likewise the hundreds of millions of settlement dollars obtained by local governments which were supposed to fund local medicaid shares for forty years but which were typically used to package tax free general obligation bonds (packaaged by the arbitrage investment houses and their big city lawyers and sold to wealthy folks for tax purposes) used for public building projects. And don't label one party or the other as responsible on that one - most upstate rural counties in New York used those bonds to build jails or county offices and most were Republican - I know as I was the County Attorney for one of them! Plenty of self righteous blame to go around on that count for all politicians.

However, as to second hand smoke - the scientific evidence about its impact on non-smokers is clear and unambiguous and the lack of ambiguity in that evidence is why the appellate courts have consistently upheld smoking restrictions across the country regardless of the local prevailing ideology. The legislative balance between the rights of smokers and the rights of others is always a tough call as with any balancing of rights and restrictions.

[podkarpatska]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.

They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

Centers for Disease Control publication on this issue: "Routine smallpox vaccination among the American public stopped in 1972 after the disease was eradicated in the United States. Until recently, the U.S. government provided the vaccine only to a few hundred scientists and medical professionals working with smallpox and similar viruses in a research setting.

After the events of September and October, 2001, however, the U.S. government took further actions to improve its level of preparedness against terrorism. One of many such measures—designed specifically to prepare for an intentional release of the smallpox virus—included updating and releasing a smallpox response plan. In addition, the U.S. government has enough vaccine to vaccinate every person in the United States in the event of a smallpox emergency." http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/facts.asp

[minasoliman]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 

Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is; in fact, that's what I've been arguing the whole time!!!  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.

[Kerdy]

@celticfan

I want to make sure I understand what you have posted.  You are saying we don't have the information which means we are making foolish silly talk, but you so are also saying the information provided is skewed due to funding and such.  So, just how are we supposed to get the magic information that only the greatest minds on the planet are privy to so we are not part of the ignorant masses if for no other reason than to keep like yourself from scoffing?  At least we both share a distrust of government.

[Kerdy]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  

Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.

Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.

[ZealousZeal]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.

They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

You couldn't just spit it out but instead made me comb through the thread looking for your first post, first sentence with an ambiguous reference to veterans?

I don't care to play guessing games. Your initial reply to me made it sound like you were talking about the general population- which as I said- is NOT getting routinely vaccinated against smallpox. The military vaccinates service members that are deploying for probably the same reason we have a huge stockpile of smallpox vaccines as podkarpatska quoted- the concern over terrorism.

[Kerdy]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.

They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

Centers for Disease Control publication on this issue: "Routine smallpox vaccination among the American public stopped in 1972 after the disease was eradicated in the United States. Until recently, the U.S. government provided the vaccine only to a few hundred scientists and medical professionals working with smallpox and similar viruses in a research setting.

After the events of September and October, 2001, however, the U.S. government took further actions to improve its level of preparedness against terrorism. One of many such measures—designed specifically to prepare for an intentional release of the smallpox virus—included updating and releasing a smallpox response plan. In addition, the U.S. government has enough vaccine to vaccinate every person in the United States in the event of a smallpox emergency." http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/facts.asp

And they have already started giving those shots to people.  Started about five or six years ago, whether they wanted them or not.

[Kerdy]

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government?

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.

Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.

They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

You couldn't just spit it out but instead made me comb through the thread looking for your first post, first sentence with an ambiguous reference to veterans?

I don't care to play guessing games. Your initial reply to me made it sound like you were talking about the general population- which as I said- is NOT getting routinely vaccinated against smallpox. The military vaccinates service members that are deploying for probably the same reason we have a huge stockpile of smallpox vaccines as podkarpatska quoted- the concern over terrorism.

It's not a game.  You were wrong.  If people actually read what I wrote, they would understand better.  There are many, many stories you can hear from veterans and the medicines they receive because government said it was in their best interest.  A friend of mine has chrome hip and shoulder sockets because of a medicine from big brother who never gave him the full story.  He was a very active fellow and now can barely get around, because of medicine, and his is a mild story.  Do more research, it's a scary world out there.  Military members are Petri dishes for medical research, always has been.  I remember getting shots even the folks giving them had no idea what they were.  That's bad business.

[minasoliman]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 

Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.

Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.

Again, emergency situation based on the disease, not any medication.  You continued insistence that I am debating just about any scenario is ridiculous.  I'm giving you dire scenarios, not the scenarios you present.  If you can't know the difference, then it is futile debating this with you.

[Kerdy]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 

Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.

Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.

Again, emergency situation based on the disease, not any medication.  You continued insistence that I am debating just about any scenario is ridiculous.  I'm giving you dire scenarios, not the scenarios you present.  If you can't know the difference, then it is futile debating this with you.

I understand you fine.  You are the one missing my point, or ignoring it.  Perhaps it is futile, no matter.  Some people walk through life seeing only that which is directly before them and never what is beyond.  Makes me sad.

[minasoliman]

After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.

Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.

Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.

I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.

You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.

Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 

Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.

Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.

Again, emergency situation based on the disease, not any medication.  You continued insistence that I am debating just about any scenario is ridiculous.  I'm giving you dire scenarios, not the scenarios you present.  If you can't know the difference, then it is futile debating this with you.

I understand you fine.  You are the one missing my point, or ignoring it.  Perhaps it is futile, no matter.  Some people walk through life seeing only that which is directly before them and never what is beyond.  Makes me sad.

Your point is my ideas present a slippery slope for the government to regulate just about anything concerning our health and the treatment that might be forced to be taken, whereas I drew a line on specific diseases and dire conditions, not on all of them.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

The name of this is "Some sanity" ,which only goes to show insanity is more prevalent.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Some Sanity!